Can you tell the difference between these definitions?

Author: Mopac

Posts

Total: 267
#181
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
The reality we can understand is not the same thing as reality as it truly is, and the reality thst we understand comes from reality as it truly is. Otherwise, what are we understanding?
From your posts here? Absolutely nothing.
#182
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
I am not talking about god, I am talking about God.

The capitalization is not arbitrary.
So sayeth the ultimutest, realistest holy book on the planet... The Dictionary.

#183
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
What other god do you think i'm talking about? You're acting like the child adults that get offended if i miss pronoun them... I'm obviously talking about your capital G god... Why do you keep deflecting? I'm asking the most simple question i can think of... why do you believe your God is the Ultimate Reality? Why wouldn't it just be natural space, time, matter, etc.? 

#184
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
There is reality as it seems to be and reality as it truly is. When you say, "the reality that we occupy", that doesn't really tell me much. We certainly all live in God, but what you call reality may in fact be what reality seems to be to you. The reality that you know.
When I say "the reality that we occupied" I mean the physical universe. All the atoms and energy and space and time that make it up.

The reality we can understand is not the same thing as reality as it truly is, and the reality thst we understand comes from reality as it truly is. Otherwise, what are we understanding?

For there to be an understanding, there must be an abstraction process, that is, a taking away of information. When we understand things, we are not really holding on to the entire thing. It is impossible to hold on to the whole thing, the very act of knowing necessitates the highlighting of some information at the expense of other information. In fact, this is something that goes to our very senses even. The ear does not see the way an eye does. They extract different information from the source, and so the way they sense the world is completely alien from each other.

The source is God.

If you can understand what I am saying here, every single one of your questions will be addressed.
No. I don't understand what you are saying. My ears and eyes extract information from the physical world around me, not God.
Topic's author
#185
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
What about what I'm saying do you believe contradicts what you are saying?





Topic's author
#186
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
Here is something you and many others seem to be struggling with...

Definitions of "Definition" courtesy of Merriam-Webster....


" statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol"

or 

"a statement expressing the essential nature of something"

or

"the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear"


And once again the definition of "God" courtesy Merriam-Webster...

"capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality"

#187
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
What about what I'm saying do you believe contradicts what you are saying?
I never said there was any contradiction. There are just extra elements in your version that I don't know what those are and what those mean.

This is something you seem to keep missing in our conversations. Whatever my depiction or understanding of reality, yours includes extra elements. I want to understand what those are. To wit:

1. What is "the total essence of reality? (I don't believe that reality has an "essence", I believe existence precedes and is greater than essence)
2.  What is the "fundamental power to all reality"? (I'm am not aware that there is a fundamental power to all reality. I don't know that reality requires some fundamental power to account for its existence).
3. What is the "supreme, final, and fundamental power" that reality depends on? (I am not aware that a supreme, final, or fundamental power exist, or that reality depends upon such a thing)

You're overly concerned with labels and keep switching among them. I'm trying to get down to the brass tacks of what these things actually mean in order to evaluate whether it's reasonable to believe in them.
Topic's author
#188
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
I believe I am speaking very lucidly.

I think you are letting what you think is knowledge get in the way of what is obvious. 

Topic's author
#189
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Useless strvings about words. 

How can you get any simpler than "The Ultimate Reality"?


It's baffling to me that this is so hard to understand.

#190
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
Perhaps you should abandon the assumption that what is obvious to you isn't obvious to other people.

It isn't obvious to me that there is some fundamental power that has authority all over reality that reality and truth depends on for its existence. And I'm not asking you to make things simpler. That's part of the problem. Is you have opted for simplicity in your terminology at the expensive of actually conveying useful information.

Like, you can tell me that a Honda Ridgline is like a Honda Pilot, but if I don't know what either of those things are (let alone what a car is), that isn't going to convey any knowledge to me.

So, make it less simple. Let's zoom in and break these things down to their constituent components. It's like pulling teeth, but we're getting there. So far, as far as I can understand (and correct me if I'm wrong)

But The Ultimate Reality is some fundamental, supremely authoritative, and final power to all reality that all reality is contingent upon and depends upon and without which cannot exist. Right?
#191
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
I get all that... what makes you think the Ultimate Reality is God and not just natural space, time, matter, etc.? 
#192
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
I believe I am speaking very lucidly.
It's obvious to most here that you're not speaking lucidly, so what does that say about your communication skills?
#193
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
How can you get any simpler than "The Ultimate Reality"?

Reality. Simple.
Topic's author
#194
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
IT IS REALITY
Topic's author
#195
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
The definition of God is The Ultimate Reality.

For you, it is a simple matter of accepting the definition.

#196
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
Not according to the dictionary
#197
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
I don't know why everyone is humoring you on this thread... I tried... but i have better things to do than wait for you to make sense.  
#198
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Outplayz
While I have proven him/her wrong in a debate with him recently, I am very open to explaining what Mopac means if you want to truly understand his/her proposition.

