Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:47 am
It may well be true that you have proven to YOUR SELF that God is an impossibility to be real. But what is truly ridiculous is that you actually BELIEVE that you have ACTUALLY proven that God is an impossibility to be real, and proven this forever more for EVERY one. This makes this even MORE RIDICULOUS.
I have explained to you the path to knowledge, i.e. Justified True Beliefs, e.g. scientific knowledge, is from 1. OPINIONS to 2. BELIEFS to 3. KNOWLEDGE.
Beliefs are personal proofs of the individual's conviction based on reason, from crude to refine.
So there is nothing wrong nor ridiculous in "you have proven to YOUR SELF that God is an impossibility to be real."
Once again, it may well be not wrong nor ridiculous to YOUR SELF, "what you have proven to YOUR self". But, obviously, what one proves to them self may be totally and absolutely wrong AND ridiculous to actual Truth and Reality.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 amObviously I need to have a 99.9% conviction my proof is solidly argued as I had done so. So far no one has provided any convincing counter to my argument.
LOL you STILL do NOT get it. The reason WHY no one has provided any convincing counter to your "argument" is because there is absolutely NOTHING that could counter your so called "argument". Your "argument" is based off and from your own ALREADY held BELIEFS, and as I keep saying: There is NOTHING that can counter a strongly held BELIEF. Even the Universe, Itself, can NOT provide any thing to a human being, which opposes their BELIEFS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 amI did not claim my proof is knowledge [yet] and is accepted by anyone or many at this point in time.
But what is critical here is YOU have not been able to counter my proof 'God is an impossibility to real'.
But I have NOT even attempted to counter what you claim YET.
I have just said that I COULD. That is; When, and IF, you ever provide me with a definition for the word 'God', which you say, 'is an impossibility to be real'. You then provided a completely ridiculous definition, but in doing so you proved that what I was claiming was WRONG. So, I now have to word things differently to see if you would provide a reasonable definition and not just ANY definition.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 amYou can revisit the thread and show me, where you have countered my argument convincingly?
Just to make it completely clear: I HAVE NEVER EVEN TRIED TO COUNTER YOUR, so called, "ARGUMENT".
One reason I have NOT is because I like the way YOUR "argument" stands right now. The absurdity and ridiculousness of your argument, as it stands right now, shows and reveals more than I ever could. Your "argument" speaks for its own self.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 amIf you were NOT so TIED UP in your own BELIEFS, then you would realize and have ALREADY SEEN that I do NOT insist that you agree with ANY definition for the word 'God'. All I have been asking for is for you to provide a definition for the word 'God', especially considering that it is YOU who is making the claim: God is an impossibility to be real.
Hey! in the thread 'God is an Impossibility' I was very precise with 'MY' [the] definition of God as defined by theist. It from their definition that I proved 'God is an impossibility to be real'.
So, WHY can you NOT just repeat 'that' definition here in this thread? Why has it been so hard to just do this?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 amSEE, most people who claim some thing are usually able to define the words they use. They do this so they justify the claims they are making.
That is why when we critique the argument of others in making their claims, we critiqued based on the definition they provided and argued why their definition and argument cannot be true or real.
And is this WHY you will NOT reveal the definition that you want to use for the word 'God' here in this thread?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 amOne important point is, both parties must understand [not accept as own] the definition imputed into the argument of theists.
Okay, so once again, what definition do YOU want to impute in and use?
You choose the definition, then I will SEE if I can counter your "argument".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 amIt is ridiculous to provide my own definition in such a case where I am not making a positive [objective] claim.
So, is it NOT ridiculous, to make a claim that some thing does NOT exist and can NOT be real, but NEVER to actually define what this THING is, which you claim and say that you have argued for that can not be real?
You have also missed my point. I do NOT care what definition you give. I do not care who the definition comes from. I just want to KNOW what definition you are using, which you then formulated YOUR "argument" upon.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 amWhat I have done is to prove, 'God is possible to be real' is a non-starter.
And just to make it clear, besides YOU, who else have you proven this to?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 amYou are NOT able to provide any definition for the word 'God', other than the ridiculous claim that "God is an impossibility to be real".
This is all you can do, so why do we not just leave it at this?
Straw man again.
Because I have been accused of being a "worthless hump" and a "useless bastard" (whatever they actually mean) for not burying you for some scarecrow or some man made out of straw thing, I looked up what the word 'straw man' refers to. There are a few different definitions given. So, now I am none the wiser. Therefore, when you use the word 'straw man' what is the actual definition that you are referring to, or want to use?
I just hope we now do NOT go through the exact same thing has we have been.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 amI say again, in the mentioned thread therein, I introduced the finest definition of God as defined by theists.
I do not ever recall you using the 'finest' word previously, not that it really matters.
But anyway, and we have gone over this enough times already, I asked you if you are going to use that definition, and you said that it is NOT your definition. Just to make it clear. I understand that it is NOT your definition, BUT is it the definition that you WANT TO USE, when you say; God is an impossibility to be real?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:55 amI have provided my personal definition of God [see above] you then give all sorts of excuses.
You can BELIEVE any thing you want, and then SEE whatever you want to SEE, but IF you are distorted things, then really that is all you are doing.
Remember I have not done any thing to excuse and that it is YOU who is unable to provide an actual definition for the word 'God'.
The onus is on you to show my argument is not logical and rational.
But if you do not provide a reasonable definition for the word 'God', which you then make an argument from, then what are we to make about that your argument is based off of exactly?
You not providing a definition for the word 'God', other than the definition that 'God is an impossibility to be real', so then YOU, by yourself, are SHOWING that your own argument is not logical and rational.
By just asking you for the definition that you want to impute, and you refusing to do this, then I am just SHOWING, through your words or lack of words, that your argument IS not logical and rational.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 am
If 'you' think that that is an advantage, then you might be sadly mistaken.
Obviously this is an advantage over you and other [a]theist.
More so when I have provided a solid argument backed by an explanation why theists cling to a falsehood [like children to Santa and other similar beliefs of falsehoods].
And thee Truth IS; that is NOT 'the' final conclusion, although it may be 'your' final conclusion.
My point is without doubts.
If your point is without doubts, then there is NOTHING to doubt. You, therefore, MUST BE absolutely True, Right, and Correct, correct?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 amNote;
- 1. No statement about whatever can happen without a living human, the brain and mind, i.e. psychology.
2. 'God exists' is a statement
3. Therefore God exists is psychological.
1. Not true.
2. True.
3. But not necessarily only true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 amYou can claim as a realist, things [whatever] are independent of the human brain and mind.
Why do you change your claim of 'what I am'?
I have NEVER claimed any thing as a 'realist'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 amThis is so obvious, we see a space [10 feet] between that man and the table.
Therefore the table [things] are independent of the human brain and mind.
But the above is based on common sense and low level knowledge but it will not pass when scrutiny by more refined philosophy.
The philosophical anti-realists disagree and dispute the realists' claim of that objects are independent of the brain/mind are not absolute.
Rather humans are the co-creator of reality, i.e. reality is interdependent with the human mind.
What is ultimate is;
even the claim 'reality is independent of mind' inevitably has to involve the human mind to conclude it.
There is no escape to this fact.
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?