How God could fail to convey His message?

[surreptitious57]

Do you reject the label because you think that it only applies to organised religion
A theist is any one who believes in God regardless of how they actually define God

[attofishpi]

ps. I am not a theist.

Do you reject the label because you think that it only applies to organised religion
A theist is any one who believes in God regardless of how they actually define God

No. I reject the label because someone that is theist has merely a belief. I know, without a shadow of a doubt that 'God' exists...courtesy of 20years of direct interaction with 'it' and a sage.

[surreptitious57]

You are still a theist regardless of whether you believe that God exists or know that God exists and as you
claim to know he exists that makes you a gnostic theist even if you choose not to describe yourself as one

[Lacewing]

I reject the label because someone that is theist has merely a belief. I know, without a shadow of a doubt that 'God' exists...courtesy of 20years of direct interaction with 'it' and a sage.

So, considering all of the people who "know" and experience differently than you do, would it be accurate to say that all realities exist and each person's experience and knowing is personal and true for them?

[-1-]

I am new here... so far all I've learned from the members about other members is that they arrogant and obnoxious... I learned some of us is nice, but we don't get to get that reputation spread.

Calling theists deluded at the outset is not going to help your cause.

Also, is English a 2nd language for you?

ps. I am not a theist.

A. I am not calling theists deluded.
B. I call those delusional whom I think are delusional, according to my opinion, without prejudice for theism or atheism.
C. I think I called some people here delusional, but not deluded. There is a difference. Please learn the difference. Is English a second language for you?

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can, I think our conversation has run its course, and if I picked up on your last missive, we'd be just repeating things already said.

Taking your ball and going home, then? Because really, you haven't solved the issue.

The OP asks how God could fail to convey His message...and so far, all you've shown is that you have no idea whether or not the message has even "failed" to be "conveyed," since you're not even able to say definitively who are the relevant "hearers." Consequently, you have no reason to say the message has "failed" at all -- let alone that the perceived "failure" is on God's end of the communication line.

What's missing is YOUR definition of Christians, but it's not necessary to be given to see my argument, only to see your side, and since you refuse to give your definition of a Christian,

I do not, as a matter of fact. I have not given it YET, but I have one, and will be happy to give it in due time, should it prove relevant to where we go. I was waiting for you to sort out your own thinking first. After all, you were the one who was claiming that the "message" had "failed" to be received sufficiently by "Christians." I wanted to see if you had any idea whom you were even talking about.

Now, all I need from you is an answer to what you will accept as a better answer. If you give me the criteria you would accept even to judge the question, I'll be happy to help you out. What we've established so far is that one criterion that will not work is to say, "Everybody who says 'I'm a Christian' actually is." And that's a huge step forward from blank ignorance on the question.

But without it, the scoundrel's resort follows: that is, one is always tempted to accuse anyone who actually HAS relevant criteria of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy...essentially, accusing them as follows: "If you have criteria for what constitutes a Christian, you're arbitrary / bigoted / incorrect," or whatever. It's rubbish, of course; but it's the route some people go.

However, if you're prepared to concede the insufficiency of allowing the self-identification criterion as adequate, then we're past that...The NTS fallacy can no longer apply, since you would be abandoning the supposition that all true "Christians" were the ones who self-identified as such, and thus conceding that at least some untrue "Scotsman" exist, in this situation.

So, just to be sure, I'll ask: are we both content to reject the self-identification criterion as adequate?

[-1-]

1. Considering God is not defined, it would be to equivalent to negate negativity, if one where to argue that God does not exist.

2. Considering God is defined through everything it would be equivalent to argues that nothing exists if one where to argue God does not exists.

3. If one where to Argue that God is both everything and nothing, or the Alpha and Omega, and then claim God does not exist it would be equivalent to argue that "beginning" and "end" do not exist.

1. God is defined by philosophers. He/She/It is described by the religious. HSI is to be discovered by scientists.
If one is both a philosopher and religious, then one is to believe in god, not define god.
If one is both a philosopher and a scientist, then it could go either way.
If one is both religious and a scientist, then the faith goes by description, not by discovery.
Ergo, lack of definition does not make arguments invalid which state that god does not exist.

2. Considering that God is not defined through everything, makes your argument fail.

3. If one were not to argue what you suppose one would argue, then your argument fails. Because it is just as easy to argue what you would not want one to argue as what you would want one to argue. You cherry-picked two equally likely possibilities to your advantage, ignoring the other possibility completely. You argue a bit like Socrates in this sense.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Considering God is not defined, it would be to equivalent to negate negativity, if one where to argue that God does not exist.

2. Considering God is defined through everything it would be equivalent to argues that nothing exists if one where to argue God does not exists.

3. If one where to Argue that God is both everything and nothing, or the Alpha and Omega, and then claim God does not exist it would be equivalent to argue that "beginning" and "end" do not exist.

