• 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!

God is simple, not complex

Gambit

Gambit

Well-Known Member
leibowde84 said:
Fact = indisputably the case.
Belief = accepting something as being the case without sufficient evidence/support to qualify as fact (disputable).
Click to expand...

We never reach a full consensus that anything is in fact the case. So, as I see it, the difference between knowledge and belief is not actually a difference in definition but a difference in degree.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Gambit said:
We never reach a full consensus that anything is in fact the case. So, as I see it, the difference between knowledge and belief is not actually a difference in definition but a difference in degree.
Click to expand...
I agree, to a certain extent. However, a "fact" is indisputably the case. All evidence points to a fact being true, and there is no alternative theory that accounts for all of the evidence. A belief can certainly be true, but it can also be plausibly disputed.
 
Reflex

Reflex

Active Member
Shad said:
Still nonsense as Watt does nothing to link reason with God other than wild arguments from incredibility. All he does is claim without God there is no reason without justification. There is no logic in it since his premises are not sound. He has not demonstrated God, he has not demonstrated God is required for reason. I reject his premises and argument as being unsound. Once an argument is unsound there is no full logic in it, only part of a method of argument formation.
Click to expand...
Your post is off-topic, not a proper rejoinder, and I think you mean incredulousness. There is no "therefore, a god did it" in his argument. He's giving you a choice and presenting the logical consequences of that choice. Period.





 
Last edited:
ThePainefulTruth

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Willamena said:
We use truth entirely objectively, but that's only because subjectively the verb "use" doesn't apply. In itself, truth is neither subjective nor objective--subjective and objective are views and attitudes that we take towards things. When we talk about objective, we are adopting the view of truth. Everything can be viewed objectively or subjectively--the "thing in itself" is neither.

The truth of the subjective is the truth about (for instance) what things mean to us uniquely, how we relate to them or how they relate to other things. Everything objective is, by definition, true and can be thrust into a proposition. If it's truth that, "I find that painting beautiful," that's objective. The subjective is the experience of meaningfulness and relating to a thing.


Without judgement, there is no life to talk about. But there is the experience of life.
Click to expand...
 
ThePainefulTruth

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Willamena said:
We use truth entirely objectively
Click to expand...

Does that mean art isn't Truth? And what about justice and love where they combine the two?

In itself, truth is neither subjective nor objective
Click to expand...

It can be one, the other, or a combination. It depends on the aspect of Truth you're talking about, not the perspective--at least not about objective Truth.

The truth of the subjective is the truth about (for instance) what things mean to us uniquely, how we relate to them or how they relate to other things. Everything objective is, by definition, true and can be thrust into a proposition. If it's truth that, "I find that painting beautiful," that's objective.
Click to expand...

No, that only applies to you and those who agree with you that it's beautiful. That's the definition of subjective.

Without judgement, there is no life to talk about. But there is the experience of life.
Click to expand...

But here again, you're talking about judgement of whether something is universally true or is determined by individual opinion.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
ThePainefulTruth said:
Does that mean art isn't Truth? And what about justice and love where they combine the two?
Click to expand...
Of course not. We don't USE art--if anything, it uses us. Justice rules us. Love defines us. It seems you are referring to something specific.

It can be one, the other, or a combination. It depends on the aspect of Truth you're talking about, not the perspective--at least not about objective Truth.
Click to expand...
As long as either can be true, neither is truth itself. Truth informs what is true.

No, that only applies to you and those who agree with you that it's beautiful. That's the definition of subjective.
Click to expand...
No, it applies to just me that it is utterly true that I find this painting beautiful. I am not exempt from the objective case.

But here again, you're talking about judgement of whether something is universally true or is determined by individual opinion.
Click to expand...
The objective case is adopting the attitude of truth.
 
Gambit

Gambit

Well-Known Member
Willamena said:
No. That sentence makes no sense. That "I am aware" is awareness.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between self-awareness and just awareness. At any rate, you argued previously that there is no knowledge. So, I was basically asking you whether or not self-awareness qualifies as knowledge.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Reflex said:
Your post is off-topic, not a proper rejoinder, and I think you mean incredulousness. There is no "therefore, a god did it" in his argument. He's giving you a choice and presenting the logical consequences of that choice. Period.
Click to expand...

I did mean incredulity, auto-complete is horrible. I admit I can be very lazy when it comes to fixing errors as it takes a lot of time to go through each post to fix auto-completes mistakes. I already had to edit a earlier post today 3 times to fix the mistakes. A therefore is not required as he stated a conclusion already. That there is no reason without God. You are confusing formal logic arguments within a specific form which strict premises with a dialogue based argument. However this does not change the fact that he made a conclusion about reason to argue for God. He presents a false choice based on nothing but his presupposition based conclusions. To have a choice between options still entails a conclusion otherwise there would be nothing to pick from.

You posts a quote of Watts, I am responding to that quote so if it off-topic you were the one to do so by posting it. Attacking the quote is also attacking your reasoning as you would not post a quote you did not agree with or thought it had some merit to it. I am showing it has no merit since it is based on assumptions and fallacious reasoning.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Wouldnt we be god if we understood him one hundred percent given how simple he is?

If god is simple, how do you define him?

It should be done in layman terms not metaphors and metaphysics since those two things help explain an unexplainable/complex god. If god isnt complex, we should be able to use regular language to define who or what he is.
 
Reflex

Reflex

Active Member
Carlita said:
Wouldnt we be god if we understood him one hundred percent given how simple he is?

If god is simple, how do you define him?

It should be done in layman terms not metaphors and metaphysics since those two things help explain an unexplainable/complex god. If god isnt complex, we should be able to use regular language to define who or what he is.
Click to expand...
One
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top