Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:09 pm
Instead of TRYING TO define some thing from "another's" perspective how about you just define things from 'your' own perspective only, which is what I been asking for anyway.
You wrote: (btw, God is an impossibility to be real)
I wrote: If you say so. Is that an absolute irrefutable True fact, to you?
You wrote: It is not a fact. It is via reason, i.e. a God [imperative definition] cannot be real.
I wrote: To you, what is the imperative definition for the word 'God'?
Now, if you provide what 'YOUR' definition for the word 'God', then we can keep discussing this properly.
How can present my own definition for a God when I believe God is an impossibility.
Very ,easily just present your own definition of what a 'God' IS. It is NOT that hard at all REALLY. But considering you asked; " How could you present some thing when you BELIEVE some thing contrary?" then this goes straight to what I have been pointing out. That is; You are completely and utterly incapable of SEEING any thing other than what you already BELIEVE is true and right. In other words. I can NOT show any thing to you which could prove your BELIEF wrong because you are NOT open to any thing other than your own BELIEF, which from your perspective is 100% absolutely True, Right, and Correct. You ALSO totally incapable of even you presenting absolutely any thing at all that opposes your own BELIEFS. You are so stuck in 'confirmation biases' that you can not even come up with any thing yourself that opposes your own BELIEF.
You are a prime example of what my whole point revolves around.
Until you provide YOUR definition for the word 'God', then the crux of what you write is;
I BELIEVE some thing is an impossibility, but what that some thing is that I am actually talking about I have absolutely NO idea nor clue about at all.
Well done. You have proved, and have said, absolutely NOTHING at all here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amThe most I can do is to understand the theists' definition of their God, in this case their best definition as I had presented above.
If that is the "most" you can do, then that is all you can only really do.
Tell me, did you hear me when I previously said;
'I have already said that the definition that you provided can be shown to be True, Right, and Justified. But if you want to now say that that is not your personal imperative definition of 'God', then what shall we now do?'
If yes, then what now?
If you have NOT heard me, then why not?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amThe cruder definition of God is 'God is that bearded man in the sky' etc.
Now that is the version told to children, usually through cartoons, and closely aligns to the other LIE that you adult human beings tell your children.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amUpon queried upon for justifications, the theists' definition has been refined from polytheism to monotheism to the one I had presented above.
And, upon queried for YOUR definition/justification of what you say, you are completely and utterly incapable of doing so.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 amOK, if theists defined their God as created all and enable salvation for all, then yes, from their perspective, salvation is for all.
But my point is that not all theists define the God as creator include the the salvation element in their definition.
So, WHY did you say you are defining the word 'God' from the theist's perspective IF you know admit and say that NOT all theists define 'God' that way?
Also, who cares what some "other" people say and how they define things? You are the one making claims, so I want to KNOW how YOU are defining things. I have already said that the definition that you provided can be shown to be True, Right, and Justified. But if you want to now say that that is not your personal imperative definition of 'God', then what shall we now do?
Btw, the definition of God I presented as defined by theists is the most refined is only 'right' as inferred by the theists reasoning [albeit crude] based on their own limited conditions and arguments.
You REALLY do have an inability to HEAR.
That definition is OBVIOUSLY not the most refined definition of and for the word 'God'.
And, if the definition you gave is only 'right' as inferred by the theists reasoning, then what is the definition YOU give, which is only "right" by your reasoning that God is an impossibility to be real? Is YOUR reasoning also based on your own limited conditions and arguments?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amNote my analogy of how a child would define Santa Claus as real relative to the child's cognitive and reasoning power.
You use the word 'note' as though you have some ALL-KNOWING, IRREFUTABLE information that you are passing on.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amBut Santa Claus cannot be real when subjected to the requirement of a higher degree of proofs and justification.
However we can explain how the child would come to their own conclusion with conviction, i.e. it is all psychological.
The reason WHY santa claus is REAL to children is because you adults LIE to them. Children had NO previous reason to NOT believe what you tell them. That is the reason WHY children do such things. Surely that still does NOT need to be explained to 'you', adult human beings, does it?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amThe above is the same with explaining how theists define their God as 'real' but such a claim failed when subjected to a higher level of reasoning, proofs and justifications.
