resolving god

[Advocate]

[quote=Lacewing post_id=504037 time=1616599849 user_id=11228]
[quote=Advocate post_id=504035 time=1616599066 user_id=15238]
Change is the universal substrate of the universe. If something looks like it isn't changing, you're not looking close enough or long enough.
[/quote]
Based on everything we can see, it does indeed appear and make sense that EVERYTHING is in motion, evolving and expanding or contracting. Nothing is solid or stays the same. So, ideas that are fixated on beliefs of rigid, unchanging truths/realities/entities, seem based on man's need for something solid to build his beliefs on... and to claim that he "knows".
[/quote]

That's why all uses of knowledge or certainty are Enough for a given purpose.

[Age]

Of course. From my perspective, we each express ideas from our unique and limited perspectives. I do not believe my perspectives are an ultimate static truth.

Great. Will you now also openly admit that it could in fact be possible for a human being to discover, arrive at, and/or come to define/know an 'ultimate static truth'?

I don't believe there is an ultimate static truth.

And thank you for expressing your view here very clearly.

[Age]

Change is the universal substrate of the universe. If something looks like it isn't changing, you're not looking close enough or long enough.

Based on everything we can see, it does indeed appear and make sense that EVERYTHING is in motion, evolving and expanding or contracting. Nothing is solid or stays the same.

And could this be a 'ultimate static truth'?

Or, is your idea, which is fixated on your belief that there is no 'ultimate static truth', still hold true to you?

So, ideas that are fixated on beliefs of rigid, unchanging truths/realities/entities, seem based on man's need for something solid to build his beliefs on... and to claim that he "knows".

Some are seeing, and saying, that your own idea that there is no 'ultimate static truth', appears to be fixated on your belief of a rigid and unchanging truth or reality, that is; there is NO 'ultimate static truth', which also seems to be based on your own need for something to build your other beliefs upon, which, by the way, you claim to 'know'.

In other words, what you believe is true, and claim to know, and which is a fixed and thus unchanging belief to you is that there is NO 'ultimate static truth'.

This, by the way, if any one looks deeply into and at is a PRIME EXAMPLE of what an 'ultimate static truth' actually is.

[Age]

"Is there a god?" may seem to be a metaphysical question but it can only be answered epistemologically. Whether there is a god is of little interest when the ability to prove it is non-existent.

The only reason a human being is not able to prove some 'thing', like God, is only because they have not yet defined that 'thing'.

If you first define 'God', then proving Its existence, or not, is an extremely simple and easy exercise to do.

And, if you want proof for this claim, then just, simply, define the word 'God'.

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=504269 time=1616728919 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502422 time=1615813260 user_id=15238]
"Is there a god?" may seem to be a metaphysical question but it can only be answered epistemologically. Whether there is a god is of little interest when the ability to prove it is non-existent.
[/quote]

The only reason a human being is not able to prove some 'thing', like God, is only because they have not yet defined that 'thing'.

If you first define 'God', then proving Its existence, or not, is an extremely simple and easy exercise to do.

And, if you want proof for this claim, then just, simply, define the word 'God'.
[/quote]

#igtheism

[Skepdick]

#igtheism

As a general strategy for shutting down debate you can literally employ this to anything.

Igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

Igsistence is the idea that the question of the existence of anything is meaningless because the word "existence" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

Incoherence and ambiguity is a property of all language and all words. To seek for the "precise and unambiguous meaning of words" is to fall for the delusion that words have precise and unambiguous denotation. That's the religion of Symbolism.

[Lacewing]

Change is the universal substrate of the universe. If something looks like it isn't changing, you're not looking close enough or long enough.

Based on everything we can see, it does indeed appear and make sense that EVERYTHING is in motion, evolving and expanding or contracting. Nothing is solid or stays the same.

And could this be a 'ultimate static truth'?

No.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=504452 time=1616841744 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=504273 time=1616733512 user_id=15238]
#igtheism
[/quote]
As a general strategy for shutting down debate you can literally employ this to anything.

Igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

Igsistence is the idea that the question of the existence of anything is meaningless because the word "existence" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

Incoherence and ambiguity is a property of all language and all words. To seek for the "precise and unambiguous meaning of words" is to fall for the delusion that words have precise and unambiguous denotation. That's the religion of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol]Symbolism[/url].
[/quote]

No. Existence proves itself every moment to everyone. This is the direct opposite of god. Apparently you understand neither if you can conflate them so easily. There is a central point of agreement about existence that underlies literally everything we do. God is just a lie that used to be an excuse after it was an explanation.

[Skepdick]

No. Existence proves itself every moment to everyone.

Really? How does "existence" prove itself to you?

Existence has proven itself to me exactly as much as God has proven itself to me.

This is the direct opposite of god. Apparently you understand neither if you can conflate them so easily. There is a central point of agreement about existence that underlies literally everything we do. God is just a lie that used to be an excuse after it was an explanation.

I sure understand that from the view-point of ignosticism/igsistence "God" and "Existence" are equally meaningless terms, despite your efforts to make it otherwise.

You've just replaced one mystical word for another and you've declared yourself different to theists. You are doing exactly the same thing they are doing!

Existence is just a lie that used to be an excuse after it was an explanation.


Words, words, words. Empty symbols.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=504469 time=1616853445 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=504466 time=1616852228 user_id=15238]
No. Existence proves itself every moment to everyone.
[/quote]
Really? How does "existence" prove itself to you?

Existence has proven itself to me exactly as much as God has proven itself to me.

[quote=Advocate post_id=504466 time=1616852228 user_id=15238]
This is the direct opposite of god. Apparently you understand neither if you can conflate them so easily. There is a central point of agreement about existence that underlies literally everything we do. God is just a lie that used to be an excuse after it was an explanation.
[/quote]
I sure understand that from the view-point of ignosticism/igsistence "God" and "Existence" are equally meaningless terms, despite your efforts to make it otherwise.

You've just replaced one mystical word for another and you've declared yourself different to theists. You are doing exactly the same thing they are doing!

Existence is just a lie that used to be an excuse after it was an explanation.


Words, words, words. Empty symbols.
[/quote]

Not when most people use them, only unabashed skeptics.

[Skepdick]

Not when most people use them, only unabashed skeptics.

Translation: My words are thpethial. When I use the word "existence" it's not empty, but when theists use the word "God" it's totally empty. My words are the bestest words!

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=504527 time=1616875355 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=504523 time=1616874558 user_id=15238]
Not when most people use them, only unabashed skeptics.
[/quote]
Translation: My words are thpethial. When I use the word "existence" it's not empty, but when theists use the word "God" it's totally empty. My words are the bestest words!
[/quote]

Words are descriptive. Existence is our experience of everything. God is decriptive of an idea with no variable existence. You go on and believe whatever you want but you can't sit at the adult table. K?

[Age]

Based on everything we can see, it does indeed appear and make sense that EVERYTHING is in motion, evolving and expanding or contracting. Nothing is solid or stays the same.

And could this be a 'ultimate static truth'?

No.

And why not?

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=504532 time=1616878254 user_id=16237]
[quote=Lacewing post_id=504463 time=1616849454 user_id=11228]
[quote=Age post_id=504268 time=1616728475 user_id=16237]


And could this be a 'ultimate static truth'?[/quote]
No.
[/quote]

And why not?
[/quote]

A truth is a perspective, an instance of Truth. The Truth is truth that continuously replicates. "Change is the universal substrate of the universe" continuously replicates. Knowledge is justified belief pointing towards a particular truth/ fact.

[Skepdick]

Words are descriptive.

Your words maybe. Mine are deliberate.

Existence is our experience of everything. God is decriptive of an idea with no variable existence. You go on and believe whatever you want but you can't sit at the adult table. K?

For as long as you keep using your words to "describe" stuff instead of express yourself you are stuck at the kiddies table.

You know where the adults sit. Come over when you are ready.