Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:05 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:33 am
Were we not discussing your BELIEF that; 'God is an impossibility to be real', and I have been asking you what is the definition that you want to use, or impute, for the word 'God' here, which I have yet to fully ascertain?
If we were discussing these, then WHY now start discussing other matters?
For example; Where did this absurd notion that I am a realist come from, which then led you to start and begin discussing these completely off topic issues here now?
Why the continual misrepresentations of what I have just been actually saying, and then you trying to defeat said misrepresentations?
Why NOT just stick with the issue that I have been pointing out?
Note the definition of God as defined by theist in the thread;
I will move onto that, but first I want to point out that you quote what I wrote BUT completely and utterly dismissed and rejected all of it, and start off with "Note the ....", of which is some thing you have said previously.
Are you at all aware of how often you do this?
Okay. NOTED. But I also NOTED that you still insist it is how it is defined by theist.
Now, what i want to KNOW, is this the (definition of) God, which you say is an impossibility to real?
If yes, then it appears strange to me that you use a definition that starts off with; "The real God..." By definition, the word 'real' means that it is not an impossibility at all.
But, if you want to proceed with a definition like; 'God is a Being than which no greater can be conceived', and you want to argue that this God is an impossibility to be real, then great. Let us begin.
If, however, this is NOT the God, which you say is an impossibility to be real, then what is the definition that you want to give, impute, or use for the word 'God', which you then say is an impossibility to be real?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:05 amThe above encompasses all other definitions of God by theists, i.e. ontological, cosmological, theological, creator, omnipotent, omni-whatever.
Okay, if you say so.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:05 amYes, the argument therein is based on my own BELIEFs which are rationally, logically and solidly justified.
They may be rational, logical, and solidly justified, TO YOU, but that in no way means nor even infers that they are actually rational, logical, and solidly justified at all.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:05 am
Btw, note the various counters raised against my premises in that thread and I have recountered all of them.
I did NOT note them, because I am NOT going through them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:05 amShow me something new where any of my premise is wrong?
I am NOT going back and forth to another thread to show you something new where any of your premises are wrong, and going back and forth to another thread to counter and re-counter things here.
If you can not write things down here in a new thread and new discussion, then we can leave it if you like.
Look at how long it has taken to get you to provide just one definition for the word 'God', and this is without going back and forth to any thing else.
Also, you are still yet to clarify IF the definition you gave in this post is the actual one that you want to stick with and thus are going to use.
By the way if you would like to write down your premises in clear distinct point form here, then I will see if I can counter them or not for you.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:05 amI have NEVER claimed any thing as a 'realist'.
If you are not a philosophical realist than what is your position?
I have NO set position in things like that. If I did, then I would NOT be OPEN, and I want to ALWAYS remain OPEN.
If I have a position, then it is in the OPEN position and NOT in the CLOSED position.
What is your position?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:05 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
- In metaphysics, realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
Theism is at the extreme end of philosophical realism, i.e. God and objects are
ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc
Are you then a philosophical anti-realist?
You can not be, because generally the philosophical anti-realist beliefs is the opposite of philosophical realism, i.e.
-God is invented by human mind, not independent beings.
-Objects are not independent of human mind, rather object are interdependent with human minds.
Again, you are going off in this tangent on some issue that was not even being discussed previously here in this thread. Why do you do this?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:05 amDon't be the usual coward, explain your stance precisely in relation to God and reality.
My "stance" precisely in relation to 'God' and 'reality' IS I am OPEN to any and EVERY thing. So, when a statement or proposition is made as though it is an irrefutable fact, then I will usually just ask a clarifying question first, to just ascertain what is the definition that they are 'imputing' for the words that they use in their claim.
And then I will see what transpires.
Therefore, I have NO 'stance' that is unchangeable, BUT from what I have observed what I now view IS, is that 'God' is real, and that 'reality' is what 'we' make happen or make come into existence.
Also, accusing "another" of being some thing, and only then asking them to provide their "stance" or 'view', may seem somewhat very hypocritical especially considering how long it has taken you to explain your stance precisely on some thing, which you have not yet defined at all.
I already KNOW your stance precisely in relation to 'God is an impossibility to be real', although I am still unsure of exactly what your stance is in relation to what 'God' IS precisely. So, if we want to use your logic, and you do not want to be the 'usual coward', then explain your stance on what 'God' is precisely? And after you show us that, and you want to continue on your terms of not being the 'usual coward', then, if you like, you can start explaining what is your stance precisely in relation to 'reality' as well?