1. God is defined by philosophers. He/She/It is described by the religious. HSI is to be discovered by scientists.


If one is both a philosopher and religious, then one is to believe in god, not define god.
If one is both a philosopher and a scientist, then it could go either way.
If one is both religious and a scientist, then the faith goes by description, not by discovery.

We are all philsophers, scientists, and religious as we all think, observe, and believe to some degree or another. To seperate them into categories (other than in the professional sense) is to divide not not only the human being but the human condition.

Ergo, lack of definition does not make arguments invalid which state that god does not exist.

Argument is the synthesis of definition and any failure in definition is fai[ure in argument./color]



2. Considering that God is not defined through everything, makes your argument fail.

3. Deus est totus in quolibet sui.

God is all in any of his.



The book of the 24 philosophers:

The 24 definitions

1. Deus est monas monadem gignens, in se unum reflectens ardorem.

God is a monad generating a monad, which in the heat (of love) reflects to himself alone.


2. Deus est sphaera infinita cuius centrum est ubique, circumferentia nusquam.

God is an infinite sphere, whose center is everywhere (and) circumference is nowhere.


3. Deus est totus in quolibet sui.

God is all in any of his.


4. Deus est mens orationem generans, continuationem perseuerans.

God is mind generating a word (with) enduring continuity.


5. Deus est quo nihil melius excogitari potest.

God is that where nothing better can be devised.


6. Deus est cuius comparatione substantia est accidens, et accidens nihil.

God is that, in which comparison substance (or essence) is an attribute (or feature), and attribute (or feature) being nothing.


7. Deus est principium sine principio, processus sine variatione, finis sine fine.

God is beginning without beginning, process without variation, end without end.


8. Deus est amor qui plus habitus magis latet.

God is love, which the more is hidden the more we (believe to) have it.


9. Deus est cui soli praesens est quidquid cuius temporis est.

God is that, to whom all is present related to (all what belongs to) time.


10. Deus est cuius posse non numeratur, cuius esse non clauditur, cuius bonitas non terminatur.

God is that, whose ability (or competence) is not numbered, whose being is not limited, whose goodness is not terminated.


11. Deus est super ens, necesse, solus sibi abundanter, sufficienter.

God is above (or beyond) being, (is) necessary and by oneself being sufficient unto himself in abundance.


12. Deus est cuius voluntas deificae et potentiae et sapientiae adaequatur.

God is that, whose will equals (or is according) his divine power and wisdom.


13. Deus est sempiternitas agens in se, semper divisione et habitu.

God is working eternity by himself without division and (without having or gaining) an attribute (or feature).


14. Deus est oppositio nihil mediatione entis.

God is the opposition of nothing by means of being.


15. Deus est vita cuius via in formam est, in unitatem bonitas.

God is life, whose way into form is truth, (and whose way) into unity is goodness.


16. Deus est quod solum voces non significant propter excellentiam, nec mentes intelligunt propter dissimilitudinem.

God (is the) only one because of his excellence, who is not signed by words, and mind (creatures) do not recognise (him) caused by (their) dissimilarity.


17. Deus est intellectus sui solum, praedicationem non recipiens.

God is the concept (or notion) (derived) from himself alone not suffering (or tolerating) a(ny) predicate.


18. Deus est sphaera cuius tot sunt circumferentiae quod puncta.

God is the sphere having as much circumferences as points.


19. Deus est semper movens immobilis.

God is the immobile (but always) moved (one).


20. Deus est qui solus suo intellectu vivit.

God is (the only one) alone living from his self knowledge (or self - awareness).


21. Deus est tenebra in anima post omnem lucem relicta.

God is the darkness in the soul being left after all light.


22. Deus est ex quo est quicquid est non partitione, per quem est non variatione, in quo est quod est non commixtione.

God is (that), from which all is (or exists) that is (or exists) without (him) being divided (or splited); through him (all) is without (him) getting (or being) changed; in him (all) is without him getting (or being) mixed with it.


23. Deus est qui sola ignorantia mente cognoscitur.

God is that, which the mind only knows in ignorance (or in the state of not knowing).


24. Deus est lux quae fractione non clarescit, transit, sed sola deiformitas in re.

God is light, appearing as shine without refraction, permeating, but only (being) a divine formation in the things.





3You argue a bit like Socrates in this sense.

Thanks for the compliment.

[-1-]

1. Considering God is not defined, it would be to equivalent to negate negativity, if one where to argue that God does not exist.

2. Considering God is defined through everything it would be equivalent to argues that nothing exists if one where to argue God does not exists.

3. If one where to Argue that God is both everything and nothing, or the Alpha and Omega, and then claim God does not exist it would be equivalent to argue that "beginning" and "end" do not exist.

1. God is defined by philosophers. He/She/It is described by the religious. HSI is to be discovered by scientists.


If one is both a philosopher and religious, then one is to believe in god, not define god.
If one is both a philosopher and a scientist, then it could go either way.
If one is both religious and a scientist, then the faith goes by description, not by discovery.

We are all philsophers, scientists, and religious as we all think, observe, and believe to some degree or another. To seperate them into categories (other than in the professional sense) is to divide not not only the human being but the human condition.

Ergo, lack of definition does not make arguments invalid which state that god does not exist.

Argument is the synthesis of definition and any failure in definition is fai[ure in argument./color]



2. Considering that God is not defined through everything, makes your argument fail.

3. Deus est totus in quolibet sui.

God is all in any of his.



The book of the 24 philosophers:

The 24 definitions

1. Deus est monas monadem gignens, in se unum reflectens ardorem.

God is a monad generating a monad, which in the heat (of love) reflects to himself alone.


2. Deus est sphaera infinita cuius centrum est ubique, circumferentia nusquam.

God is an infinite sphere, whose center is everywhere (and) circumference is nowhere.


3. Deus est totus in quolibet sui.

God is all in any of his.


4. Deus est mens orationem generans, continuationem perseuerans.

God is mind generating a word (with) enduring continuity.


5. Deus est quo nihil melius excogitari potest.

God is that where nothing better can be devised.


6. Deus est cuius comparatione substantia est accidens, et accidens nihil.

God is that, in which comparison substance (or essence) is an attribute (or feature), and attribute (or feature) being nothing.


7. Deus est principium sine principio, processus sine variatione, finis sine fine.

God is beginning without beginning, process without variation, end without end.


8. Deus est amor qui plus habitus magis latet.

God is love, which the more is hidden the more we (believe to) have it.


9. Deus est cui soli praesens est quidquid cuius temporis est.

God is that, to whom all is present related to (all what belongs to) time.


10. Deus est cuius posse non numeratur, cuius esse non clauditur, cuius bonitas non terminatur.

God is that, whose ability (or competence) is not numbered, whose being is not limited, whose goodness is not terminated.


11. Deus est super ens, necesse, solus sibi abundanter, sufficienter.

God is above (or beyond) being, (is) necessary and by oneself being sufficient unto himself in abundance.


12. Deus est cuius voluntas deificae et potentiae et sapientiae adaequatur.

God is that, whose will equals (or is according) his divine power and wisdom.


13. Deus est sempiternitas agens in se, semper divisione et habitu.

God is working eternity by himself without division and (without having or gaining) an attribute (or feature).


14. Deus est oppositio nihil mediatione entis.

God is the opposition of nothing by means of being.


15. Deus est vita cuius via in formam est, in unitatem bonitas.

God is life, whose way into form is truth, (and whose way) into unity is goodness.


16. Deus est quod solum voces non significant propter excellentiam, nec mentes intelligunt propter dissimilitudinem.

God (is the) only one because of his excellence, who is not signed by words, and mind (creatures) do not recognise (him) caused by (their) dissimilarity.


17. Deus est intellectus sui solum, praedicationem non recipiens.

God is the concept (or notion) (derived) from himself alone not suffering (or tolerating) a(ny) predicate.


18. Deus est sphaera cuius tot sunt circumferentiae quod puncta.

God is the sphere having as much circumferences as points.


19. Deus est semper movens immobilis.

God is the immobile (but always) moved (one).


20. Deus est qui solus suo intellectu vivit.

God is (the only one) alone living from his self knowledge (or self - awareness).


21. Deus est tenebra in anima post omnem lucem relicta.

God is the darkness in the soul being left after all light.


22. Deus est ex quo est quicquid est non partitione, per quem est non variatione, in quo est quod est non commixtione.

God is (that), from which all is (or exists) that is (or exists) without (him) being divided (or splited); through him (all) is without (him) getting (or being) changed; in him (all) is without him getting (or being) mixed with it.


23. Deus est qui sola ignorantia mente cognoscitur.

God is that, which the mind only knows in ignorance (or in the state of not knowing).


24. Deus est lux quae fractione non clarescit, transit, sed sola deiformitas in re.

God is light, appearing as shine without refraction, permeating, but only (being) a divine formation in the things.





3You argue a bit like Socrates in this sense.

Thanks for the compliment.

My goodness gracious.

[-1-]

We are all philsophers, scientists, and religious as we all think, observe, and believe to some degree or another. To seperate them into categories (other than in the professional sense) is to divide not not only the human being but the human condition.
It is strange that you are unable to separate humans into categories. It is strange that you can't differentiate between a scientist and a philosopher. It is strange that you consider all and every person religious.

