But the claim is that God is real, so what's required is a satisfactory definition and demonstration of a real God.
-
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!
Shortest proof of Jesus Christ
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Science and reason can neither prove nor disprove God. Thus in this particular case it is a good idea to use our intuition. Now, almost everyone on the planet intuits the Divine, although they interpert what they sense in different ways. And there are a minority of people who do not intuit the divine, and you can't blame them for not believing.
I don't think we've come to that question yet.
First we need to be clear on what precisely we intend to denote when we say "God".
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Creator.
That would me make me God for creating this post.
No, either God is simply a concept without a real counterpart, or God is real, has objective existence, and therefore has real qualities ─ a metabolism, sensory organs, location, mass, reproductive processes, and so on. But I seem to be the only one actually looking. Everyone else seems happy with the imaginary version(s).
rational experiences
Veteran Member
The theist human is never satisfied.
I invented science to give me any answer I desire. He says.
So I build a non existent machine first.
Relevant to a human thinker their actions by thinking. All actions by humans.
Machine present but owns no function.
Mathematics he says causes functions.
He thinks he built he operates controls said functions by his maths. From his nothing first. No machine.
From a previous non existence the machine.
As rationally everything else did exist.
No argument allowed human natural life consensus. Equality.
Still not happy says scientist Complaining loudly I don't know everything.
Knows he doesn't. Is told he doesn't.
Does he listen to his own man advice,?
No.
I want he demands. I will he demands and I will destroy you if you try to stop me.
Not rational. His human warning to his human self.
Written so in his future self possession he would read and understand.
I can say brother. You once used words to correlate maths thesis.
I will use words to comfort you to explain spirit advice as just spirit not science.
No he says everything is science.
Okay. Where is the God who before you applied formulas using words and deducing mathematics?
So we taught him meditate on a question and see if visionary advice assists you.
Spirit determines memories of a once living human father and human mother.
With nature.
With animals.
With human babies.
Yet all that life is gone deceased.
Visionary. Hu man's spirit experience.
Now father just a human showed me his memory. Our mother a human came out seen as an eternal spirit who became a human right in front of him.
Spirit is real. Why we argue. God in science is not our higher reasoning.
Natural history is. Natural the same as it is now as when human natural history first was.
As no argument human consensus says you can only discuss human by being human.
CH you said was o.one earth God stone and planet spirits that came out of the planet. Arose.
We do not physically or personally own that history.
It is only a teaching told by humans. As our words explained it does not give the word ownership of the state.
So once and for all scientist stop arguing moot points.
A man as a human life sacrificed told why science had caused it by changing natural God status CH gases in heavens.
As man accessed the advice spiritually first from the gas spirit in heavens. So he converted gods earth mass by maths to invent gain of the gas.
Mind memory scientist said spirit told me.
How he got science from the God body.
His advice as above so below was never equal. As a part of God science destroyed.
I invented science to give me any answer I desire. He says.
So I build a non existent machine first.
Relevant to a human thinker their actions by thinking. All actions by humans.
Machine present but owns no function.
Mathematics he says causes functions.
He thinks he built he operates controls said functions by his maths. From his nothing first. No machine.
From a previous non existence the machine.
As rationally everything else did exist.
No argument allowed human natural life consensus. Equality.
Still not happy says scientist Complaining loudly I don't know everything.
Knows he doesn't. Is told he doesn't.
Does he listen to his own man advice,?
No.
I want he demands. I will he demands and I will destroy you if you try to stop me.
Not rational. His human warning to his human self.
Written so in his future self possession he would read and understand.
I can say brother. You once used words to correlate maths thesis.
I will use words to comfort you to explain spirit advice as just spirit not science.
No he says everything is science.
Okay. Where is the God who before you applied formulas using words and deducing mathematics?
So we taught him meditate on a question and see if visionary advice assists you.
Spirit determines memories of a once living human father and human mother.
With nature.
With animals.
With human babies.
Yet all that life is gone deceased.
Visionary. Hu man's spirit experience.
Now father just a human showed me his memory. Our mother a human came out seen as an eternal spirit who became a human right in front of him.
Spirit is real. Why we argue. God in science is not our higher reasoning.
Natural history is. Natural the same as it is now as when human natural history first was.
As no argument human consensus says you can only discuss human by being human.
CH you said was o.one earth God stone and planet spirits that came out of the planet. Arose.
We do not physically or personally own that history.
It is only a teaching told by humans. As our words explained it does not give the word ownership of the state.
