that God is real?
What has convinced you
Posts
Total:
83
Knowing what God is.
-->
@Mopac
How do you KNOW what God is?
-->
@janesix
Epignosis
-->
@Mopac
definition
- precise and correct knowledge
- used in the NT of the knowledge of things ethical and divine
- used in the NT of the knowledge of things ethical and divine
is this what you mean?
-->
@janesix
It is a Greek word, that translation will work fine.
The Ultimate Reality is God.
That is how I know God is real. It has to be real, there is no other alternative. There is no reality without it.
-->
@Mopac
"the knowledge of things ethical and divine"
Is this a different kind of knowing, than the regular kind of "knowing" we get from reading, reasoning etc?
Is it a kind of intuitional knowing?
-->
@Mopac
That's what they said about the aether. gravity a pulling force and the speed of light instantaneous.It has to be real, there is no other alternative. There is no reality without it.
-->
@janesix
Experiential knowledge. True knowledge. That is epignosis.
Maybe the difference between seeing something and believing what you read.
I don't believe what I do because I read some things. There are plenty who study their whole lives and never get it.
-->
@Mopac
Ok, I understand now I think. Thanks for answering. I know I can be annoying sometimes with my questions.
-->
@janesix
@Mopac
Because the reality that at its core is nothingness or more than one thing is one where we have not yet broken it down to the one true thing it is makes no sense.
Much like Mopac I believe that if you break reality down enough, you reach 'God' but unlike Mopac this being true doesn't in any way mean the only 'true' or 'real' thing is God for just because something's realness is contingent on assumptions and illusions doesn't take away from it functionally being true and real and truth itself is something that can only be 'known' it can't be independent of a subjective being knowing it.
-->
@RationalMadman
The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on knowing, neither can it be totally known.
-->
@janesix
Not at all.
-->
@Mopac
Your ultimate reality is contingent on your dictionary.
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is God.The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on knowing, neither can it be totally known.
If this is true then this.
Knowing what God is.
Is an impossiblity and any claim that is contingent upon such knowledge can be dismissed out of hand.
-->
@secularmerlin
I know that I do not know because I know what it is I do not know.
You don't know what it is that I do not know. If you did, you'd say the same thing.
Instead, you deny The Ultimate Reality because you can't know it. I know The Ultimate Reality which is why I can say I don't know it while claiming to know it.
But you just slipped out of the shower one day and BANG! you "got it"?I don't believe what I do because I read some things. There are plenty who study their whole lives and never get it.
-->
@Mopac
I can say I don't know it while claiming to know it.
This is directly contradictory. Contradictory statements are generally nonsense.
-->
@secularmerlin
Yet here I am with no cognitive dissonance whatsoever.
-->
@Mopac
Your personal ability to believe contradictory proposition without any perceived cognitive dissonance is not evidence for or against anything unless it is evidence that you are uninterested in the truth value of your beliefs (which may or may not be the case).
-->
@secularmerlin
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
Because I know The Truth, I know that I am wrong. Me accepting that I am wrong is part of believing The Truth.
If I completely knew God, I would be able to accurately tell you how many germs live under your finger nail. To completely know God is to know everything. It is not possible to completely know God. But I know God, I recognize God. I know what it is my personal relationship is with.
-->
@Mopac
Because I know my epistemological limits I understand that I don't know.Because I know The Truth, I know that I am wrong
If I completely knew God, I would be able to accurately tell you how many germs live under your finger nail.
Here you are attempting again to commit an equivocation fallacy. That germs live under my fingernail regardless of their number is no reason to presume that reality is eternal or holy (whatever holy means to you) or has or is capable of creating anything. That things exist and that too many things exist to properly quantify them all in no eaybsupports your other claims in these regards.
know what it is my personal relationship is with.
How can one have a personal relationship with something which is unknowable and appears to be totally unresponsive? One could have a spatial relationship or a one sided relationship I suppose but that doesn't seem personal to me.
-->
@Mopac
Your ultimate reality is contingent on your dictionary.
Wanna try again?
-->
@secularmerlin
I am making no fallacy. I know what I am talking about. You don't.
I cannot answer your questions. You wouldn't believe me anyway.
Despite your agnostic posturing, it is plain to me that you already think you know.
-->
@Stephen
"Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."
-->
@Mopac
I am making no fallacy.
Except when you offer one definition for something and then add attributes to this definition during a discussion and then claim that rejecting these newly introduced attributed is the same as rejecting the initial definition. That is an equivocation fallacy by definition and I know how big you are on definitions.
I cannot answer your questions
Most questions seem not to have an answer.
you already think you know
Actually I don't know, I just don't believe that you know either.
-->
@secularmerlin
Except when you offer one definition for something and then add attributes to this definition during a discussion and then claim that rejecting these newly introduced attributed is the same as rejecting the initial definition
No, that is what it sounds like you are trying to get me to do when I have for months been very consistent that I mean THE ULTIMATE REALITY.
So now that I have cleared that up for the nth time, will you receive it?
-->
@Mopac
I can accept the definition reality AND NOTHING MORE if you wish to add any other attributes such as being a creator or being holy then I reject your definition until such time that these attributes can be demonstrated.
So Mopac it is now up to you. Is god (capitalised or not) just whatever reality there is even if that means it doesn't fit with christian doctrine or is there more to it (in which case you have been engaged in an equivocation fallacy this entire time)?
-->
@secularmerlin
You don't even understand the concepts you reject. You are superstitious.
What is the point of me playing this teeth pulling game? We would literally have to go over every single word and concept and you would have to be willing to relearn everything.
I don't get the impression you would respect me as a teacher either. I get the impression you would fight against everything I try to teach you.
So this is what you get, and you should stick with it.
The Ultimate Reality is God with a capital G. You can at least say God exists. As far as anything else about God, you don't know.
And there is nothing wrong with that.
-->
@Mopac
Wrong. No Gods exist