You can't differentiate between Aristotle's writings, a priest's sermon, and a scientific paper; only as professional opinions. Therefore you can't possibly imagine that QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCES make up QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES. I wish you were able to internalize the wrongness of your opinion on this.
Argument is the synthesis of definition and any failure in definition is fai[ure in argument./color]
The above is true. With this, therefore, you are rendering your own post (your first on this page or the preceding page) completely meaningless, as you started it with "Considering God is not defined,". This means that unless you define god, you are not talking about anything.

The book of the 24 philosophers:
The 24 definitions

You must have never read the book of the 256 philosophers. I did not, either, but your book of 24 philosophers is full of pious sermons, which here sub as definitions. I reject the validity of any of those definitions, on the basis of their being arbitrary, and as arbitrariness goes, I have an equally valid different arbitrary opinion.

[-1-]

3You argue a bit like Socrates in this sense.

Thanks for the compliment.

It was not a compliment. It was an insult. Socrates often and without remorse argued against good reason, and he never shied away from using fallacies. He was a dirty fighter, he hit below the belt.

I am not debating Socrates' genius here. Or yours. But I am likening you to him on the fact that you both like to cherry-pick definitions, and use faulty logic in order to win an argument.

[Eodnhoj7]

We are all philsophers, scientists, and religious as we all think, observe, and believe to some degree or another. To seperate them into categories (other than in the professional sense) is to divide not not only the human being but the human condition.
It is strange that you are unable to separate humans into categories. It is strange that you can't differentiate between a scientist and a philosopher. It is strange that you consider all and every person religious.

A career only makes weak men. Real men are not categorized by a career.

You can't differentiate between Aristotle's writings, a priest's sermon, and a scientific paper; only as professional opinions. Therefore you can't possibly imagine that QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCES make up QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES. I wish you were able to internalize the wrongness of your opinion on this.

What is number (quantity), but a quality of spatial dimensions?

Argument is the synthesis of definition and any failure in definition is fai[ure in argument./color]
The above is true. With this, therefore, you are rendering your own post (your first on this page or the preceding page) completely meaningless, as you started it with "Considering God is not defined,". This means that unless you define god, you are not talking about anything.

Infinity is numberless number. (structu
https://www.bing.com/search?q=infinity+ ... 32FA4DF79A

Why can't God be definitionless definition?



The book of the 24 philosophers:
The 24 definitions

You must have never read the book of the 256 philosophers. I did not, either, but your book of 24 philosophers is full of pious sermons, which here sub as definitions. I reject the validity of any of those definitions, on the basis of their being arbitrary, and as arbitrariness goes, I have an equally valid different arbitrary opinion.

The influence of this work on medieval scholarship and literature has revealed traces of its ideas among the works of Jean de Meung, Dante, Meister Eckhart, Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, Robert Fludd, Pascal, Leibniz.[1]
*****Leibniz was one of the men who was involved in developing some of the calculus we "quantify" the world with today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_t ... ilosophers

A sub definition is still a definition.

You reject it because it is arbitrary, yet "have an equally valid different arbitrary opinion". You are not rejecting my argument, you are rejecting your own.

[Eodnhoj7]

3You argue a bit like Socrates in this sense.

Thanks for the compliment.

It was not a compliment. It was an insult. Socrates often and without remorse argued against good reason, and he never shied away from using fallacies. He was a dirty fighter, he hit below the belt.

I am not debating Socrates' genius here. Or yours. But I am likening you to him on the fact that you both like to cherry-pick definitions, and use faulty logic in order to win an argument.

Stop it...you are making me blush.

[-1-]

What is number (quantity), but a quality of spatial dimensions?

Not a statement. Ergo, not an argument.

A career only makes weak men. Real men are not categorized by a career.

True Scotsman fallacy.

The influence of this work on medieval scholarship and literature has revealed traces of its ideas among the works of Jean de Meung, Dante, Meister Eckhart, Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, Robert Fludd, Pascal, Leibniz.[1]
*****Leibniz was one of the men who was involved in developing some of the calculus we "quantify" the world with today.

Ad hominem fallacy.

If you have nothing to add to the discussion, then why do you keep talking, Johndoe7? This is not an argument, but a genuine question. Please answer it if you feel like it. But don't waste my time please, and that of the other readers, by posting meaningless illogical statements. This practice is not worthy of you or of the site, and it insults the intelligence of your readers.

[-1-]

JohnDoe7 (backwards) wrote: ""You reject it because it is arbitrary, yet "have an equally valid different arbitrary opinion". You are not rejecting my argument, you are rejecting your own.""

No, Sir. Or Madam. I am rejecting your argument, and you are rejecting mine, based on the assumptions of the premisses (each other's premisses). We both have the right to reject an arbitrary definition as a premise. Neither of us is bound to accept the other's. And that's exactly what happened.

I keep mine, and I am not rejecting it; and you keep yours and you are not rejecting it. We are rejecting each other's with equal validity.

Please keep your references straight.