I'm a Theist

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:30 pm
Age wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:15 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:04 pm
You should. And if you don't, I'm not arguing with you. The link is. Deal with the data, or don't.
What 'data'?
The link. It provides the argument.

If you have nothing to say in specific refutation of its argument, you have nothing to say on the subject.

Fair enough.
If you can not or will not provide the argument here, in the OPEN for all to look at and see, so then we can discuss whatever "argument" you are referring to, then 'you' have nothing to say on the subject.

I am CERTAINLY NOT going to start now imagining and ASSUMING what "argument" you BELIEVE 'you' can see, and then start refuting 'that' (whatever 'that' may be).
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9092
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:33 pm I am CERTAINLY NOT going to start now imagining and ASSUMING what "argument" you BELIEVE 'you' can see.
You don't have to. Read the article, and you'll get it.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3211
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:42 am
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:22 am I have an argument against the act of creation: The act of creation out of nothing means that there was a point that only God existed and then there is another point that God and creation exist. This requires time since one point follows another and there is a duration between two points, no matter how small. Time, however, is part of creation. This means that you need time for the creation of time which is regress.
So let's see if I can figure out how you find this argument to work.

You suppose that a) time is a feature of creation...I'm not sure how you come to that, but okay.
I have two arguments here: 1) Time is real and allows changes and 2) Time cannot be eternal so it has a beginning.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:42 am b) you can use "time" to refer to the period before time was created? :shock: I'm not sure how you get that, but okay.
I have an argument that shows the act of creation is temporal, my previous post in this thread.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:42 am c) this somehow implicates a "regress"?
Yes. The act of creation is temporal. Time has a beginning. Therefore, you need time for creation of time.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:42 am Maybe you could fill that out a bit for me...it seems like a possible critique of Unitarianism, if it were fixed up a bit. But I'm not even quite sure about that...I'm going to have to wait for the clearer explanation before I could comment.
I hope it is clear now. I would provide my arguments on each part if you wish.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9092
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:22 pm I have two arguments here: 1) Time is real and allows changes
So far, so good...I don't know anyone who would contest that.
and 2) Time cannot be eternal so it has a beginning.
I'm not sure about that, because I don't quite know why you say it. Not that I think time does not have a beginning, but it doesn't look to me like my reasons for saying so are the same as yours might be. So I'l take you up, if you don't mind, on your generous offer to explain your arguments on that.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:42 am b) you can use "time" to refer to the period before time was created? :shock: I'm not sure how you get that, but okay.
I have an argument that shows the act of creation is temporal, my previous post in this thread.
That's obviously problematic, though. If "time" is the thing being created, how can it take "time" to do it? Because that would mean that time had to exist before time existed...which seems tautological. So again, perhaps you'd be so good as to spell that out better for me.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:42 am c) this somehow implicates a "regress"?
Yes. The act of creation is temporal. Time has a beginning. Therefore, you need time for creation of time.
But where's the "regress" there? I'm not seeing it yet. I perceive a contradiction, but no regress.

Thanks for anything you can add to clear this up for me.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:38 pm
Age wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:33 pm I am CERTAINLY NOT going to start now imagining and ASSUMING what "argument" you BELIEVE 'you' can see.
You don't have to. Read the article, and you'll get it.
If you can not or will not provide the argument here, in the OPEN for all to look at and see, so then we can discuss whatever "argument" you are referring to, then 'you' have nothing to say on the subject.

I am CERTAINLY NOT going to start now imagining and ASSUMING what "argument" you BELIEVE 'you' can see, and then start refuting 'that' (whatever 'that' may be).
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:22 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:42 am
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:22 am I have an argument against the act of creation: The act of creation out of nothing means that there was a point that only God existed and then there is another point that God and creation exist. This requires time since one point follows another and there is a duration between two points, no matter how small. Time, however, is part of creation. This means that you need time for the creation of time which is regress.
So let's see if I can figure out how you find this argument to work.

You suppose that a) time is a feature of creation...I'm not sure how you come to that, but okay.
I have two arguments here: 1) Time is real and allows changes and 2) Time cannot be eternal so it has a beginning.
Can I see these two "arguments"?
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:22 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:42 am b) you can use "time" to refer to the period before time was created? :shock: I'm not sure how you get that, but okay.
I have an argument that shows the act of creation is temporal, my previous post in this thread.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:42 am c) this somehow implicates a "regress"?
Yes. The act of creation is temporal. Time has a beginning. Therefore, you need time for creation of time.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:42 am Maybe you could fill that out a bit for me...it seems like a possible critique of Unitarianism, if it were fixed up a bit. But I'm not even quite sure about that...I'm going to have to wait for the clearer explanation before I could comment.
I hope it is clear now. I would provide my arguments on each part if you wish.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9092
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:05 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:38 pm
Age wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:33 pm I am CERTAINLY NOT going to start now imagining and ASSUMING what "argument" you BELIEVE 'you' can see.
You don't have to. Read the article, and you'll get it.
If you can not or will not provide the argument here...
Can't read, eh? You're right: that is a problem. Can't fix it for you, though. :wink:
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:45 am
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:05 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:38 pm
You don't have to. Read the article, and you'll get it.
If you can not or will not provide the argument here...
Can't read, eh? You're right: that is a problem. Can't fix it for you, though. :wink:
Causality was obviously NOT created out of nothing. Just as obvious is causality ALWAYS exists.

