What's your best argument for God's existence?

Author: Sum1hugme

Posts

Total: 372
#271
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
 You reject that definition because it makes your position idiotic. 

But really, what is more idiotic is embracing an understanding of the word that prevents you from ever having any meaningful knowledge of a subject.

But Merriam Webster says, "Supreme or ultimate reality" and Oxford says "Supreme Being". The only way these definitions don't contradict is if you properly understand the concept as it has traditionally been understood in philosophy up until nihilists hijacked everything and said "Words are meaningless! Arbitrary! Now they mean whatever we say they mean!"

No, atheism is entirely a semantic argument. One that comes from bad language and ignorance. That is why you see so many bozo nihI'll lists running around treating every word as if they all can simply be replaced by any other word. 

Only through this stupidity can you say that The Ultimate Reality and an imaginary dragon in some garage are interchangeable.

What do you do by insisting on using an understanding of a word that only atheists use? You cut youself off from meaningful conversation. We could be talking about things like, "what is the nature of God?" And things like that. Actually use reason even. But instead we are stuck at whether or not God exists. If you deny The Ultimate Reality exists you are a nihilist. If you deny the existence of God, you are a fool.

Besides that, by encouraging this ignorance towards what we truly believe, you encourage the perception that we are simply deranged. A perception which in the last century has led to millions and millions of people being tortured, psychologically experimented on, imprisoned indefinitely, and killed.

It's no good sir





#272
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
No you didn’t but if you feel you did then that’s your prerogative, have a nice day.
#273
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
Except your entire argument comes from the presumption that god exists, lets fast forward and say I accepted the argument, I don' this is just to demonstrate something, NOTHING about my experience would change, the only difference that would occur is that instead of calling reality reality I'd call it god, you are the one making an entirely semantic position - your accepting of definitions seems entirely dumb to me, and they are contradictory! YOUR definitions specifically are, as you can interpret most of the definitions to not at all mean what you say it does, and it doesn't at all translate to what you think it is. The only reason you accept it is because is supports your position, that is literally the only reason to accept that specific definition. Now, what you don't understand, is that that definition is actually descriptive not prescriptive, in order for it to be prescriptive there would have to actually be some sort of distinguish-ment between reality and that, but there isn't. That's what we call a definitinal truism, and it doesn't work in your case.

#274
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
It is no presumption that God exists, it is a logical necessity.
#275
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
If you accept that that definition is describing something meaningful, which it isn't, and no it isn't. Because that definition just doesn't work, because the people there were just quoting some guy who was asserting that god is the ultimate reality, a god which has agency and such, which is a claim. 
#276
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
So your argument now is, "But your wrong"? Interesting. Also not an argument, have a good day.
#277
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
When did I say that was my argument?
#278
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
It also completely follows based on the proper definition of the word, a definition which you wish to overturn based on it not conforming to your aesthetics, that if you deny God, you are a nihilist. It stands to reason that any argument coming from the position of denying God can be dismissed outright.

#279
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
No... its one of the definitions of a word that the dictionary you got it from, POINTED OUT that it was from popular and assertion of a theologian. I thought you studied words or something, sometimes meanings like that are added because of their colloquial uses that aren't quite right. Again, it'd be like calling a car a chair or a chair a car. It doesn't work, and the only reason you don't see the other definitions that don't support that one is because of your confirmation bias.
#280
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
I could just as easily accuse you of what you are accusing me of.

The only difference is, what I am expressing is what we have always believed for thousands of years. What you are expressing comes from modern philosophy that came out of a backlash against the heretical forms of Christianity that cropped up in the west. A backlash that gave these philosophers an aversion to God! An aversion so strong that they attempted to create something to replace God.

The result of this is that contemporary atheists, unlike their counterparts as recently as the 1800s, deny God without even understanding what that means!

At least the philosophers of the 1800s knew when they were rejecting God, they were rejecting truth. A few generations of being educated by these people and now people don't even know what it means to reject God.



#281
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
Not quite, as again, even if I accepted this argument, the only difference is that I would replace the word reality with god, that is the only difference. Nothing else about my beliefs would change, now, this is something claimed about god for a very long time, but the defintional form is literally a one off thing because they were quoting some theologian, but it is a claim.
#282
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Judging by the synonym you used “injure” let me ask you a question can a wall or a rock get injured or feel any form of physical pain?
#283
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
So then your base is what feels pain? Why? There are much more definitions of harm that include just physical damage and the structural integrity is affected differently in them and humans. All of the distinctions are biased
#284
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
What specific definition are you referring to includes walls and rocks?
#285
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Harm? You know, one of the many that was talking about physical damage?
#286
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Forget I said that, anyway we’re straying from the narrative and that’s immoral humans are harmful not all harm is immoral and by definition I’m objectively correct.
#287
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
No, you're attributing the harm to humans, not only that - harm and immoral do not mean the same thing, they have the same connotations for humans, but they do not mean the same thing. Hence why no definition called harm and wickeness the same thing. Because they aren't, from a subjective lens they can be, but they aren't objectively. All of this has been you trying to say, "Gotcha" "Gotcha" without ever actually observing the argument, and each "Gotcha" is as pathetically semantic as the last.
#288
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Correction I’m attributing immorality to humans, walls and rocks aren’t immoral even by your definition because they have no mind.
#289
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
Not simple a claim, but an identification.

We identify The Ultimate Reality as the one we call God. That is the God we are talking about. No other God. Certainly this God exists.

#290
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
uh huh, which is the subjective part, attributing it to humans. And thats not how it would work, obviously not from their perspective,  the point is to showcase how it depends on what is assigned moral worth that determines immorality and morality, and that its assigned. We wouldn't consider a wall and rock with morality because they don't have sentience, but that condition of sentience is subjective.
#291
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
You are claiming to identify god as reality, which is still a claim
#292
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
No, humans are the only species capable of conceptualizing morality (well maybe not all humans) so that’s just flat out wrong.
#293
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
What? That wasn't even what I was referring to, it doesn't matter that humans can conceputalize morals or not, the fact is that it isn't by an objective standard that morals are assigned, its by subjective notions of whats valuable. Human lives and such, that being valuable is subjective.
#294
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
If you really feel that way then an objective answer is the nihilistic approach and that’s to say nothing is valuable including humans.

#295
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
That is the God I believe in. That is the God we orthodox believe in.

Everything about our praxis comes from this foundation.

Not simply reality. The Ultimate Reality. The Reality that is the foundation of all realities. Anything that is properly real derives its existence from The Ultimate Reality. Everything comes from this God.

It is no vain declaration to say The Ultimate Reality is God. It is to say that The Holy Name is witnessed in the Incarnate Word. To confess this is to abide in Truth. If you are unable to confess this, you have no truth in you, for you deny that The Word is One with God. You deny that there is truth in the world. You falsify everything you have to say about it.

It is no extraordinary claim that God exists. The Ultimate Reality is God.


#296
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
I am saying that their isn't an objective way to say that at all, and everyone has a subjective reason to value human life.
#297
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
Everything in that rant is a claim
#298
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
According to you the human mind is biased in its entirety, so if my mind says the earth is round what bias is that? Unless you consider logic, reason, and objective facts biases, by that logic objectivity is impossible because we have to use our minds to know what we know.
#299
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
What? I mean, yes, everything is biased that comes from the mind, but if something is contingent on the mind specifically it is subjective, the earth being round is true independent of the mind, this is really showcasing you not knowing what you're talking about.
#300
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay, so what subjective reason do you value human life?