So once and for all scientist stop arguing moot points.
A man as a human life sacrificed told why science had caused it by changing natural God status CH gases in heavens.
As man accessed the advice spiritually first from the gas spirit in heavens. So he converted gods earth mass by maths to invent gain of the gas.
Mind memory scientist said spirit told me.
How he got science from the God body.
His advice as above so below was never equal. As a part of God science destroyed.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
You are being deliberately obtuse. I have no patience for this.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I don't think that he had patience with your answer.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, there is a 3rd option. The strong ontological and metaphysical status of objective reality is unknown. But we are in effect different kinds of skeptics, so we will never agree.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
My answer was fine. He is pretending not to understand what it means. But you really can't say you are culturally literate, and not understand what Creator with a capital C means.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, I get it. I treat the same way I treat in effect any metaphysical claim and not just religious one. I don't believe in them, any of them.
But do you have a meaningful definition of a God with objective existence, such that if we found a real candidate, we could determine whether it was God or not?
It seems to me that the ontological status of reality starts with matter and energy, for want of credible alternatives.
But I guess we can indeed agree that it doesn't look like we're going to agree.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
And it seems to me, that the fact that it seems to you indicate that it is in your mind. But off course that is different because it is you.
Note the problem is that your set of credible assumptions is not the only one around and all you do, is apparently to declare other assumptions wrong based on your assumptions. But as far as I can tell, that happens in your mind.
You are sort of a scientific skeptic, because you treat your subjective assumptions as naturally objective for all humans. I am a general skeptic, because I treat all assumptions as in the mind and not objective.
We can in practice share assumptions, but that doesn't make them objective facts as far as I can tell.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
What you believe or don't believe is your own thing. That's not what this is about. What it is about is that I said God could be defined as teh Creator with a capital C, and my post was responded to as if I had used creator with a small case c. THAT is a game.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
My answer is Creator with a Capital C, not creator with a small case c. I'm sure you are culturally literate enough to know exactly what that means.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, we can define a word to have an objective referent without it being the case. But that is not limited to religion.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, and I can do it differently in the ned since I am another I. You can define all you like, but that doesn't make it a fact just because you define.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
We were not asked to prove God. We were asked to define God. Pay attention.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Straw man fallacy
Straw man fallacy, and atheism is not a belief.
Straw man fallacy and a poisoning of the well fallacy
Appeal to authority fallacy
The Harry Potter books claim wizards are real, are they real?
Look, I'll keep this short, as it's clear you are very very confused in your rationale, so lets start with some basic facts, and I'll bullet point them for you, you can either try and learn from your errors in that post or not, it's up to you.
- Atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, and my atheism reflects that primary dictionary definition, I do not hold a belief that no deity exists, I simply don't believe any deity exists as there is no objective evidence.
- Agnosticism is defined as the belief that nothing is known or can be known about god. If I am faced with a claim or concept of a deity that is unfalsifiable then I remain agnostic about it, but also disbelieve it as we can't learn anything from unfalsifiable claims.
- An unfalsifiable claim is a claim where there is no conceivable way to falsify it, even if it were false.
- Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, something is rational only if at adheres to those principles.
- In informal logic, which is everyday reasoning, fallacies are called common logical fallacies.
- You have use several of these fallacies in the first few sentences, and I have indicated this above, explained which fallacies, and linked brief definitions of them, so that you can if you want. see the logical errors in your claims.
I won't ask you to demsonrate objective evidence for any deity, as I normally do, as you seem very convinced to the point of being closed minded that claims and assertions are actually evidence, but they are not.
One last thing, if you are interested in learning some of the vast amount of objective evidence that makes evolution a scientific fact then you can visits the talkorigins website, this site also has a large database of creationist claims, and debunks these with accepted scientific evidence. now again I doubt you want to view your belief critically, but if you do the evidence at that site is an enormous body of facts and information all scientifically valid.
Oh and if the universe is not over 13 billion years old, you might want to consider how we can see light that has travelled from parts of the universe that is more than 13 billion light years away from our solar system. Claiming things can't have happened by chance, when a) they have already happened, and b) they have not happened purely by chance is a deeply flawed way to deny a scientific fact. Claiming it can only therefore have been created by a deity is called a false dichotomy fallacy, I have linked an explanation for you. It's not a choice between scientific fact, and unevidenced claims involving inexplicable magic or an unevidenced deity. That is the fallacy, if science were completely overturned right now, it would not make your creationist beliefs valid, as you can offer no objective evidence to support it.
regards
Last edited: