OUGHT from IS is Possible

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:51 am
Age wrote:
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
I do not have a definition for God but what is your definition [ if you have one ]
How would you define God to some one who had no understanding of that word

God, just like the Universe, It is made up of two parts:
1. A physical visible part. And,
2. An invisible part.

'God', in the physical sense, is every physical thing.
'God', in the invisible or spiritual sense, is the Mind.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by surreptitious57 »

The definition of God as Universe would be the one I would use if I absolutely had to
However it would be entirely physical even if not all of it was necessarily observable
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age »

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?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:05 am God is an impossibility.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

"The real God is a Being than which no greater can be conceived."
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 am
I 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?
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:53 am The definition of God as Universe would be the one I would use if I absolutely had to
And what would be the definition of 'God' that you would use when you do not absolutely have to?
surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:53 amHowever it would be entirely physical even if not all of it was necessarily observable
But how could it be entirely physical?

If some thing was entirely physical, then that means that there would not be any thing invisible, such as 'space' for example. If there was entirely the physical only, without any space in between nor around particles of physical matter, then that would mean that there was just an infinite compression of matter, of which there would be and could only be one solid object or particle, which obviously there is not.

God, or the Universe, could NOT exist, nor work the way It does, let alone even 'work' at all, if It was entirely physical without a space or a distance between particles of physical matter.

It is the space, the non visible, or the distance, around and in between pieces of the physical, which is what gives God, or the Universe, Its freedom to be able to Create any thing and ALL of what It does. Without that freedom, then nothing could be created.

There could exist one solid piece of matter, which could be referred to as being created. But if there was only one entirely solid physical thing, then it could not change in any way, shape, nor form, and if this is how this one things is, then there could not and would not be any conscious thing even able to refer to "it" as being created, let alone asking questions like; how was "it" created?

By the way how the Universe is created is by the existence of the two things of:
The physical visible part, and the invisible part, co-existing together ALWAYS.

The question how was the Universe created is a wrong question, because God, or the Universe, Itself is IN Creation. It was NEVER created (and finished). It is creating.

God NEVER created ALL things, all at once. God, or the Universe, is Creating Itself in the HERE and NOW. Always has been and always WILL.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4666
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:14 am
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?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:05 am God is an impossibility.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

"The real God is a Being than which no greater can be conceived."
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 am
I 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?
Note I have already provided my own definition of 'God' i.e.

God is an transcendental illusory idea - emerging from the mind of theists driven by by existential crisis - to soothe the inherent existential pains.

For the purpose my proof 'God is an impossibility to be real' I am proving God as defined by theist is an impossibility to be real, thus a non starter.
In this case, the theists' best definition of a God is;

"The real God is a Being than which no greater can be conceived."

In the above it is the theists [not me] who insist their God is 'real.'
As such, theists claimed their God is real, but it is not until they can prove it is real.
However I am showing their argument is a non-starter, i.e. theists cannot even start to argue for it since God is an impossibility to be real.

Note I am already 51% up on the argument because in general, the belief in God is based on faith, i.e. without proofs and justified reason. What I am doing is hammer in the last nail to confirm the theists' argument is dead right from the start.

Example, if someone claims 'a square-circle exists' it is a non-starter, there is no need to argue for its existence.

Thus my argument;

God as defined by theists as,
"The real God is a Being than which no greater can be conceived,"
is an impossibility to be real.

The argument is presented in this thread,
God is an impossibility.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

Show me where I am wrong in the above?
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:53 am
Age wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:05 am

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?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:05 am God is an impossibility.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

"The real God is a Being than which no greater can be conceived."
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 am 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?
Note I have already provided my own definition of 'God' i.e.

God is an transcendental illusory idea - emerging from the mind of theists driven by by existential crisis - to soothe the inherent existential pains.
Note, you are, once again, completely dismissive of what I say and just, once again, starting with "Note ..." As though ONLY your words are worth reading and listening to.

Also note, I do NOT recall you ever providing your OWN definition of 'God' in this thread. On the contrary what I recall is you continually saying you do not have a definition, other than "God is an impossibility to be real" as it is NOT up to you to provide your OWN definition.

If you want to now claim that you had already provided your OWN definition of 'God', then inform us in what thread that was, and provide us a link to it.

When, and IF, you ever do this, then this still does NOT take away from the fact that throughout your discussion with me in this thread I am still completely unclear of what definition of the word 'God' that you want to impute and use in relation to your claim "God is an impossibility to be real"?