The funniest part of this IS; When this is LOOK AT properly and correctly, then this actually PROVES what 'you' have been and are so desperately 'trying to' PROVE, which is; Just HOW God created Everything.

Also what else that comes to light and is REVEALED IS; who and what 'God' actually IS also.

What is absolutely hilarious IS; the link that you provided, which you BELIEVE is an argument, actually works AGAINST what you WANT to PROVE is True. But, what I am saying actually aligns WITH, and PROVES True, God as thee Creator.

But considering 'you' have SHOWN that 'you' are NOT interested in bringing any thing forward to LOOK AT and DISCUSS, and that you obviously prefer to just LOOK AT 'me' the person, see me as being disabled, and also prefer to attempt to ridicule 'me' as being not able to read, as though this was some sort of excuse for your lack of action here, then all of this says far more about 'you' than it does 'Me'.

I have thee PROOF 'you' WANT and have been LOOKING FOR. But if you are NOT prepared to cooperate, and be forthcoming, then so be it. I have absolutely NOTHING to worry nor care about. I also have NOTHING to prove to me also.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9092
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 5:06 am But considering 'you' have SHOWN that 'you' are NOT interested in bringing any thing forward to LOOK AT and DISCUSS, and that you obviously prefer to just LOOK AT 'me' the person, see me as being disabled, and also prefer to attempt to ridicule 'me' as being not able to read, as though this was some sort of excuse for your lack of action here, then all of this says far more about 'you' than it does 'Me'.
This is the interesting part of your message.

I can see you think my interest in your identity is for some bad reason. It's not. I'm trying to figure out what consideration you warrant, and how to -- so to speak -- speak in the language you understand. It's clear we're missing each other, because the conversation is unfocused and unduly prickly. I'm trying to do something to make it better.

You're "disabled," you say: how? How does one make allowances for this particular issue you have? It makes a big difference what it is. Is it a communication disorder? A cognitive disorder? A developmental disorder? A physical disorder? Is it biochemical? Is it an educational problem? Is it mere lack of age or experience? Or is it a character and behavioural issue, like Oppositional-Defiant Disorder? One doesn't respond to any two of these the same. Absent knowing, it's impossible for me to know what consideration you need.

But I can see you're too mistrustful to be frank, and don't want me to guess, so we are at an impasse -- I have no basis for conclusions but that your communication style is not polite or focused. And that could be the product of legitimate disability, or just of flawed character. Who's to know?

Either way, there's no productive way forward in discussion so long as we don't understand one another.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4240
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by attofishpi »

lol

Get a fuckin room...it takes a shit load of suffering to under_stand Christ.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:14 pm
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 5:06 am But considering 'you' have SHOWN that 'you' are NOT interested in bringing any thing forward to LOOK AT and DISCUSS, and that you obviously prefer to just LOOK AT 'me' the person, see me as being disabled, and also prefer to attempt to ridicule 'me' as being not able to read, as though this was some sort of excuse for your lack of action here, then all of this says far more about 'you' than it does 'Me'.
This is the interesting part of your message.

I can see you think my interest in your identity is for some bad reason.
Are you absolutely STUPID or are you just TRYING your hardest to deflect? Or, are you just completely and utterly BLINDED by your own ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS?

When did I EVER think you being interested in my AGE is for some bad reason? Also, you were interested in my AGE and NOT in my identity, which can be PROVEN if we were to LOOK BACK throughout our discussions?

What do you now propose you have done to show interest supposedly in my "identity?"
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:14 pm It's not. I'm trying to figure out what consideration you warrant, and how to -- so to speak -- speak in the language you understand. It's clear we're missing each other, because the conversation is unfocused and unduly prickly.
But you are WRONG, once again. I am NOT missing 'you' at all.

Have a look back at our discussion. I have POINTED OUT and SHOWN 'you' for what 'you' REALLY ARE.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:14 pm I'm trying to do something to make it better.
You can LIE to "yourself" for as long as you want, but it is not going to help you.

I already asked you to provide examples of how you would speak to me differently if you KNEW my age. You, once again, did NOT provide any thing at all. What do you think you could do make 'it' better?

