Okay mate.
You should try reading posts before replying.
And I'm still waiting for your Harry Potter analogy explanation.
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!
Okay mate.
You should try reading posts before replying.
And I'm still waiting for your Harry Potter analogy explanation.
Read the OP mate.
Change the word 'God' to 'Zeus' or 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster' and it makes as much sense.IT IS MY OPINION, DEBATE COMES:
The set of knowledges is S= X1, X2, X3, … Xn, where a knowledge for instance is X2=”Pythagorean Theorem is Mathematically Proven''. By definition: a being named “God'' is all-knowing if He knows the entire set S. This definition implies that X1=”God exists”. Whether a character exists or not, he must know that he exists. For example, Harry Potter knows that Harry Potter exists. Harry Potter in the novel quite knew that Harry was there. And his friends knew. Therefore, if the knowledges of the All-Knowing One are not false, then God exists. It has worked well out, God is proven. I am sure the satan will find right words for this proof. Otherwise, he is dead meat: "whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth" 2 Thessalonians 2:8.
And “God shares knowledge with one who loves Him.'' 1 Corinthians 8:3 SYNODAL, because He is the Spirit of Knowing. The spirit of an item is the notion, definition, and essence of the item. The Spirit in Christianity is Plato's realm of ideas: the idea of a table, the idea of love, the concept of government.
IT IS MY OPINION, DEBATE COMES:
The set of knowledges is S= X1, X2, X3, … Xn, where a knowledge for instance is X2=”Pythagorean Theorem is Mathematically Proven''. By definition: a being named “God'' is all-knowing if He knows the entire set S. This definition implies that X1=”God exists”. Whether a character exists or not, he must know that he exists. For example, Harry Potter knows that Harry Potter exists. Harry Potter in the novel quite knew that Harry was there. And his friends knew. Therefore, if the knowledges of the All-Knowing One are not false, then God exists. It has worked well out, God is proven. I am sure the satan will find right words for this proof. Otherwise, he is dead meat: "whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth" 2 Thessalonians 2:8.
And “God shares knowledge with one who loves Him.'' 1 Corinthians 8:3 SYNODAL, because He is the Spirit of Knowing. The spirit of an item is the notion, definition, and essence of the item. The Spirit in Christianity is Plato's realm of ideas: the idea of a table, the idea of love, the concept of government.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362226399_Existence_of_God_is_knowledge
Change the word 'God' to 'Zeus' or 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster' and it makes as much sense.
I do not think Gods are retarded (if they exist), it is an affliction which occurs in humans.
You should try reading posts before replying.
And I'm still waiting for your Harry Potter analogy explanation.
You have no logical reason to assume that just because you don't know if or what 'God' is, that God doesn't exist. So calling your preferred bias "truth" is not serving anything but your own ego. If that's good enough for you, then so be it, I guess.You gain truth by acknowledging an empty box is empty, and not full of imaginary things that you work very, very hard to fool yourself isn't imaginary. The gain is avoiding all that mental busyness and illusion.
First, you don't know what's an illusion and what isn't. Second, from a human perspective, all truth is an "illusion" in that we can never be certain of it. And third, sharing an idea that works well for us, with others, is just a logical thing to do. Especially knowing that we cannot force anyone to accept any idea as truth. So your objections, here, seem to be failing on all counts.You gain an illusion, which fine if you keep that illusion to yourself. But as soon as you try to convince others that that you think an empty box is full of what you imagine, and then blame these folks for not being convinced as deficient some how, you illusion gains you disrespect and disdain.
I would love to see you explain this course of reasoning.By using the senses and mental rationale that is normal for humans we can easily determine the box is empty.
All anyone can do is share their ideas and experience of living by those ideas with others. That's it. There is no "proof' to be had for the nature or existence of 'God'. So demanding such proof is basically just a fools distraction.The pressure is on those who insist ...
