Religious Ideas can be anything you imagine them to be.

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8483
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Religious Ideas can be anything you imagine them to be.

Post by Dontaskme »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:38 am
Whatever one feel is right is never always right until it is justified by evidence and testing.
There is nothing more evident and testable that first hand first person direct experience. Seriously dude, you are a broken record.

Every one is right from their own unique direct personal conscious experience.

What is right for one single person but is not right to another person could be that the other person is only familiar with it's own unique direct experience personal to it, and has not YET experienced the experience that feels right to the other person ...So just because one person has not experienced what someone else HAS doesn't mean that the other persons right experience is wrong - just because the other person is unfamiliar with that kind of experience that is right for someone else..therefore, every experience is right according to the one experiencing it.

Every single persons experience is right.

Every single person has different experiences - in that no one has the exact same experience as another person.

That's what I mean by nature never repeats exactly, it's different that's all, snowflakes are all made of snow, but each flake is different, but that difference doesn't not mean that some flakes are wrong because they do not look the same as another flake...and the same princliple applies to thumb prints, we all have thumbs, but our prints are different that's all, that doesn't mean one persons print is right and another persons print is wrong ...

That's what I'm getting at..but you seem unable to understand this, so be it.

Lost in translation whatever...each their own.

We're all made of the same stuff, namely, atoms...we all live under the same sun...who is the ''other one'' that is going to justify and test what is only justifiable and testable to the ONE having the experience ? Your own experience is self-evident.

You are totally obsessed that ''other people'' are separate from you....when they are not...just as each snowflake is not separate from the snow aka substance that forms them.

.
Age
Posts: 5065
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Religious Ideas can be anything you imagine them to be.

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 am
Age wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:38 am
You do not understand and cannot different between what is highly subjective opinions, personal beliefs and knowledge.
From what you, yourself, write you also appear very confused about these things as well.

Just about each time you 'try to' explain and justify things, you end up contradicting some thing you have said previously.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:38 amAnyone can claim what they believe is right but that could be an opinion, illusion, or beliefs,
which may not be rightly 'right' i.e. which is
-morally good, justified, or acceptable.
google dictionary.

One can simply claim a proposition to be right in the rational sense until it is justified and acceptable. E.g. the gnomes that the schizo claimed to be real cannot be 'right'.
Why can they not be right? Just because you call the one claiming 'gnomes are real' a "schizo"? Is that the only thing you are basing 'right' and 'wrong' off of?

A personal opinion and belief of what is right to the person is not a justified right until it is justified with evidence.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:39 amHow do you KNOW what has been justified right, with evidence, to "another" person?
By the way, you have and hold personal opinions, assumptions, and beliefs, which are obviously ridiculously ludicrous false, wrong, and incorrect, but, to you, you have already justified them with evidence.

So, although some thing might be a "justified right", to you, it is NOT a 'justified right' in the True sense.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:39 amWhatever one feel is right is never always right until it is justified by evidence and testing.
Yet you believe, feel, and claim that 'God is an impossibility to be real' and you still have absolutely NO evidence to justify this claim of yours. Or, if you do, then you certainly have NOT produced any here, in this forum, that I have yet SEEN.
My argument and conclusion is in the OP supported by later posts.
WRONG.

I do NOT even know what your argument and conclusion is in the opening post, but I KNOW you have NOT supported them in later posts. I do NOT even have to check to KNOW this.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amDo you have any sound counter to my premises.
Again, I KNOW the answer is YES, without even checking.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amYou have tried on P1 but failed.
What was even P1, which you say I failed countering?

AND, is this "P1" in the argument and conclusion in the opening post, which you just talked about?

If yes, then is that the opening post in this thread?

If no, then what opening post are you talking about AND where is it exactly? In which thread are you referring to exactly?


Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amI have mentioned it is possible for an empirical-based God to exists but this is subjected to availability of evidence.
So, even YOU ADMIT, 'God is a possibility to be real'.

THERE, now I have PROVEN what you have said I have NOT proven.

You seem so confused, and you keep jumping from one view to another. Maybe it would be better for you to just always LOOK AT what IS actually True, instead of LOOKING AT what you BELIEVE is true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amIf one stated his God is that bearded man in the sky who had created the Universe, then bring evidence of that bearded man so that the bearded man can be tested to confirm he is God or not.
Is there a human being alive who states any such thing?

If yes, then bring them to me.

If no, then WHY bring up and say such idiotic and stupid things as this obviously IS?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amHowever note my point, all claims of empirical-based God will ultimately be reduced toward the ontological God unless the theist is satisfy with an inferior God. Even then, one need to bring the empirical evident to justify the existence of such an empirical God.
STOP ASSUMING what WILL happen, then you MIGHT not be SO WRONG, SO OFTEN.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amRe human nature and in general, for any empirical God there will be room for an empirical God that is greater than the God that is claimed. This generate an infinite regression where only an ontological [absolutely perfect] God can stop the infinite regression.
The so called "infinite regression" STOPPED a long time ago.