Here is a suggestion for you to make 'it' BETTER.
1. Answer my clarifying questions DIRECTLY?
2. Ask me clarifying questions.
3. Challenge me on what I say, like I do on what you say.
4. STOP looking at me on a personal level and just stay concentrating on the actual WORDS and MEANINGS behind those WORDS that are IN FRONT OF 'you'.
5. If, and when, you CLAIM some thing to be true, have at least SOME thing that you could use for evidence and proof for that CLAIM.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:14 pmYou're "disabled," you say: how?
Did I? Whereabouts, what did I say?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:14 pm How does one make allowances for this particular issue you have? It makes a big difference what it is. Is it a communication disorder? A cognitive disorder? A developmental disorder? A physical disorder? Is it biochemical? Is it an educational problem? Is it mere lack of age or experience? Or is it a character and behavioural issue, like Oppositional-Defiant Disorder? One doesn't respond to any two of these the same. Absent knowing, it's impossible for me to know what consideration you need.
Once again, ALL of this is an attempt to DEFLECT from the issues I have been POINTING OUT and SHOWING, which you have been 'trying' your hardest to ignore and deflect away from.

Is this your ONLY way you can 'try to' deflect away from the issue here, WHICH IS;

Causality ALWAYS exists, and did NOT start as you CLAIM it did.

Seriously how hard is to stay on this?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:14 pmBut I can see you're too mistrustful to be frank, and don't want me to guess, so we are at an impasse -- I have no basis for conclusions but that your communication style is not polite or focused.
This coming from the one who WILL NOT answer any clarifying question at all. This is a philosophy forum. If you find concentrating on 'trying' all 'you' can make the "other" look less than 'you' far more important than just discussing the points raised here, then so be it. you are FREE to do absolutely any thing you want to do here.

But you CLAIM that causality began, so I would LOVE to see you 'try' to PROVE this.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:14 pm And that could be the product of legitimate disability, or just of flawed character. Who's to know?
LOL "legitimate disability", and "flawed character" you will NOT stop 'trying to' make 'you' appear more capable or more superior than the "other", will you?

How about, instead, just 'trying to' prove what 'you' CLAIM is even possible, let alone even true? Or, how about PROVING what I say is WRONG, instead of just saying IT IS WRONG?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:14 pmEither way, there's no productive way forward in discussion so long as we don't understand one another.
But that is the main thing here I understand 'you' PERFECTLY. I KNOW how 'you' work and WHY 'you' are the way you ARE.

This HOW and WHY I KNOW 'you' can NOT do nor prove any thing 'you' CLAIM here.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:27 pm lol

Get a fuckin room...it takes a shit load of suffering to under_stand Christ.
Does one HAVE TO 'suffer' to understand "christ"?

If yes, then does one HAVE TO 'suffer' more to understand God, or is the same amount of 'suffering' NEEDED to understand both of "them"?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4240
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by attofishpi »

Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:55 pm
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:27 pm lol

Get a fuckin room...it takes a shit load of suffering to under_stand Christ.
Does one HAVE TO 'suffer' to understand "christ"?
As far as I am aware, yes - and to the level of Christ's suffering...and more.
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:55 pmIf yes, then does one HAVE TO 'suffer' more to understand God, or is the same amount of 'suffering' NEEDED to understand both of "them"?
No you stupid c@nt - Christ IS God.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:19 pm
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:55 pm
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:27 pm lol

Get a fuckin room...it takes a shit load of suffering to under_stand Christ.
Does one HAVE TO 'suffer' to understand "christ"?
As far as I am aware, yes - and to the level of Christ's suffering...and more.
In a sense, this is exactly what I think also.
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:55 pmIf yes, then does one HAVE TO 'suffer' more to understand God, or is the same amount of 'suffering' NEEDED to understand both of "them"?
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:19 pmNo you stupid c@nt - Christ IS God.
Oh okay. So, that human being who was walking and talking about 2000 years ago what God, Itself, to you, correct?

Also, is EVERY one who does NOT see things EXACTLY the SAME way that you do, like for example see "christ" IS God, then are ALL of them also "stupid cunts" as well?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4240
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by attofishpi »

Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:28 pm
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:19 pm
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:55 pm

Does one HAVE TO 'suffer' to understand "christ"?
As far as I am aware, yes - and to the level of Christ's suffering...and more.
In a sense, this is exactly what I think also.
Oh.. how should I tread now?
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:55 pmIf yes, then does one HAVE TO 'suffer' more to understand God, or is the same amount of 'suffering' NEEDED to understand both of "them"?
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:19 pmNo you stupid c@nt - Christ IS God.
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:28 pmOh okay. So, that human being who was walking and talking about 2000 years ago what God, Itself, to you, correct?
Er yes.
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:55 pmAlso, is EVERY one who does NOT see things EXACTLY the SAME way that you do, like for example see "christ" IS God, then are ALL of them also "stupid cunts" as well?
If they didn't suffer for the know_ledge of the Truth to become SAGE....er yes. C@NTS all the way to the blocks.

If you are not willing to kneel to my Lord or comprehend WHY he suffered, then fuck off to atheism and never know the Truth.
Post Reply