I reject your claim

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 217
Topic's author
#61
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
It is probable that some reality exists but we have no evidence that it isn't our observable reality. You mentioned astronaughts and claimed that faith is required to believe in them but they is photographic evidence of astronaughts and no evidence whatever of anything that is not purely part of the physical universe. Even at that I only accept the existence of astronaughts provisionally as they are an observable part of physical reality and I only accept physical reality as "real" as a convenience.
#62
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
I categorically reject the words of anyone who says "we" in the context of knowledge, which is personal.

Would you like me to call you majesty as well?

People can't know things for you, quit being pretentious.

#63
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Observable reality is certainly a reality.

There are things going on outside of your observable reality. Like for instance, what intersection I am at right now. You don't know, you are not witnessing it. It is outside of your observation.

Yet HERE I AM.

Go ahead and disbelieve that there is reality beyond observation. What makes more sense is to say, there is definitely reality outside observation, I know that, but I don't know what it is because I can't see it.





Topic's author
#64
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Observable reality does not stop being observable reality because no one is observing it and certainly doesn't stop being observable if some one is observing it even if that someone isn't me. When I refer to we in the context of knowledge I am only referring to what we agree on. For example we agree that there is an observable reality and we agree that we cannot tell the difference between this observable reality and an illusion. We do not agree that anything else necessarily exists. Therefore we know there is an observable reality wether or not it is illusory and we do not know that anything exists that is not part of the physical universe which is in part comprised of observable reality.
#65
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
You are using many words that amount to little more than nonsense if you can't admit the obvious truth that we haven't observed everything.


#66
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
My view is closer to panentheism.
Whaaaaat? So you think the Bible is indicative of a pantheistic / Panentheistic god? 

#67
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
Theism = God is outside the universe or the multi-verse. Created it, but not a part of it. 

Pantheism = God is the universe and/or the multi-verse.

Panentheism = God is the universe and/or the multi-verse and beyond. It's like the multi-verse has a head. 



#68
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
Theism and panentheism are not mutually exclusive. Panentheism is a type of theism.

Theism is simply the belief in God.

I can't say that God isn't in the universe, because to say that would to deny Jesus Christ come in the flesh.


Here is something to think about... How is it that when you eat, you eat the body of Christ and when you drink, you eat the blood of Christ? 


Here is some scripture that might be interesting...


"Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven."


The difference between God and the universe may be the difference between The Father and The Son.


#69
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
For instance, 'there are no married bachelors'. The terms married and bachelor conflict and cannot exist in a single entity at the same time, thus a married bachelor is a logical impossibility and does not exist.
This is a logical proof. Exactly as what Mopac and Fallanese are proposing. A logical proof can be valid proof, but secmer, being....not familiar with them, asks for demonstrations when the logic escapes him.

I think you should qualify your statement to avoid this irrelevancy.
It isn't an irrelevancy. The argument that there isn't a God is a logical imposibility. Mopac has demonstrated that if you define God correctly, then atheism becomes a logical imposibility. You dismiss his definition, but his definition is the only one that is logically consistent. It is logical proof.

There is no evidence of anything outside the observable universe.
Any competent physicist would laugh this to scorn. Einstein's theory of relativity proved this view untrue. The universe was indeed caused. It is all built on logical proofs that one must know.
Topic's author
#70
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
We have not observed everything. This dies not mean we get to make things up about those things which have not been observed. Now that would be nonsense.
Topic's author
#71
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
if you define God correctly,

I will just address this for now. If you tautologically define something as a thing which must exist then by definition it must exist but definitions describe popular usage not reality and if the thing you are defining has no correlative in reality then no amount of defining will change that.

As for Mopac's definition sure some reality probably exists and if you wish to call it god then feel free to but that does not demonstrate that your god is more than a mindless collection of matter and energy undergoing expansion and chemical reactions. If there is more to the definition than simply whatever exists then the definition may constitute a claim which would require a burden of proof.
#72
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Maybe you are making things up when you interpret everything someone is saying in the stupidest way it could be interpreted.