Their "insistence" is irrelevant. Just as your insisting that there is nothing "in the box" is equally irrelevant. No one knows what's "in that box". It's not possible for we humans to determine. So the question that matters, is how does what we choose to assume is in the box effect the value of our lives. You claim it gives you "truth", but of course you can't know the truth. So all it gives you is the false pretense of truth ... the very same thing you seem to be so annoyed with in those who think they know God is "in the box". The difference is that at least their chosen 'illusion' serves them in some way more than just massaging their ego.Just to clarify, the believers insist there is something in the box.
I do not think that is correct. Mutations happen everywhere naturally.I think that inbreeding creates mutations, ..
Read it, don't get it, I need someone with your superior intellect to explain it to this unintelligent infidel. Or just send more personal attacks, they amuse me.
If God is the source of all that exists, what does it even mean to debate God's existence? If God is the author of all that can be known, what does it even mean to claim that "God is omniscient"? Such states and conditions are beyond our intellectual grasp. We can ask but we cannot answer. Whatever God is or isn't, is clearly beyond our understanding. Though not beyond our imaginative speculations.
If you gain nothing from calling it an "empty Box" (and how could you gain anything from that?), and you gain something positive from calling it "God" (a focus for faith in the face of our ignorance/unknowing), and you cannot possibly determine what "really is" in the box, then it is clearly more logical to call what's in the box "God", and enjoy the positive advantages that come from doing so.
People imagine God to be whatever they want and need their God to be. And why not? If doing so helps them to live life better, and to live better lives, they'd be fools not to. The mystery is the gift!
You have no logical reason to assume that just because you don't know if or what 'God' is, that God doesn't exist.
Once we understand that we cannot know the nature or existence of what we call "God", we are free to imagine and speculate about it without being dishonest, so long as we continue to acknowledge that this is what we are doing. That a "God of my understanding" is exactly that, and only that. And there are lots of ways we can use that kind of imagined 'higher power' to help is live better and more valued lives. The problems come when we want the rest of the world and it's people to behave as if the God of our understanding IS God. Because they will not willingly comply.What do you need with the word God in that? What does it add to debate any god's existence indeed, or to ascribe any qualities to the source of the universe. Is your imagination really serving you here? I find no value in metaphysical speculations.
And what you never seem to get is that most theists are not trying to impose their idea of God on anyone. But you are so obsessed with those few that are, that you just cannot manage to acknowledge this. And most theists are not just making themselves "feel better" (as if that were a silly thing to do) but they are trying to actually BE better people. And many of them are succeeding. But of course you can't see any of that because all you ever look for are those theists that are trying to impose their religious ideas on others.So what you are doing is using the idea of a god because it makes you feel better. Fine. What you never seem to get is that that's a need YOU have and may not be universal.
What is so sad and obnoxious about that statement is that you actually presume you know what is and isn't "fiction" regarding the nature and existence of "God". And of course you really have no idea at all. Nada. Zippo. And if you were to stop and think for a minute, you'd realize that you have no idea at all. But you don't stop and think. You're driven to fight the theists. And what a sad waste of time that is.YOUR life is made better by a comforting fiction, and you seem to think that everybody is like that - that everybody should inject a little magic into their worldview to make it seem more interesting. You apparently can't conceive of others having spiritual intuitions about reality directly without god concepts.
I make no such assumptions. But you can't see that because I'm a theist, and that means, in your mind, that I MUST be making those hated assumptions. Right?So good for you that you've found a way to maintain that intuition with the addition of a pleasant fiction, but it's arrogant and naive of you to assume that all others have that same need, and that those who don't invoke gods ought to do so.
Well, let's see, out the 7 BILLION humans on the planet well over 6 BILLION of them seem to think they do need a God-concept to help them live better lives. So I think it's you are aren't getting the full picture, here. And by the way, hardly any of those 6+ BILLION humans are trying to force you to believe anything.What you are missing is that many don't need a god and aren't benefitted by such a belief. How many times have I used the metaphor of eye glasses with you, always ignored. Although I would have loved to discuss with you why you didn't find the metaphor apt if you didn't, I don't need your reaction. I'll repeat it anyway.