Just pick one definition and clearly state that this is the one that you want to use in relation to your BELIEF and claim that 'God is an impossibility to be real'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:53 amFor the purpose my proof 'God is an impossibility to be real' I am proving God as defined by theist is an impossibility to be real, thus a non starter.
In this case, the theists' best definition of a God is;

"The real God is a Being than which no greater can be conceived."
Okay, so, according to you, this is the "theists" (the 'best' word is just your perception) definition of a 'God'. In case you have NOT heard. I want to KNOW what definition that you want to impute and use in relation to "God is an impossibility to be real" BELIEF and claim.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:53 amIn the above it is the theists [not me] who insist their God is 'real.'
ONLY YOU would use the 'real' word. A "theist" would NOT start a definition of 'God' as "The real God is ...".

No one starts a definition of 'some thing' or of 'God' as; "The real some thing is ...", or "The real God is ...".

All you are doing here is just SHOWING how illogical your thinking really IS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:53 amAs such, theists claimed their God is real, but it is not until they can prove it is real.
Of course "theists" would claim their God is real. This goes without saying, and does NOT even need saying.

Please TRY and stick to the issue.

You could also say, a person who BELIEVES and CLAIM "God is an impossibility to be real" would claim "God is not real". Again this would go without saying AND does NOT even need saying.

This would be like starting a definition of 'God', which is BELIEVED not to be real, as; "The non real God is ...". It would just be absurd, illogical, and nonsensical to do so.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:53 amHowever I am showing their argument is a non-starter, i.e. theists cannot even start to argue for it since God is an impossibility to be real.
To me, 'you', veritas aequitas, are about the most BLINDED one I have ever observed. You are, at the moment, literally, totally incapable of SEEING things how they are.

Saying, a person can not even start to argue for some thing to be real, since it is an impossibility for it to be real, SHOWS just how much BELIEFS can STOP a person from SEEING and HEARING any thing.

'You', "veritas aequitas", are the PRIME example of 'STUPIDITY', that is; a person who is NOT able to SEE any thing other than what they BELIEVE is true and right.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:53 amNote I am already 51% up on the argument because in general, the belief in God is based on faith, i.e. without proofs and justified reason. What I am doing is hammer in the last nail to confirm the theists' argument is dead right from the start.
If that is what you BELIEVE you are doing, then that MUST BE what you are doing, right?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:53 amExample, if someone claims 'a square-circle exists' it is a non-starter, there is no need to argue for its existence.
And if any one claims 'God exists', then it is a non-starter, also right? There is also NO need to argue for its existence because, to you, it could NOT possibly be true and therefore you are NOT even going to start listening to one word, again am I right?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:53 amThus my argument;

God as defined by theists as,
"The real God is a Being than which no greater can be conceived,"
is an impossibility to be real.
But 'ANY God that is a Being than which no greater can be conceived' can very easily be proven to be Real, True, Right, and Correct. But ONLY to some who is OPEN to listening and seeing the proof. 'you', "veritas aequtias", are completely incapable of doing both or either.

By the way, if that is your argument, then the unsoundness and invalidity of it does not really need pointing out. You have said about all I needed to say.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:53 amThe argument is presented in this thread,
God is an impossibility.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

Show me where I am wrong in the above?
Just about EVERY where.

You bring your so called premises into this thread in very simple point form, then I WILL show the readers where you are wrong. I, however, can not SHOW 'you' where you are wrong because you BELIEVE wholeheartedly that you are NOT wrong any where.'you' can NOT see any thing other than what you BELIEVE is true.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4666
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:48 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:53 amThe argument is presented in this thread,
God is an impossibility.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

Show me where I am wrong in the above?
Just about EVERY where.

You bring your so called premises into this thread in very simple point form, then I WILL show the readers where you are wrong. I, however, can not SHOW 'you' where you are wrong because you BELIEVE wholeheartedly that you are NOT wrong any where.'you' can NOT see any thing other than what you BELIEVE is true.
The OP is "OUGHT from IS is Possible" not "God is an Impossibility."
It is very appropriate I refer you to the proper thread to discuss the point.

Why do you keep insisting I provide my own definition of 'God'.
I have already provided my personal definition of the term 'God' and I have provided the theists' best definition of God.


You are making straw man again re 'BELIEVE', note what is 'belief'
  • In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to personal attitudes associated with true or false ideas and concepts.
    -wiki
It is because 'belief' itself is basically personal that I have the 100% conviction what I believed is true.
Personal beliefs can be based on justified reasoning or merely blind faith.
In my case, what I have presented in my argument 'God is an impossibility' are based on justified true arguments.

What is needed further is whether my personal beliefs are Justified True Beliefs or not in the views of other persons.