#199
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm curious how you know what he means when he is unwilling or incapable of describing what he means... But okay, i'll give you a chance to explain your belief. I understand the concept of all realities being god. My first question is why would you jump to the conclusion that all realities are a mind vs. not being a mind? By mind i mean an incorporeal mind or more specifically whatever it is that gives this god any cognitive abilities. If your god doesn't have this mind just let me know. 

#200
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Outplayz
It's not my belief, Mopac is incorrect. Mopac is arguing that God ultimate itself is the reality behind this simulated one. Essentially that everything that's real except God is much like The Matrix movie's simulation and that the reality within reality within reality (inverse of dream within a dream within a dream) is God itself and absolutely nothing else. The issue with this association between God and truth is it firstly completely fails to allure to how God itself came to be 'real' since according to Mopac's reality, being real requisite's creation from an original 'realer' thing meaning that God being real requisites the very contradictory creation that atheists often like to point out in this justification for God. Additionally, Mopac's reality operates on the notion that anything can be determined to be true without something else than the true thing itself being there to interpret whether or not it's a lie or truth and then go 'oh yeah this is true'. The final flaw of Mopac's theory is that 'truth' would need to be separate from God for the statement 'God is truth' to be itself 'true' as God isn't the statement or idea itself of God being truth.
#201
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@RationalMadman
See i don't know even if that's what he believes. The reason i want to have him define even one attribute is to see how this god correlates to the Bible, which he also thinks is a part of this truth. There are two ways a ultimate reality god are possible. It always has been or somehow manifested. 

You brought up the next point i needed clarification too in regards to the manifestation of god(s). It's actually a really simple answer to your concern of how a god could come up without another. I'll touch on the alternative however... i don't want to give the latter away bc i'm waiting for him to figure it out. But if it comes up bw us, whatever i'll touch on it.

There is a chance that our universal materials are infinite. They always been and forever will remain to be. Therefore, the thing that created a higher consciousness and/or a god or even gods is this material being infinite. Given enough time, space, energy etc (the cause)... In some space in a far far away multiverse... this material could be the cause of an incorporeal mind. This incorporeal mind could have evolved or just was born super intelligent... therefore, it would be correlative to a god. From our observation as humans and how the laws work, although this god is a leap in logic, it's more logical than everything being god from the start. Although... i have an answer to how that is also possible and i actually favor it kinda a little more now. The implications of both these types of gods are the same.... so i don't really care how they manifested. It's more important to try an understand how it relates to us in my opinion.. the implications. 

I'll go over it more if you are interested in my opinion, but lets get to the simulation thing. So there is two possibilities to look at. One if everything is a part of a huge mind. And two, if we are a manifestation of the physical form of one of these manifested universal minds. I'm going to call them both "source" to make it more simple. If everything is the source, then we are the "physical" manifestations of this incorporeal mind. But the important thing is that this mind would literally be everything and everyone. This wouldn't be a simulation. This would be the physical manifestation of what this source already knows. It would be the reverse of our dreams. Our dreams would be physical and our bodies would be incorporeal. 

If we are a part of a source that manifested through the eternal materials than there is no reason to say there is only one of these sources. All of us could have been first born as an incorporeal mind and given years of evolving we have learned how to manifest ourselves into physical vessels. 

So those are the two ways i find to be the most logical if we are going to say universal minds or everything is a mind. I'm curious if there is some other route i didn't think about... that is why i usually ask. But as you can see.. i'm detailing what i mean, and i can detail even more if we get there, mopac doesn't. Therefore, i also don't understand how either of these situations leads to a Christian god... or any religious god for that matter. Both scenarios implicate everyone is divine and no specific religion. That's why i ask for clarification. I've found that no one that is religious can answer questions that come with these situations. If one can i seriously would reconsider my beliefs. 


#202
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Outplayz
I agree with you on a lot of things, you do realise I'm not an atheist or a typical Theist, yes?
#203
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@RationalMadman
Yeah i noticed a thread where you said you are gnostic. I know briefly what that implies, but i would rather you describe this god to me. Everyone interprets it a little different so i'd like to know what you think. If you can add to it... do you think this god has always been or manifested from material that has always been? 
#204
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Outplayz
There is absolutely nothing physical in reality's core at all. It's based on binary code (the type1 debate is actually based on something he's changed his mind on after opposing me on it):

There is only 'what' in reality, all that is, is a '1' in the nature of it but ALL possibilities are actually there, it's just they are on the '0' alternate setting. When people ask 'why am I here?' they mean 'what reason am I here?', when people ask 'how are we even conscious or real?' they mean 'what specific set of events and interactions between things that exist have led to us existing and possessing awareness of it?', everything is actually a 'what' question and the 'what' is not always possible to find out but it is undoubtedly there, either as a 'is' or 'is not'.

The eleventh dimension is, like all dimensions beyond the third one, a dimension that in no way at all is spacial or something to physically 'travel along' but rather you 'move THROUGH it'. The eleventh dimension is the lack of needing to be true to 'what', it is the ONLY actually undefeatable, unchangeable reality and there lies either one extreme of 'fate' or its evil twin 'utter chaos'. In reality they are the same thing, this is a key aspect that free-will advocates will never like to admit. Whether we run on randomness or pure organisation, it is actually the identical level of inescapable certainty in which we operate.