I have explain the fundamental basis why theists define their God as real is psychological.
So, to you, is the fundamental basis WHY you can NOT define YOUR God as any thing, is 'psychological' also?
Are you aware that EVERY thought and emotion IS psychological. The fundamental definition for 'psychological' IS thought and emotion.
You really are so distorted and twisted.
I have already said: The definition that you have provided can be shown to be True, Right, and Justified. But this 'falls on completely deaf ears'. WHY does this fall on deaf ears? This is because YOUR BELIEFS are so strong that you are completely incapable of even hearing things now.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
No, this is fundamental, critical and the ground in my discussion of theism.
Okay, so you say that when I read the scriptures of ALL the mainstream religions, including the religion and belief in buddhism, I can infer such things. So what?
Do you have any actual point for this?
I claimed when you read all the scriptures of ALL the mainstream religions effectively you will understand the core intent of these religion are to deal with the existential crisis. Didn't you get it?
I KNOW what you have claimed. That is why I asked; So what? Are you aware that by just repeating the exact same claim is getting nowhere. If, however, you answered my actual question, then we move forward.
Do you get and understand that there is and was NO 'existential crisis' to "deal" with at all, in the beginning?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amI stated the Christianity and Islam represented more than 60% of theists is about salvation and the eternal life, re John 3:16 and it very explicit in the Quran.
And I have also stated previously then when you are just making up some figures, and proposing that as though it has any actual truth to it and that you actually have any know-how about what you are talking about, then this is just as ridiculous and absurd as the other things that you are trying to say and claim here.
Did you get this this time?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amThe core of Buddhism is also an existential issue as reflected in the Buddha Story re the subliminal fear of mortality via the point of 'old age' 'illness' 'death [corpse] and how to deal with the fear arising from these existential issues.
Have you heard that I do NOT have an 'existential crisis' NOR 'fear of death', like buddha did and like you do?
When 'you' learn NOT to fear any thing, then 'you' do NOT need such stories as buddhas. Do you understand?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amYou do NOT need to know any point I make, fundamental or not. To clarify ACCURATELY my clarifying questions all you have to do is to just answer my questions OPENLY and HONESTLY.
By the way if you do not understand my fundamental point, then what exactly do you want me to do. IF you do not understand some thing, but you really wanted to, then you would do some thing about it. I certainly do NOT know what you want from me if you do not ask for any thing.
Btw, you are at fault because you have not made your beliefs clearly but beat around the bush.
Tell me this; Can you read and understand the words following this question?
I do NOT have any beliefs, therefore I can NOT make my "beliefs" clear.
Did you see, hear, get, and understand, this?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amYou should be bold and declare your belief openly, like;
- I am a theist or whatever
I define God as ...
So, you want me to define 'God' as .... Yet you admit that you are totally incapable of doing so yourself, correct?
By the way 'I' do NOT follower nor belong to any 'ism', like 'you' do. So, I can not declare that 'I am .... [any of these human being made up concepts].
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amInstead you are asking me to define 'God' when I am not-a-theist.
When you STOP saying that 'God' is an impossibility, THEN I will STOP asking you to define what you are actually talking about. Understood?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
Yes, BELIEVE, but I have provided rational arguments to support my point, note,
But, to me, you have NOT provide rational arguments at all to support your point, whatever your actual point is that you are 'trying to' make.
From my perspective you are only providing so called "rational arguments" that just support your own ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.
You are exposing your ignorance on the subject of knowledge.
How else do philosophers do philosophy and scientists do science?
If you say so, then it MUST BE. Therefore, I MUST BE ignorant on the 'subject of knowledge', which would then infer that you are NOT ignorant on the 'subject of knowledge' correct?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amTake Einstein for example.
Einstein initially provided 'rational arguments' for his own 'already held beliefs' with his personal conviction i.e. his theory of gravity. At this point this is only a belief and nothing more.
When Einstein beliefs were accepted by other scientists, it is recognized as a scientific theory [on paper only].
Subsequently when the accepted theories are proven with empirical evidence, the theory became Scientific Knowledge limited by conditions of the scientific framework.
It is the same with my personal belief of how theists came about to believe in an illusory God.