I asked did I present something like "1 + 1 = 5" in that argument.
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:19 am
Age wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:48 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:53 amThe argument is presented in this thread,
God is an impossibility.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

Show me where I am wrong in the above?
Just about EVERY where.

You bring your so called premises into this thread in very simple point form, then I WILL show the readers where you are wrong. I, however, can not SHOW 'you' where you are wrong because you BELIEVE wholeheartedly that you are NOT wrong any where.'you' can NOT see any thing other than what you BELIEVE is true.
The OP is "OUGHT from IS is Possible" not "God is an Impossibility."
It is very appropriate I refer you to the proper thread to discuss the point.
Have I discussed with you in that thread?

If yes, then did we get anywhere?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:19 amWhy do you keep insisting I provide my own definition of 'God'.
Because you keep saying; God is not real.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:19 am I have already provided my personal definition of the term 'God' and I have provided the theists' best definition of God.
From the second definition of God, then God being real can be proven to be True, that is; to those who do NOT believe that God is an impossibility to be real.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:19 amYou are making straw man again re 'BELIEVE', note what is 'belief'
  • In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to personal attitudes associated with true or false ideas and concepts.
    -wiki
It is because 'belief' itself is basically personal that I have the 100% conviction what I believed is true.
Personal beliefs can be based on justified reasoning or merely blind faith.
In my case, what I have presented in my argument 'God is an impossibility' are based on justified true arguments.

What is needed further is whether my personal beliefs are Justified True Beliefs or not in the views of other persons.

I asked did I present something like "1 + 1 = 5" in that argument.
To me, this is a resounding YES.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4666
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:19 am
Age wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:48 pm

Just about EVERY where.

You bring your so called premises into this thread in very simple point form, then I WILL show the readers where you are wrong. I, however, can not SHOW 'you' where you are wrong because you BELIEVE wholeheartedly that you are NOT wrong any where.'you' can NOT see any thing other than what you BELIEVE is true.
The OP is "OUGHT from IS is Possible" not "God is an Impossibility."
It is very appropriate I refer you to the proper thread to discuss the point.
Have I discussed with you in that thread?

If yes, then did we get anywhere?
Note sure if you have participated, but to date there is no convincing counter against my argument.
Btw, if there is convincing argument I will accept it and abandon my argument.

Note the odds stacked against the argument for God are;
  • 1. The argument for God is based on faith not on proofs nor justified reasons.
    2. If one insist God exists, bring the evidence?
    3. God is an impossibility to be real. [proof provided]
    4. The argument for God is very likely to be psychologically driven. [evidence provided]
You have a mountain to climb to argue God exists as real.
However the most likely truth is 3 and 4.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:19 amWhy do you keep insisting I provide my own definition of 'God'.
Because you keep saying; God is not real.
Why do you keep asking when I have given my definition already?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:19 am I have already provided my personal definition of the term 'God' and I have provided the theists' best definition of God.
From the second definition of God, then God being real can be proven to be True, that is; to those who do NOT believe that God is an impossibility to be real.
I agree BUT,
what is truth is merely a compliance within a specific framework of thoughts.
A group of schizo will believe the gnomes in the garden they talk with are real and true, but are these justified true beliefs where EVERYONE and anyone of sound mind can test and verify with consistent results.

I have proven the second definition is a non-starter thus cannot even be tested nor verified by anyone who want to do so.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:19 amYou are making straw man again re 'BELIEVE', note what is 'belief'
  • In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to personal attitudes associated with true or false ideas and concepts.
    -wiki
It is because 'belief' itself is basically personal that I have the 100% conviction what I believed is true.
Personal beliefs can be based on justified reasoning or merely blind faith.
In my case, what I have presented in my argument 'God is an impossibility' are based on justified true arguments.

What is needed further is whether my personal beliefs are Justified True Beliefs or not in the views of other persons.

I asked did I present something like "1 + 1 = 5" in that argument.
To me, this is a resounding YES.
Where your argument to support your 'YES'?
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:44 am
Age wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:19 am
The OP is "OUGHT from IS is Possible" not "God is an Impossibility."
It is very appropriate I refer you to the proper thread to discuss the point.
Have I discussed with you in that thread?

If yes, then did we get anywhere?
Note sure if you have participated, but to date there is no convincing counter against my argument.
To date, OR EVEN FOR THE REST OF ETERNITY, to YOU, there will NEVER be a convincing counter against YOUR "argument". Because as I keep saying; Your BELIEF is just being held onto way to strongly to be infiltrated. Even the Universe Itself can NOT get passed your OWN BELIEF.