Humans share their ideas and experiences with each other. Oh, the INHUMANITY!You're like the man born with blurry vision who one day gets a pair of glasses and sees better. He's so excited he shouts about these wonderful things that have added so much to his life. He tells his friends to try them. A an with good vision discovers that glasses never improve his vision, and often degrade it. His zealous friend continues to implore him to just open his mind and enjoy the rich vistas glasses reveal, but the man reports that glasses never reveal anything to him and often degrade his vision. And then his friend says a prayer for him because he just can't find better vision with glasses, and laments the view his friend is limited to, never realizing that his vision unaided is better than the guy whose vision is improved with glasses. That's you telling other the joy of a god belief because of what it does for you, unable to conceive that they are past that. The mystery is the gift? One doesn't need the god glasses to have a spiritual understanding of nature and one's place in it.
Faith IS rational, because it works. And because there is no logical reason not to employ it. Blind denial is what's not rational.You mentioned above that it is logical to invoke gods if it makes one feel better. Agreed. The belief isn't rational, but benefitting from it if possible is.
I stated at the beginning of this post that belief is the problem. Not faith. Unfortunately, your intense bias against all think theistic blinds you to the difference.What you keep missing is that if the belief doesn't provide any benefit, it is logical to discard it even in a world where so many people see that as a loss rather than a step forward in spiritual maturation, and continue to implore you to make the illogical choice of returning to a belief that adds nothing.
False. It is reasonable to NOT assume religious claims as true or based on some information. No one knows what "God" is, and that is because there is no data, no facts, no observations about any gods. All we have is ancient lore, and we have no reason to assume these ancient stories are true in any way.You have no logical reason to assume that just because you don't know if or what 'God' is, that God doesn't exist.
You are projecting here. All I am saying is that it is honest and true to acknowledge that a box is empty, and that those who claim there is something humans can't sense IS in the box can't substantiate their claim, or even their guess. What is biased about saying an empty box is indeed empty? That you want there to be something in the box has nothing to do with a bias on my part. You fail to argue your beliefs that something IS in the box, but humans can't sense it. Everything we observe is that you are imagining something in the empty box, and you don't like that.So calling your preferred bias "truth" is not serving anything but your own ego. If that's good enough for you, then so be it, I guess.
False, we skeptics can easily see that what theists claim has no evidence available to ordinary sense and rational minds. What theists believe is best described as illusions. You claim no special powers, so you're left being judged as ordinary, flawed humans.First, you don't know what's an illusion and what isn't.
False, there are many self-evident truths that are factual, like the laws of physics. But you have a habit of trying to blur knowledge and your religious belief so you don't have to acknowledge your beliefs are not factual like knowledge is.Second, from a human perspective, all truth is an "illusion" in that we can never be certain of it.
Many bad ideas have been shared through history that benefits a tribe at the cost of others. Slavery is an example. Religious beliefs have benefitted tribes of believers but also been the root of wars and conflict. Look at how evangelicals have worked to eliminate reproductive options for women in the USA, and that is surely a huge problem. So your vague and overly broad assertion here, that sharing ideas works well for us, certainly isn't true WHEN the ideas are ideological, including religion.And third, sharing an idea that works well for us, with others, is just a logical thing to do. Especially knowing that we cannot force anyone to accept any idea as truth. So your objections, here, seem to be failing on all counts.
Really? You need an explanation how a human being looks into an empty box and can determine the box is empty? Is this a hard thing for you to do? Or are you being deliberately obtuse because this is my metaphor and you prefer your fuzzy and blurry approach to clarity?I would love to see you explain this course of reasoning.
Demanding proof for any gods existing is less a foolish than believing a god exists despite the lack of evidence for a rational mind to conclude. As long as believers claim some sort of God exists rational minds will ask for evidence and a coherent argument.All anyone can do is share their ideas and experience of living by those ideas with others. That's it. There is no "proof' to be had for the nature or existence of 'God'. So demanding such proof is basically just a fools distraction.
Your posts here demonstrate that you disagree and believe belief in a god is very relevant.Their "insistence" is irrelevant.
The empty box that we all observe is similar to acknowledging there is no evidence for any gods in human lore. It is very relevant as your participation in these discussions reveal.Just as your insisting that there is nothing "in the box" is equally irrelevant.