Also, you have absolutely NO idea what 'human nature' is. Unless, of course, you can PROVE otherwise.

Would you like to prove me WRONG by explaining exactly what 'human nature' is?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amBut the absolutely perfect ontological God cannot possibly exist as real.
LOL.

What actual evidence do you have to prove this BELIEF of yours?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4450
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Religious Ideas can be anything you imagine them to be.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 am
Age wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:19 am

From what you, yourself, write you also appear very confused about these things as well.

Just about each time you 'try to' explain and justify things, you end up contradicting some thing you have said previously.



Why can they not be right? Just because you call the one claiming 'gnomes are real' a "schizo"? Is that the only thing you are basing 'right' and 'wrong' off of?

A personal opinion and belief of what is right to the person is not a justified right until it is justified with evidence.



By the way, you have and hold personal opinions, assumptions, and beliefs, which are obviously ridiculously ludicrous false, wrong, and incorrect, but, to you, you have already justified them with evidence.

So, although some thing might be a "justified right", to you, it is NOT a 'justified right' in the True sense.



Yet you believe, feel, and claim that 'God is an impossibility to be real' and you still have absolutely NO evidence to justify this claim of yours. Or, if you do, then you certainly have NOT produced any here, in this forum, that I have yet SEEN.
My argument and conclusion is in the OP supported by later posts.
WRONG.

I do NOT even know what your argument and conclusion is in the opening post, but I KNOW you have NOT supported them in later posts. I do NOT even have to check to KNOW this.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amDo you have any sound counter to my premises.
Again, I KNOW the answer is YES, without even checking.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amYou have tried on P1 but failed.
What was even P1, which you say I failed countering?

AND, is this "P1" in the argument and conclusion in the opening post, which you just talked about?

If yes, then is that the opening post in this thread?

If no, then what opening post are you talking about AND where is it exactly? In which thread are you referring to exactly?


Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amI have mentioned it is possible for an empirical-based God to exists but this is subjected to availability of evidence.
So, even YOU ADMIT, 'God is a possibility to be real'.

THERE, now I have PROVEN what you have said I have NOT proven.

You seem so confused, and you keep jumping from one view to another. Maybe it would be better for you to just always LOOK AT what IS actually True, instead of LOOKING AT what you BELIEVE is true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amIf one stated his God is that bearded man in the sky who had created the Universe, then bring evidence of that bearded man so that the bearded man can be tested to confirm he is God or not.
Is there a human being alive who states any such thing?

If yes, then bring them to me.

If no, then WHY bring up and say such idiotic and stupid things as this obviously IS?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amHowever note my point, all claims of empirical-based God will ultimately be reduced toward the ontological God unless the theist is satisfy with an inferior God. Even then, one need to bring the empirical evident to justify the existence of such an empirical God.
STOP ASSUMING what WILL happen, then you MIGHT not be SO WRONG, SO OFTEN.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amRe human nature and in general, for any empirical God there will be room for an empirical God that is greater than the God that is claimed. This generate an infinite regression where only an ontological [absolutely perfect] God can stop the infinite regression.
The so called "infinite regression" STOPPED a long time ago.

Also, you have absolutely NO idea what 'human nature' is. Unless, of course, you can PROVE otherwise.

Would you like to prove me WRONG by explaining exactly what 'human nature' is?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amBut the absolutely perfect ontological God cannot possibly exist as real.
LOL.

What actual evidence do you have to prove this BELIEF of yours?
My proof of that belief is in the OP supported by points in later posts.
Note the details of the premises are explained in notes that followed.

Re the empirical god can be possibly real, that is subjected to production of evidence which is not likely to be available. However note my point, this will be reduced to the ontological God.

None of your points above [jumping all over] address and counter my argument in the OP.
I suggest you address each of the premises [including the explanation] clearly and specifically.
Age
Posts: 5065
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Religious Ideas can be anything you imagine them to be.

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2019 5:28 am
Age wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 am
My argument and conclusion is in the OP supported by later posts.
WRONG.

I do NOT even know what your argument and conclusion is in the opening post, but I KNOW you have NOT supported them in later posts. I do NOT even have to check to KNOW this.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amDo you have any sound counter to my premises.
Again, I KNOW the answer is YES, without even checking.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amYou have tried on P1 but failed.
What was even P1, which you say I failed countering?

AND, is this "P1" in the argument and conclusion in the opening post, which you just talked about?

If yes, then is that the opening post in this thread?

If no, then what opening post are you talking about AND where is it exactly? In which thread are you referring to exactly?


Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amI have mentioned it is possible for an empirical-based God to exists but this is subjected to availability of evidence.
So, even YOU ADMIT, 'God is a possibility to be real'.

THERE, now I have PROVEN what you have said I have NOT proven.