You are NOT even capable of considering any argument at all because you BELIEVE, from the outset, God to be real is a NON-STARTER. Obviously, IF some thing is a NON-STARTER, then you are NOT even going to LOOK AT at any thing provided. In fact because you BELIEVE so strongly in your NON-STARTER argument, you could NOT even SEE any thing provided.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:44 amBtw, if there is convincing argument I will accept it and abandon my argument.
LOL

You have clearly stated: That for 'God to be real' IS a NOT even a starter, which means; There is absolutely NO thing to even LOOK AT, let alone to even consider.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:44 amNote the odds stacked against the argument for God are;
Note your obsessiveness to only see and continually note only what you already believe is true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:44 am
  • 1. The argument for God is based on faith not on proofs nor justified reasons.
    2. If one insist God exists, bring the evidence?
    3. God is an impossibility to be real. [proof provided]
    4. The argument for God is very likely to be psychologically driven. [evidence provided]
You have a mountain to climb to argue God exists as real.
However the most likely truth is 3 and 4.
1. The argument for God not being real is a based on BELIEF, not on proofs nor justified reasons.
2. If one insists that God is an impossibility to be real, then bring the evidence.
3. God is REAL. [Proof can be provided].
4. The so called "argument" for 'God being an impossibility to be real' IS psychologically driven, which some might say comes from a psychological disorder - a 'schizo' some would call it.

But I would NOT say that. I would just say: Your argument comes from an already held BELIEF only, as you have no proofs, and as such have not proven any thing yet, and you do not have an actually justified reason at all.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:44 am
Because you keep saying; God is not real.
Why do you keep asking when I have given my definition already?
But I have STOPPED asking.

You asked; WHY I kept asking for your definition? So I just gave the answer for WHY.

If you do not want me to answer your questions, then do not ask any to me.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:44 am
From the second definition of God, then God being real can be proven to be True, that is; to those who do NOT believe that God is an impossibility to be real.
I agree BUT,
what is truth is merely a compliance within a specific framework of thoughts.
A group of schizo will believe the gnomes in the garden they talk with are real and true, but are these justified true beliefs where EVERYONE and anyone of sound mind can test and verify with consistent results.
And this applies exactly the same for 'you'.

Some are saying that only a 'schizo' would BELIEVE, say, and keep insisting that 'God is an impossibility to be real'. But you BELIEVE it to be true, so most just let the 'schizo' wander around in their own makings.

I have proven the second definition is a non-starter thus cannot even be tested nor verified by anyone who want to do so.[/quote]
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:19 amYou are making straw man again re 'BELIEVE', note what is 'belief'
  • In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to personal attitudes associated with true or false ideas and concepts.
    -wiki
It is because 'belief' itself is basically personal that I have the 100% conviction what I believed is true.
Personal beliefs can be based on justified reasoning or merely blind faith.
In my case, what I have presented in my argument 'God is an impossibility' are based on justified true arguments.

What is needed further is whether my personal beliefs are Justified True Beliefs or not in the views of other persons.

I asked did I present something like "1 + 1 = 5" in that argument.
To me, this is a resounding YES.
Where your argument to support your 'YES'?
Your argument IS MY argument for your illogical and unsound premises, reasoning, and conclusion.

Your argument is:

P1. Absolutely ANY argument for 'God to be real' is a non-starter. (This is based of my belief alone).
P2. If any one insists God to be real, then they are schizos. (I base this off I believe this is caused by human beings existential crisis because I once had it also).
Therefore, God is an impossibility to be real. (This is a true fact because no one has nor can counter my argument).
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4666
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:27 am
Where your argument to support your 'YES'?
Your argument IS MY argument for your illogical and unsound premises, reasoning, and conclusion.

Your argument is:

P1. Absolutely ANY argument for 'God to be real' is a non-starter. (This is based of my belief alone).
P2. If any one insists God to be real, then they are schizos. (I base this off I believe this is caused by human beings existential crisis because I once had it also).
Therefore, God is an impossibility to be real. (This is a true fact because no one has nor can counter my argument).
I have not insisted on P2 i.e. ALL who insisted God to be real are schizos.

I agree with P1 - ANY argument for 'God to be real' is a non-starter.
I have provided the proofs to justify this argument.

I have explained the reason why theists cling to the belief 'God is real' [when God is illusory] is due to the inherent existential crisis generating a zombie-parasite that compelled them to believe in a God. This is purely a psychological issue.

There are alternatives to dealing with the existential crisis without resorting to a God, i.e. as in non-theistic Buddhism.

In addition those who had insisted they have had experiences with God were those with mental illness and their belief in God is nullified when they are medicated properly.

Others who have had experienced God are those who took drugs, hallucinogens, suffered brain damage, etc.

The above a good indication the source in a belief in God is psychological and should be dealt with psychologically to manage the root causes.
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:46 am
Age wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:27 am
Where your argument to support your 'YES'?
Your argument IS MY argument for your illogical and unsound premises, reasoning, and conclusion.

Your argument is:

P1. Absolutely ANY argument for 'God to be real' is a non-starter. (This is based of my belief alone).
P2. If any one insists God to be real, then they are schizos. (I base this off I believe this is caused by human beings existential crisis because I once had it also).
Therefore, God is an impossibility to be real. (This is a true fact because no one has nor can counter my argument).
I have not insisted on P2 i.e. ALL who insisted God to be real are schizos.
So how do you explain then those who insist in some thing that is, to you, completely unreal, does not exist, and is only an illusion?

Surely you have a label for those people who insist on things being real when they are obviously an impossibility to be real? If you do not call these people "schizos", then what do you call them?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:46 amI agree with P1 - ANY argument for 'God to be real' is a non-starter.
I have provided the proofs to justify this argument.

I have explained the reason why theists cling to the belief 'God is real' [when God is illusory] is due to the inherent existential crisis generating a zombie-parasite that compelled them to believe in a God. This is purely a psychological issue.

There are alternatives to dealing with the existential crisis without resorting to a God, i.e. as in non-theistic Buddhism.

In addition those who had insisted they have had experiences with God were those with mental illness and their belief in God is nullified when they are medicated properly.

Others who have had experienced God are those who took drugs, hallucinogens, suffered brain damage, etc.

The above a good indication the source in a belief in God is psychological and should be dealt with psychologically to manage the root causes.
And what you have just provided here is where MY argument is. MY argument for your illogical and unsound premises, reasoning, and conclusion is in your words above.

You have written MY argument for me.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4666
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:46 am
Age wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:27 am

Your argument IS MY argument for your illogical and unsound premises, reasoning, and conclusion.

Your argument is:

P1. Absolutely ANY argument for 'God to be real' is a non-starter. (This is based of my belief alone).
P2. If any one insists God to be real, then they are schizos. (I base this off I believe this is caused by human beings existential crisis because I once had it also).
Therefore, God is an impossibility to be real. (This is a true fact because no one has nor can counter my argument).
I have not insisted on P2 i.e. ALL who insisted God to be real are schizos.
So how do you explain then those who insist in some thing that is, to you, completely unreal, does not exist, and is only an illusion?

Surely you have a label for those people who insist on things being real when they are obviously an impossibility to be real? If you do not call these people "schizos", then what do you call them?
Those who insist things are real when the thing is an illusion are termed delusional.
Not all those who suffer from being delusion are schizos.
Age
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:37 am
Age wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:46 am
I have not insisted on P2 i.e. ALL who insisted God to be real are schizos.
So how do you explain then those who insist in some thing that is, to you, completely unreal, does not exist, and is only an illusion?

Surely you have a label for those people who insist on things being real when they are obviously an impossibility to be real? If you do not call these people "schizos", then what do you call them?
Those who insist things are real when the thing is an illusion are termed delusional.
Not all those who suffer from being delusion are schizos.
Okay, then how do you define the word 'schizo'? You do after all like to label and call some human beings 'schizos'. What are you basing the word 'schizo' off of exactly? If not all those who suffer from being delusional are 'schizos', then who are those exactly that you call 'schizos"?

Also, are 'you', yourself, somewhat delusional? You do after all have a fixed belief, which is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual facts. (Whether your fixed belief is a true or is a false belief, contrary to your belief, has yes to be proven, and thus actually decided.)
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4666
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:37 am
Age wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:58 am

So how do you explain then those who insist in some thing that is, to you, completely unreal, does not exist, and is only an illusion?

Surely you have a label for those people who insist on things being real when they are obviously an impossibility to be real? If you do not call these people "schizos", then what do you call them?
Those who insist things are real when the thing is an illusion are termed delusional.
Not all those who suffer from being delusion are schizos.
Okay, then how do you define the word 'schizo'? You do after all like to label and call some human beings 'schizos'. What are you basing the word 'schizo' off of exactly? If not all those who suffer from being delusional are 'schizos', then who are those exactly that you call 'schizos"?

Also, are 'you', yourself, somewhat delusional? You do after all have a fixed belief, which is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual facts. (Whether your fixed belief is a true or is a false belief, contrary to your belief, has yes to be proven, and thus actually decided.)
Note;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

Show me where have I persistently believed in anything that is illusory as real?

You believe God is real, without any sound justifications.
I have proven the theists' God is a mental illusion driven by the existential crisis.
Post Reply