I have provided the necessary rational arguments to justify my hypothesis which is alignment with various philosophy [Buddhism, Hinduism, and the likes] plus philosophers like Kant, Hume and others.
You have not provided any counters to my rational arguments.
This is because you have NOT provided any 'rational' arguments at all, just like I have been saying. All you are doing is providing, to me, 'irrational' arguments, to support your already held beliefs.
Whenever you become interested in some thing other than your own obviously, to me, distorted beliefs, then you will hear what I have been saying, which IS; When you STOP assuming and believing things, prior to LOOKING AT things, then you will SEE and KNOW the actual and real Truth of things. Now this is HOW the True, Right, and Correct is obtained.
Also, being Truly OPEN allows you to SEE and OBTAIN this kind of knowledge almost instantaneously.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amI have also linked my arguments to actual experiences of my own and reported by others.
But most of your so called "arguments" are invalid anyway, so there is NO need to look any further.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
I have NEVER provided one because NO one has shown any real interest in knowing it.
Most people like you just BELIEVE things, and thus, like you, are NOT open to listening and learning more and anew.
In order to provide an argument, to you, for some thing, then I NEED to KNOW what your definition you have for things. Therefore, in order to be able to provide an argument that 'God' is possible to be real to a person, like you, who BELIEVES, wholeheartedly, that God is impossible to be real, then I NEED to know what THEIR, imperative definition, for what 'God' is. Until then it is just a complete waste of time to provide any thing at all.
So, will you provide 'your' (imperative) definition for the word 'God'?
HOW could I speculate 'God exists' If you NEVER tell me what 'your' definition of the word 'God' is?
Now this is a good question. You could NOT speculate IF 'God exists" IF I NEVER tell you what 'my' definition of what the word 'God' is.
But you have ALREADY speculated IF 'God exists' or not AND you have ALREADY concluded that 'God' is an impossibility, which you now BELIEVE is absolutely true and right. AND, just like I have been showing and pointing out to the readers, you are now NOT open to any thing other than your OWN BELIEF, and this is the reason WHY you are totally incapable of SEEING and HEARING what I have been writing.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amThat is extremely easy and simple to do when, and if, you provide 'your' imperative definition of 'God'.
What an escapist you are.
To depend on my definition of whatever to present your arguments is bad philosophy and intellectually immature.
Is it?
If you are the first one to make a claim such as: 'God is an impossibility'. But, you are the one who will NEVER provide your own definition of what 'God' is exactly, which is exactly what you are doing here, then is that good philosophy and intellectual immaturity?
I have already said that with the definition you have provided so far I could do some thing about 'it'. But you do not appear at all interested in this. Maybe this is because you can not hear this because that brain will not even consider that this is even possible.
Is it even possible to you?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amIf you have a sound argument, it should stand by itself.
It does.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amIf you have any rational backbone, provide a sound argument for your hypothesis.
I do NOT have a 'hypothesis'.
I only LOOK AT and SEE the Truth of things as they actually are.
For example,
'You' are the one here first claiming; 'God is an impossibility' to exist.
What I am doing is I am TRYING TO understand how you are defining this 'God' thing, which you assert and insist could NOT exist.
I can not understand what this 'God' thing is, from your perspective, if you do NOT define 'It' for me.
You are NOT defining 'God', from your perspective.
Then I have been saying that; The definition that you have provided can be shown to be True, Right, and Justified.
I have asked is this YOUR DEFINITION, alluding to; Do you want to use this definition.
You then say, that that is NOT your definition and that is just a definition that just some theists use.
I have then queried you about, What it is that you now want us to do?
I have explained that I NEED to KNOW what definition that you want to use for me to be able to show any thing.
The Truth of any thing can be SHOWN, but only when the definitions are KNOWN.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
What is this 'God' thing you keep talking about?
Define for me what a 'God' is, to you, then I can show what grounds I have. Until then I have some thing from you I absolutely nothing at all.
That is why I think you are very snaky.
So, by just wanting to gain clarity from you, this leads you to think that I am very snaky (or is that sneaky), correct?
What would you prefer?
Some might even suggest by you NOT providing clarifications on what it is that you are 'trying to' say that in fact it could be you who is the one who is trying to be sneaky.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 amIf you don't believe in 'God' then what do you believe in?
Do 'I' have to believe some thing?