Topic's author
#73
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
The problem with using very broad definitions is that they lose meaning compared with narrower more precise definitions. For example if you choose to define god as reality whatever that turns out being then this could easily be interpreted as mindless uncaring physical reality. If that is not an acceptable interpreteation then perhaps you should adjust your definitions. Of course you do then run the risk of having to support your claims.
 
#74
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
Theism and panentheism are not mutually exclusive. Panentheism is a type of theism.
I disagree. I've told you implications of a pantheistic platform and you've called it witchcraft. Panentheism is basically the same thing just that god goes beyond the physical. The universe is his body basically. They both say everything is god. If everything is god, so are we and the important part is that we all become god when we die in these platforms. The Bible does not portray a pantheistic god in that sense... we don't become a god. In both the pan-views we become god. Panentheism is a little more like the theistic version bc it can interact with the universe as an outside force, but the end result is the same as pantheism. In the Bible, god isn't a part of creation. In panentheism creation is part of god. 

I can't say that God isn't in the universe, because to say that would to deny Jesus Christ come in the flesh.
Not only would Jesus be god so is everyone else. Theism explains the Bible's god better. Theism being that god created the universe and isn't the universe itself. Therefore, god can also create an individual and be that individual, Jesus, while others aren't god. That is a god separate to the universe. The pan-views make less sense with the Bible's version of god. 

Here is something to think about... How is it that when you eat, you eat the body of Christ and when you drink, you eat the blood of Christ?
I don't do any of that bc i am god. In pan-views Jesus isn't an extra god. He would be just as godly as anyone else bc everyone is god... How could he preform miracles? The more you tap into being god... the closer you get to your higher self, the more you have experiences. Explains how he likely could perform miracles if any of his story is true at all. That is why i think i've had so many experiences myself. God is suppose to be with all of us bc the Biblical god is all the Omni's... You can construe this god being a panentheistic god... that would just make you a fringe Christian. I'd also wonder why you wouldn't believe you are god bc that is what it means. 
#75
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
He isn't defining God by whim any more than Einstein defined the universe as relative. Both are following what the logic demands.

Einstein realized that the universe had to be relative. That then meant that time passed differently to different people. That then meant the people born the same could be different ages. And so on down the line. There was no whim, each logical fact necessitated the truth of another logical fact. But to an illiterate, it's all unsubstantiated nonsense.

Mopac is, by logic, arriving at his definition of God. It isn't by whim, it's by logic. Any other definition of God falls to illogic. But defined correctly, all other bits of reality can be logically subsumed into the concept of God.

He isn't making things up, he is discovering truth.
#76
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@ethang5
Mopac is, by logic, arriving at his definition of God. It isn't by whim, it's by logic. Any other definition of God falls to illogic. But defined correctly, all other bits of reality can be logically subsumed into the concept of God.

He isn't making things up, he is discovering truth.
Everything is illogical if it isn't in the Bible? Or what Mopac says? That seems anything but logical man. 
#77
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
How about the preposition itself of reasoning?

How does one conclude that reasoning is valid without first presuming that reasoning is valid? After all, it would be absurd to reason your way to reason if you have to wait until reason was valid in the first place. It is therefore an axiomatic presumption. 


Topic's author
#78
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
One can never be certain. But if reasoning is not valid if logic is not reliable if science is based on an illusion and every theory we possess is actually wrong then we don't know anything at all and I still reject your claims except in this scenario there is no way for you to demonstrate your claim.
#79
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
I only read as far as you claiming to describe pantheism. I don't think you know what you are talking about. You have a vivid imagination.

#80
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
You want an idol or graven image. You don't really want God.
#81
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
One can never be certain.

You might need to unpack that a little bit. What specifically are you talking about that we cannot be certain? 