The box being empty is enough for observers to acknowledge it is empty. There is no cat, that's for sure.No one knows what's "in that box".
How would they know? Then humans should not insist there is something in there. If you admit humans can't know a od exists then they shouldn't claim one does. They aren't sure, so why believe?It's not possible for we humans to determine.
Sure, if we imagine the emptiness is valuable and spend a lot of time worshipping the empty space in the box, then we will value that emptiness and the box itself. At some point the box will be what is valued, because there is nothing else for there to worship and value.So the question that matters, is how does what we choose to assume is in the box effect the value of our lives.
I assert that we are capable of determining that a box is empty, and that it is empty is true, thus truth.You claim it gives you "truth", but of course you can't know the truth.
This is theists. Theists belief in something they can't actually determine is real versus imagined. So you don't consider this a false pretense of truth?So all it gives you is the false pretense of truth ... the very same thing you seem to be so annoyed with in those who think they know God is "in the box". The difference is that at least their chosen 'illusion' serves them in some way more than just massaging their ego.
There is plenty of "data". Just no proof. And I would love to watch you explain the logic of presuming the negative in the face of no data. Because the only way that idea flies is if you can define the data that you should be getting if God/gods do exist. AND, how you would determine it's validity. And so far no one in history has been able to do that.False. It is reasonable to NOT assume religious claims as true or based on some information. No one knows what "God" is, and that is because there is no data, no facts, no observations about any gods. All we have is ancient lore, and we have no reason to assume these ancient stories are true in any way.
No, it isn't. It would be honest and true to state that we humans cannot see into this box, to determine if it's empty or not.You are projecting here. All I am saying is that it is honest and true to acknowledge that a box is empty, and that those who claim there is something humans can't sense IS in the box can't substantiate their claim, or even their guess.
The fact that you can't and don't know that.What is biased about saying an empty box is indeed empty?
That's because I don't 'believe' that there is something in the box. I simply choose to hope that there is, and that I will gain a positive result when I act on that hope. I have no knowledge of or control over whatever's in that box. And I don't pretend to.That you want there to be something in the box has nothing to do with a bias on my part. You fail to argue your beliefs that something IS in the box, but humans can't sense it.
No, the data is anecdotal, so quite dubious and better explained as types of human social behavior. No evidence means no reason to believe. To point to people who believe without evidence as a data point is a type of circular fallacy.There is plenty of "data". Just no proof.
You love your "proving a negative" scenarios. My point is clear, if you look in a box and it is empty there is no reason to believe there's something in it. When theists claim their gods exist but can't explain how rational minds can determine this, then the default is to not accept the claim. The default is: no belief.And I would love to watch you explain the logic of presuming the negative in the face of no data.
More switching the burden of proof. Why should we assume gods exist as an a priori?Because the only way that idea flies is if you can define the data that you should be getting if God/gods do exist. AND, how you would determine it's validity. And so far no one in history has been able to do that.
There's more of your preference to blind yourself so you can draw a false conclusion. We atheists CAN see. We just don't have an ulterior motive to blind ourselves.No, it isn't. It would be honest and true to state that we humans cannot see into this box, to determine if it's empty or not.
Hahaha, it's what I have been arguing. Maybe your blindness is a liability.The fact that you can't and don't know that.
Why do you need hope? That's the question you should be asking. I don't see how you can feel any hope by being confused and misleading yourself. All that gives you is an excuse to believe. Some don't have to courage to not believe, but it does give a person the freedom to be courageous even when they doubt themselves.That's because I don't 'believe' that there is something in the box. I simply choose to hope that there is, and that I will gain a positive result when I act on that hope. I have no knowledge of or control over whatever's in that box. And I don't pretend to.
Great.
And what you never seem to get is that most theists are not trying to impose their idea of God on anyone.
What is so sad and obnoxious about that statement is that you actually presume you know what is and isn't "fiction" regarding the nature and existence of "God".
out the 7 BILLION humans on the planet well over 6 BILLION of them seem to think they do need a God-concept to help them live better lives.
Faith IS rational, because it works.