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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To me the Bible can be detected (world wide) and measured by the invisible words Jesus taught, and now in writing.
That wasn't my question. I discern between being real and existing (as laid out in 5 Planes of Existence). So, again, do we agree that god(s) isn't/aren't real (but may exist in some other form)?
That is, it would not be purely imaginary / conceptual, but real.
Nope. We're after a photo or video or TV interview of the "painter" or "greatest artist" you speak of ─ who so far appears to exist only as a concept / thing imagined by individuals.
Love is a somewhat ambiguous term, but like all human feelings, it's the result of the biochemical processes of the brain and body. Much of it is concerned with pair bonding for breeding purposes, and with the offspring for their protection till they become independent, and with grandchildren consequently. There are also evolved tendencies for the welfare of one's family more broadly, for your friends and associates, for your district, and other groups larger still with which you may identify.
I have no objection to 1 Corinthians 13:4-6, if, as is appropriate to any aspirational statement, we add a requirement of common sense.
But there's no meaningful definition of a real God anywhere in the bible. Certainly not Jesus, who whether in Paul's version or the versions of the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, expressly denies he's God.
So you only accept physical realm as real. Why haven't you considered pantheism then? It makes more sense to regard whole nature as God than just one being, who is subject to nature and it's laws?
If the whole of nature is God, I prefer to continue to call it nature, since (wince) its nature won't change.
Fair enough.
The idea of being real does. Those things are real which are found in the world external to the self, aka nature, the place where things with objective existence are.
The cart is the real God ─ you locate and identify [him] in nature; and the horse is the set of procedures to determine what [his] real qualities are.
This reminds me of my attempts at explaining science to creationists. There are a set of axioms one has to accept to do science.
Logic is making inferences from given premises. You have to be clear what your premises are. You can build a valid system without ever questioning the premises. But it won't be sound.
Can you please post that argument in syllogistic form?
No,the first thing is to know what you're talking about. And when it comes to real gods, no one does ─ or if anyone does, she's not telling.
You think it's logical not to know what you're talking about?
And there is your axiomatic assumption of a god (first being).