But if reasoning is not valid
Remember that I am not suggesting it is invalid. Only that it a presumed validity not a reasoned one.  
if logic is not reliable
Again I not suggesting it is not reliable. Only that it is a presumed reliability - not a reasoned one. 
if science is based on an illusion and
Some might argue this - but not me. but science is also a methodology not concrete. 
every theory we possess is actually wrong
Theories are theories - some are right and some are wrong.
then we don't know anything at all
The point I am making is about reasoning. Even your train of thought here require an axiom of reason to be presumed to be coherent. 

and I still reject your claims except in this scenario there is no way for you to demonstrate your claim.

You can do whatever you want. You might reject or accept; but what is important is that you must concede that your rejection is not based upon valid reasoning. It is therefore just your conjecture - intuition - or whatever you want to call it. 



Topic's author
#82
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
If our perceptions are an accurate reflection of reality then we can make certain inferences based on those perceptions based most notably through the application of scientific method. Anything that cannot be proven can be rejected if we accept our perceptions there are some things that are observable and therefore knowable and some things that are not.

I hope this illustrates my position but feel free to ask questions. 
#83
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Outplayz
Everything is illogical if it isn't in the Bible?
Not at all. Anything that is self-contradictory is illogical.

Or what Mopac says?
Mopac, or I, are logical as long as we remain aligned with the ultimate truth. Stray and we go into error like anyone else.

That seems anything but logical man. 
That's about the size, where you put your eyes, that's bout the size of it.
#84
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
You will find with secmer that you are more of a tool to relieve his boredom than a debate partner. More of a threadmill than a scenic jog.
Topic's author
#85
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
The bible contains contradictions. Doesn't that make it self contradictory? 
#86
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
A pantheist doesn't know what he's talking about Lmao. Seeing that there are christian witches, christian agnostics, christian atheists, christian deists, christian pantheists, etc. (times infinity) You can believe whatever you want. You are incapable of seeing the implications. I'll just let my questions stack up in the list of questions you can't answer. 
#87
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
Yes, it's all arbitrary.

Self declaration is proof of identity.

How postmodern.

#88
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@ethang5
Not at all. Anything that is self-contradictory is illogical.
I am essentially a pantheist... how is that self-contradictory?

And, what do i find contradictory with the Bible... heaven. I think heaven as described in the Bible would be hell. Maybe you might have a different take on it that i might not find deathly horrifying... i'll see.  

Mopac, or I, are logical as long as we remain aligned with the ultimate truth. Stray and we go into error like anyone else.
I'll start with the above questions, I cannot remember our conversations... only that it ended in me being satanic (mopac said witchcraft) lol... but, in any case, don't put yourself in the same boat as Mopac. You justify yourself to a point you can... Mopac doesn't and runs away.   

That's about the size, where you put your eyes, that's bout the size of it.
I just hope you are more "logical" than Mopac is...  
#89
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
I'm pretty sure I compared your beliefs to Satanism too.

Just saying. You make it sound like you worship yourself as God. That is what satanism is.


Sounds like independent confirmation to me.


I would certainly classify you as a pagan, of which satanism is included. 

What makes a pagan? Your god is fabrication rather than The Ultimate Reality. You can't tell the difference between created things and The Uncreated.

So yeah, that is certainly what ot looks like. Pagans tend to have over active imaginations and a predisposition to hedonism. Look at rationalmadman. What do you too have in common? Juvenile and vivid imaginations. Faith in fabrications of your mind and vain imaginings. Believing your own bullshit. An attraction to gnosticism, or knowingism. Faith in your own understanding.

But really, above all... arbitrariness.

That is certainly what it looks like.
#90
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
Whatever... believe in panentheism... it's better than the commonly referred to Christian god anyways. I'm actually proud that you have a slightly better interpretation of god. Now you have to explain how we all aren't god in such a model... Or we can just let that go unanswered too.