• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

It's Easier to Criticize Than Justify

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
No doubt, but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
First of all, there are at least five different Jesuses in the NT, so any one of them may be in the minority, though Paul's agrees with John's on that point.
And why not? Because 'spirit', 'supernatural', 'immaterial' all translate as 'imaginary'. That's to say, no objective test will distinguish them from 'imaginary'.

Whereas I'm talking about a real God, a God with objective existence, a God that doesn't require me to imagine it.

Such a God, being real, has real qualities such that if we find [him], anyone, not just believers, can determine that it's God and not some false claimant.

And I keep asking you for the definition of a real god that will allow us to do that, and you keep talking about something else.

So what's the answer?

(If you don't know, just say so.)

I gave an answer in the form of a question.
Have you not notice blu2?

33364_8968ada548d302e41210043632b57a07.jpg

When did nothing create something?

I do not enlarge and color fonts for nothing
I do not present pictures and videos for the heck of it
Is that hard? For me, I could answer that in a heart beat.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
But first we need to know what a real god is. Which is why we need that objective test that will tell us which real candidate is God and which is not.

I find this demand very strange. Maybe that's because I come from a different theological background, but asking for an objective test to determine what a "real god" is doesn't make any sense at all to me. Deification is a process human cultures engage in to designate that which they deem worthy of worship. It indicates a particular sort of relationship that culture has with that entity, much like calling someone a "friend" indicates a particular sort of relationship. There's nothing objective about such determinations as they are inherently personal and relational. There is no "one size fits all" for what is worthy (or not worthy) of worship. One person's "real god" is another's "false god."
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
When people are afraid of criticism it shows that they do not have the conviction to defend what they believe.
You begin to feel that their beliefs or non-belief are not that sturdy, that if you break it - they will cry like babies
And wish their mamas are there to comfort them.

View attachment 27822

As for myself - I am open for discussion on matters pertaining to the faith written in the Bible
I would concede openly and accept defeat - if needed be.
But so far, I haven't had this opportunity.
How many atheist have unitarily withdrawn, tip toed their way out on me?
How many of them instead of using their IQ, pushed the Report button to show their defeat?
How many of them would incite your anger for them to report a Rule 1 violation?
I have yet to find a proud and invincible atheist who is a worthy conversant.

The rule about shying away from ex-members in a religion is justified.
I believe, even the apostles wouldn't want to associate with Judas
after Judas betrayed Jesus for the price of 30 pieces of silver [US$ 600]

View attachment 27823

Anyways that is doctrinal and found in the Bible and it is a Christian thing.
1 Corinthians 5:11
2 Thessalonians 3:14

I'm not really seeing it as a matter of conceding defeat but how effective one is in convincing others to agree with your position.

Some people engage in a discussion to "win" an argument, at least in their own view. Not saying it is wrong to do this. However winning is a matter of ego, IMO. Getting you opponents to "cry like babies", if that is your intent. If however one's intent is to get agreement/acceptance of their position, getting them to cry like babies is probably not an effective means to that end.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I speak as someone who's learnt far more by being wrong than by being right.

If you can't hear criticism, if your reflex is to justify yourself instead of to consider whether there's something there that you can learn from (as I dare say we've all done at some stage) then in my view, you haven't understood the virtues of debate, the opportunities to enlarge your understanding.

Like all generalizations there'll be exceptions, but my personal conviction is that it's good to keep thinking, to keep learning.

Sure, but this is about being effective in convincing someone else to agree with your position. If everyone was like you, wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately I find most people let their egos get involved. When egos get involved then what is the win? What's achieved? Maybe getting the last word in?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I am critical of psychology in general. ;)

Certainly we should be willing to question any ideas. If you find criticism and effective way to get agreement from other people, then more power to you. I find such agreement usually ends up being superficial at best.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
It is easier for me to criticize what someone else believes than justify a belief. So I've gotten to the point of criticizing all beliefs, even my own.

Why Criticism Doesn't Work

At no time in this downward spiral does an obvious fact occur to critical people: Criticism is an utter failure at getting positive behavior change. Any short-term gain you might get from it builds resentment down the line.

Criticism fails because it embodies two of the things that human beings hate the most:

  1. It calls for submission, and we hate to submit.
  2. It devalues, and we hate to feel devalued.
While people hate to submit, though, we actually like to cooperate. Critical people seem oblivious to this key point about human nature: The valued self cooperates; the devalued self resists. If you want behavior change from a partner, child, relative, or friend, first show value for the person. If you want resistance, criticize.

Why We Criticize Anyway

Critical people are certainly smart enough to figure out that criticism doesn’t work. So why do they keep doing it, even in the face of mounting frustration? It's because criticism is an easy form of ego defense. We don’t criticize because we disagree with a behavior or an attitude. We criticize because we somehow feel devalued by the behavior or attitude. Critical people tend to be easily insulted and especially in need of ego defense.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-entitlement/201404/whats-wrong-criticism

How much of this is true or really how does it apply to people who post criticisms of other people's beliefs?

Is there an exception to this? Is there more to criticism (of religious belief) than the need to feed one's own ego?

I think that criticism does work but only where there is self confidence and trust of the critic. In general the OP is deep wisdom and self-edifying.
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one.

Most "discussions" on the forums seem to be of the oppositional type. Ok, so if we are trying to be constructive in our discussions :thumbsup:

The oppositional discussions, are these basically ego driven?

I find a bit of flamboyant and aggressive behaviour gets both parties, and onlookers, motivated enough to take part. From then on, amicability becomes increasingly important. However, I find the hardest part of constructive criticism is to keep people in context or on topic.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I gave an answer in the form of a question.
Have you not notice blu2?
I noticed you didn't answer my question, if that's what you mean. As I said, if you don't know the answer, if you don't have a definition of God appropriate to a real God and not just an imaginary one, please say so and save everyone's time.
When did nothing create something?
Never. There are no authenticated examples of bringing things into being from a total nothing. And there are conceptual difficulties ─ for example, in a total nothing there is neither time nor place nor energy, so there's nowhere and nowhen for such a thing to happen.

My own view is that mass-energy pre-existed the Big Bang, that the contents of the Big Bang were mass-energy, and that the universe including spacetime consists of mass-energy and the properties of mass-energy. This would mean that spacetime exists because mass-energy exists, not vice versa, so there is no point at which there is true nothing.

Now, please either give that definition of a real God that will allow us to tell whether any real suspect is God or not. Or just say, "I don't know".
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
asking for an objective test to determine what a "real god" is doesn't make any sense at all to me.
Perhaps that's because you don't encounter the claim that gods are not imaginary, that they're real, from which it follows that they have objective existence. Yet it seems to me that no definition of such a god exists ─ all the definitions are in imaginary terms ─ and that of itself seems to be an acknowledgement that God is or gods are imaginary.
Deification is a process human cultures engage in to designate that which they deem worthy of worship. It indicates a particular sort of relationship that culture has with that entity, much like calling someone a "friend" indicates a particular sort of relationship.
Are you saying that gods are imaginary friends (or masters or whatever), simply social constructs? In that case the problem I speak of doesn't arise.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Are you saying that gods are imaginary friends (or masters or whatever), simply social constructs? In that case the problem I speak of doesn't arise.

No. Gods are that which a culture or person deems worthy of worship. Whether or not that thing "exists" from some outsider's perspective is pretty irrelevant.

What it means to "exist" is not exactly a straightforward question to begin with either. It's a philosophical one and it has no correct answer. Personally, I do not believe in a category called "does not exist." Everything exists. The question is not if something exists, but in what fashion it exists to that person. How we understand and relate to things is ultimately far more important for how we live our day-to-day lives than any so-called "objective reality" that "really exists" or some such nonsense.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sure, but this is about being effective in convincing someone else to agree with your position. If everyone was like you, wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately I find most people let their egos get involved. When egos get involved then what is the win? What's achieved? Maybe getting the last word in?
I can't claim total purity in keeping my ego out of debate, but even then if I find a problem with my argument (nearly always because of a question by my colIoquist), or with presenting it clearly (meaning I don't have a complete grasp of it), it will nag me when it can until I sort it out.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No. Gods are that which a culture or person deems worthy of worship. Whether or not that thing "exists" from some outsider's perspective is pretty irrelevant.

Then it would appear the question I seek an answer to is not one that's of concern to you.

What it means to "exist" is not exactly a straightforward question to begin with either. It's a philosophical one and it has no correct answer.
It's a simple question of physics. Thing/entity X either has objective existence, in which case it's out there in reality, or it doesn't have objective existence, in which case it's conceptual, and concepts exist only in brains.

Personally, I do not believe in a category called "does not exist." Everything exists.
I can allow that an imaginary thing exists, not in its imagined form, but as the interactive neuronal complex that represents its concept in a brain. I can even allow that if you can imagine eg Sherlock Holmes, then Sherlock exists in your imagination ie as a concept, which however lacks an objective referent, a real counterpart.


But the distinction between having objective existence and being solely imaginary seems to me to be fundamental to understanding the world external to the self.

I use that distinction in the definition of 'truth' for example: a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / conforms to / accurately reflects objective reality (called the 'correspondence' definition).
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Then it would appear the question I seek an answer to is not one that's of concern to you.


One might think that, but you are asking a question that sounds like it is relevant to all theists. You are asking for a way to determine what "real gods" are. What I'm saying is that this is fundamentally impossible because of what gods are. They have no consistent attributes beyond being that which a culture decides to label as a deity. Deification is more like granting honorific title - it defines one's relationship or regard towards something, not what that thing is. Granted, various theologies will take positions on what is and is not deserving of deification, which can serve to circumscribe what gods are. There is no agreement about that though. Even if you ask the question about what a "real god" is within a specific cultural context, there still isn't any agreement.
It is like trying to create an objective test about what what a "real friend" is. That standard varies.

It's a simple question of physics. Thing/entity X either has objective existence, in which case it's out there in reality, or it doesn't have objective existence, in which case it's conceptual, and concepts exist only in brains.

This is a philosophical position you are taking here. I presume you are a substance materialist from this?

But the distinction between having objective existence and being solely imaginary seems to me to be fundamental to understanding the world external to the self.

Sure, from your perspective it might very well be fundamental to your ontological philosophy. You have your philosophical assumptions that make this so in your worldview, yeah? It is not unusual for reality to be conceptualized differently by other peoples and cultures, both currently and historically. There's room for that diversity, but it does complicate certain discussions. :D
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
I'm not really seeing it as a matter of conceding defeat but how effective one is in convincing others to agree with your position.

Some people engage in a discussion to "win" an argument, at least in their own view. Not saying it is wrong to do this. However winning is a matter of ego, IMO. Getting you opponents to "cry like babies", if that is your intent. If however one's intent is to get agreement/acceptance of their position, getting them to cry like babies is probably not an effective means to that end.

I could concede defeat
I would yield if I stand corrected
But I do not expect my opponents to do the same
which is really improbable.

There are really "cry babies" here
how do they cry?


not that - its metaphor
they push the report button located at the bottom left hand side of each posts
these individuals use that when they feel cornered and defeated
I never considered the report button as an option - it is against freedom of expression
and with that I see my win
in fact I experience 7 times from different cry babies.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
I noticed you didn't answer my question, if that's what you mean. As I said, if you don't know the answer, if you don't have a definition of God appropriate to a real God and not just an imaginary one, please say so and save everyone's time.
Never. There are no authenticated examples of bringing things into being from a total nothing. And there are conceptual difficulties ─ for example, in a total nothing there is neither time nor place nor energy, so there's nowhere and nowhen for such a thing to happen.

My own view is that mass-energy pre-existed the Big Bang, that the contents of the Big Bang were mass-energy, and that the universe including spacetime consists of mass-energy and the properties of mass-energy. This would mean that spacetime exists because mass-energy exists, not vice versa, so there is no point at which there is true nothing.

Now, please either give that definition of a real God that will allow us to tell whether any real suspect is God or not. Or just say, "I don't know".

Thank you for answering honestly
Never did nothing create something.
Even the Big Bang couldn't destroy that truth.


"Mass-energy" is something
You said it pre-existed? So how did it exist?
When nothing could never create something.
Is this "mass-energy" a creation or the creator?
Is it magic? But then you need a magician to do that.
Or is it a miracle?

Can something inorganic create something organic?
Inorganic defined: not consisting of or deriving from living matter.
synonyms: inanimate, not living, lifeless, dead, defunct, extinct, inert

The "mass-energy" is something inorganic, am I correct?


Michio Kaku (/ˈmiːtʃioʊ ˈkɑːkuː/; born January 24, 1947) is an American theoretical physicist, futurist, and popularizer of science (science communicator). He is a professor of theoretical physics in the City College of New York and CUNY Graduate Center. Kaku has written several books about physics and related topics, has made frequent appearances on radio, television, and film, and writes online blogs and articles. He has written four New York Times best sellers: Physics of the Impossible (2008), Physics of the Future (2011), The Future of the Mind (2014). Kaku has hosted several TV specials for the BBC, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and the Science Channel.
Michio Kaku - Wikipedia

Universe shouldn’t exist, CERN physicists conclude
Universe shouldn’t exist, CERN physicists conclude | Cosmos

The scientists said we shouldn't exist.
How come we do?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You are asking for a way to determine what "real gods" are. What I'm saying is that this is fundamentally impossible because of what gods are. They have no consistent attributes beyond being that which a culture decides to label as a deity.
Being whatever anyone wants is a trait of imaginary things, not things with objective existence, surely? Otherwise we could run our cars on water.
Deification is more like granting honorific title - it defines one's relationship or regard towards something, not what that thing is. Granted, various theologies will take positions on what is and is not deserving of deification, which can serve to circumscribe what gods are. There is no agreement about that though. Even if you ask the question about what a "real god" is within a specific cultural context, there still isn't any agreement.
I agree with that. It seems to me to make very plain that gods are not real beings, since they lack any description / definition in real terms.


Moreover, there's no concept of what 'godness' is, the quality that distinguishes a real god from a false claimant ─ that's to say, a real quality which the real god possesses, rather than a title or status bestowed by some or other onlookers.
This is a philosophical position you are taking here. I presume you are a substance materialist from this?

I'm not familiar with the 'substance' term here, but yes, I'm a materialist. As a supporter of reasoned enquiry, I haven't seen any other credible alternative for addressing the question, What's true in reality? (Reality here is objective reality, the world that exists external to the self.)

My philosophical assumptions are easy to state. They're assumptions because in each case I can't demonstrate their correctness without first as
suming they're true; but I'm consoled that you, by posting here, affirm your agreement with the first two, and as far as I can see, the third:

That a world exists external to the self
That our senses are capable of informing us of that world
That reason is a valid tool.​

Et voilà.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Thank you for answering honestly
Never did nothing create something.
Even the Big Bang couldn't destroy that truth.
Still no definition of a real god, I see. Red herrings are no substitute.

Admit you don't know and we can all go home. Or if you claim you in fact know, set out the definition without more ducking and weaving. Remember, it must be sufficient to allow us to tell whether any real candidate (one not imaginary, one found in nature) is God or not.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
Still no definition of a real god, I see. Red herrings are no substitute.

Admit you don't know and we can all go home. Or if you claim you in fact know, set out the definition without more ducking and weaving. Remember, it must be sufficient to allow us to tell whether any real candidate (one not imaginary, one found in nature) is God or not.


redherring.jpg

"Mass-energy" is something
When nothing could never create something
Can something inorganic create something organic?
The scientists said we shouldn't exist.

How come we do?

Never.
There are no authenticated examples of bringing things into being from a total nothing.


Psalm 33:6 New International Version (NIV)
By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth.

Isaiah 44:24 New International Version (NIV)
“This is what the Lord says—
your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:

I am the Lord,
the Maker of all things,
who stretches out the heavens,
who spreads out the earth by myself,

Isaiah 45:12 New International Version (NIV)
It is I who made the earth
and created mankind on it.

My own hands stretched out the heavens;
I marshaled their starry hosts.

Now, please either give that definition of a real God that will allow us to tell whether any real suspect is God or not. Or just say, "I don't know".

As I have mentioned, God is Spirit and the Bible tells this definition of a real God that will allow us to tell whether any real suspect is God or not:

1 Timothy 1:17 New International Version (NIV)
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

in another translation of the Bible this is written:

1 Timothy 1:17 Expanded Bible (EXB)
To the ·King who rules forever [eternal King; L King of the ages], ·who will never die [immortal; incorruptible], ·who cannot be seen [invisible], the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

The real God must be:
  1. King from everlasting to everlasting [no beginning, no end]
  2. Can't die, never died and never will be, unkillable
  3. Cannot be seen
  4. He must be the only one God.
  5. All everlasting power [eternal power]
  6. Holiest of Holy [divine nature]
If any of the qualities, attributes and definition of a suspect god is lacking, then the suspect is not God.
Additional definitions would include the attributes written in:

Romans 1:20 New International Version (NIV)
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

I won't laugh at you if you decide to tiptoe and go home
tiptoe.jpg
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There are no authenticated examples of bringing things into being from a total nothing.
I already showed you a scenario in which that doesn't matter. Pay attention.
the Maker of all things,
What objective test will tell us whether some thing/entity we're looking at made all things or not?
As I have mentioned, God is Spirit
What objective test will distinguish 'spirit' (in this sense) from 'imaginary'?
1 Timothy 1:17 New International Version (NIV)
Now to the King eternal, immortal,
What objective test will tell us whether some real thing we're examining is 'eternal'? Is 'immortal'? Those are imaginary qualities, are they not? If not, how do they work?
invisible
There's an outright confession that God is imaginary.

Anyway, bring me up to speed with those questions I've set out above and we can go on from there.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
I already showed you a scenario in which that doesn't matter. Pay attention.

What objective test will tell us whether some thing/entity we're looking at made all things or not?
What objective test will distinguish 'spirit' (in this sense) from 'imaginary'?
What objective test will tell us whether some real thing we're examining is 'eternal'? Is 'immortal'? Those are imaginary qualities, are they not? If not, how do they work?
There's an outright confession that God is imaginary.

Anyway, bring me up to speed with those questions I've set out above and we can go on from there.

Most of the time, I am away from the computer.
So I cannot speed up my answers to your questions.
Most of your questions demand a TEST.

testdummy.jpg


Who made the test dummy?
Humans made them.
Can a test dummy subject the human who made him to a test?
No. Because it is imbecilic to start with.
Same is true with God, and we are the dummies.

That's my analogy to your proud request. Now I will show you the scriptures about these. In fact this demand for TEST is devilish, I may add. It reminds me of the Lord Jesus being tempted by the Devil. The Devil demanded proof if the person he was talking, is really the Son of God.

Matthew 4:6-7 New International Version (NIV)
“If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

It is without doubt that God would command his angels and prevent Jesus from having a nasty accident - Jesus know this and so did Satan. But Jesus answered smartly, which the same reply I would have to impart to you.

Do not put the Lord my God to the test

What is imaginary, is us.
We imagine that there is no God but we believe that nothing cannot make something out of nothing
We like to imagine that there is no God because we wan't to live free as if there is no end.
We are imaginary because gravity is imaginary, so is oxygen and the host of other invisible gases.
We are imaginary because we cannot comprehend immortality and eternity but we believe in the imaginary big bang and the imaginary pre-existent mass energy and the imaginary forces like anti matter and matter.
We are imaginary because we should be existing, as the scientist at CERN would like to imagine.
We are imaginary that we could not comprehend what is eternal but we believe the universe was formed....


years ago.
 
Top