The ten-dimensional being is that which we call 'God'. This entity is incapable of altering the 'what' of itself and is not random but trapped into what it is. Nonetheless, it is capable of altering everything else than itself according to the possibilities dished out to it by the 'organised randomness' of the 'fate' or 'utter chaos' realm of the eleventh dimension. Everything else is entirely simulated, I actually agree to Mopac on that much.

#205
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@RationalMadman
That's a cool belief. So, you believe in it in a more cosmic computer type of premise? It sounds like it with the 0 and 1 type stuff. 

So are we the characters in this source's imagination? I can call the source god if you'd like btw. I assume you believe there is only one supreme being worthy of a god title? 

Also you left out how this god came to be... i personally concede i don't know. It can either have always been or born, but do you hold either or to be true? 

How did we come to be from this god? Or are we from this god? 

In regards to the simulation... do you mean a programmed computer type simulation? Or, we are a dream type simulation? Or other of course? 

I'll say a brief overview of what i believe so you can ask me questions if you'd like. But like i said, there are two ways i think a god could be born... i'll just pick one for now. I'll use the one where god is everything and has always been. This is the less logical one bc it doesn't follow our logic, but i think if one is going to be true... it's likely the one that's less logical. It's just a hunch in any case. 

Even with this god however it was either born or always been. If it was born then everything came into existence when it woke up. It's hard for me to rap my mind around it wasn't born and has always been so i'll go with born. If it was born, it has had eons and/or technically infinite time to evolve. It's likely at its eons age at this point. With that said, it's not truly infinite. It is just eternal in that it can't die. But it's finite up until the end of its imagination which may seem infinite. To me, this fixes both a finite space and infinite space paradox. It's as if we could never die... what would you call your imagination at that point? Infinite or finite? It's a little of both i guess. The implication of this sort of source is that we are all a character that it has imagined over its time. And since it's incorporeal and cannot die... it knows everything at once, therefore everything exists within it. It knows the beginnings and ends of everything. It can piece a human together one atom at a time. It's infinitely intelligent at this point. 

The best way to describe how we got here is a sand analogy. This source is correlative to if you think about infinite sand. Everything exists in this sand even without having created it. But, if you want to experience something and make it "real" in a sense, you make say a sandcastle. Now the sandcastle is physical and real i.e. experiencing. Then it crumbles and becomes one with the sea of sand again. As you can see, when it becomes one with the infinite sand... it technically still exists, everything does. But it experiences once it is physical. That's the same with us i believe. In a sea of this source we manifest in the physical to experience. So... that's it with my platform... or at least, one of them. Most the other ones have the same implications in the end anyways.   
Topic's author
#206
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
If there is a reality higher than ultimate reality, that reality that is higher is the ultimate reality.


I call The Ultimate Reality God.


I see the God deniers making themselves fools trying to work their way around this. I know what I believe and I am very secure in it. The lack of faith that is being demonstrated here has nothing to do with what I am saying, it is a reflextion of the hearts of those who are in denial.

Scripture happens to prophesy this to be the case, and since I can plainly see it, it would be difficult for me to deny it.

Foolish posturing of those who have been driven mad by their vain imaginations, and have been cursed into delusion from their aversion to The Truth.

In time, all of you will be washed away with the tide like the sandcastles you are. Lives of vapour, smoke.

There is One who is eternal, The Holy God of which you all foolishly oppose in your ignorance.


Yet God forgives. Be convicted, and turn away from wickedness, instead embracing The Truth, the only hope you have to be liberated from the chains of suffering and death.

#207
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
If you wish to define god (capitalised or not) as reality regardless of what that reality turns out to be then that is one thing. When you start making claims such as that the "prophecy" contained in this or that scripture is proof of something or that reality is "holy" (whatever that means) then you are engaged in an equivocation fallacy.

An equivocation fallacy is when you change the given definition of a term in the middle of the debate.

Even if you want to call reality god (capitalised or not) there is no reason to believe that scripture reflects reality or that reality is holy.
#208
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
From what wickedness should I turn away?
Topic's author
#209
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
I have never claimes any different than what I have been claiming.
You don't understand or respect scripture or Christianity, so if you want to know what I believe, I am very open about it.

Everything I am saying is sound doctrine, and the reason why it seems alien to most of you when Christianity gets brought up is because you all think you know the faith when you don't.

But because I am educated in Christian theology, I know that the scriptures predict that I would get this response. 

That is a personal testimony you don't need to concern yourself with. 


Instead, get the spirit of what I'm saying. Take hold of this amd stick with it when you say, 

If you wish to define god (capitalised or not) as reality regardless of what that reality turns out to be then that is one thin


#210
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
In time, all of you will be washed away with the tide like the sandcastles you are. Lives of vapour, smoke.
What do you mean by that. And why will I be washed away?