You seem so confused, and you keep jumping from one view to another. Maybe it would be better for you to just always LOOK AT what IS actually True, instead of LOOKING AT what you BELIEVE is true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amIf one stated his God is that bearded man in the sky who had created the Universe, then bring evidence of that bearded man so that the bearded man can be tested to confirm he is God or not.
Is there a human being alive who states any such thing?

If yes, then bring them to me.

If no, then WHY bring up and say such idiotic and stupid things as this obviously IS?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amHowever note my point, all claims of empirical-based God will ultimately be reduced toward the ontological God unless the theist is satisfy with an inferior God. Even then, one need to bring the empirical evident to justify the existence of such an empirical God.
STOP ASSUMING what WILL happen, then you MIGHT not be SO WRONG, SO OFTEN.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amRe human nature and in general, for any empirical God there will be room for an empirical God that is greater than the God that is claimed. This generate an infinite regression where only an ontological [absolutely perfect] God can stop the infinite regression.
The so called "infinite regression" STOPPED a long time ago.

Also, you have absolutely NO idea what 'human nature' is. Unless, of course, you can PROVE otherwise.

Would you like to prove me WRONG by explaining exactly what 'human nature' is?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amBut the absolutely perfect ontological God cannot possibly exist as real.
LOL.

What actual evidence do you have to prove this BELIEF of yours?
My proof of that belief is in the OP supported by points in later posts.
Note the details of the premises are explained in notes that followed.
I do NOT even KNOW where this is all taking place. This is because you will NOT answer my question about WHERE IT IS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2019 5:28 amRe the empirical god can be possibly real, that is subjected to production of evidence which is not likely to be available.
So, is evidence "not likely to be available" or can evidence "NOT be provided" as you had earlier stated was in fact the case You do like to change your views quite often.

Also, NOTE that I have ALREADY provided the EVIDENCE for the PERFECT empirical GOD ALREADY.

Also, NOTE you keep MISSING IT.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2019 5:28 amHowever note my point, this will be reduced to the ontological God.
So, WHY waste time on the empirical God in the first place?

By the way, the ontological God has also ALREADY been proven to be possible to be real.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2019 5:28 amNone of your points above [jumping all over] address and counter my argument in the OP.
But that is MY POINT. You have NOT yet made a sound and valid argument. If you HAD, then it could NOT be countered anyway, obviously.

All you have done is formed some illogical, irrational, invalid so called "argument" based off of your BELIEFS alone. But you keep MISSING my POINT about this as well.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2019 5:28 amI suggest you address each of the premises [including the explanation] clearly and specifically.
Suggestion NOTED. But what opening post are you talking about, and in which thread are you referring to?

Do you even read what I write? I asked you to clarify these actual points in the that you are replying to.

Why will you NOT answer my very simple clarifying questions posed, to you?

This is how ridiculous this is now.

The points I raise is done by asking you clarifying questions.
But you say, "NONE of my points" address and counter your argument in the opening post.
ONE of my points, ask through a clarifying question was; What opening post are you talking about and in what thread?
You do NOT answer this clarifying question.
But you go on to say and suggest; I address each of the premises [including the explanation] clearly and specifically.
But HOW CAN I DO THIS when you do NOT tell me WHAT THREAD you are referring to?

What is MORE TRUE is NONE OF YOUR POINTS actually address any of my very simple clarifying questions posed to you. If you HAD addressed my questions, THEN I could have ALREADY addressed "each of the premises [including the explanation] clearly and specifically. That is; IF each of your premises [including the explanation] is ALSO clearly and specifically written out as well. We will have to wait and see though.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4450
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Religious Ideas can be anything you imagine them to be.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:26 am Also, NOTE that I have ALREADY provided the EVIDENCE for the PERFECT empirical GOD ALREADY. -A

Also, NOTE you keep MISSING IT.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 4:28 am
However note my point, this will be reduced to the ontological God.
So, WHY waste time on the empirical God in the first place?
By the way, the ontological God has also ALREADY been proven to be possible to be real. -B
You are not communicating efficiently.

You have not provided proofs for your claims of A and B above.
I suggest you present your claim clearly.

I will raise the relevant thread for you to explain.
Notice how I have to do this so often like feeding food to a baby.
Age
Posts: 5065
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Religious Ideas can be anything you imagine them to be.

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:00 am
Age wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:26 am Also, NOTE that I have ALREADY provided the EVIDENCE for the PERFECT empirical GOD ALREADY. -A

Also, NOTE you keep MISSING IT.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 4:28 am
However note my point, this will be reduced to the ontological God.
So, WHY waste time on the empirical God in the first place?
By the way, the ontological God has also ALREADY been proven to be possible to be real. -B
You are not communicating efficiently.
Once again, it is ALL my fault, and NEVER yours.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:00 amYou have not provided proofs for your claims of A and B above.
Yes I have.

You just keep MISSING them, and even IF, and WHEN, you do recognize them, then you will still NOT accept them anyway.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:00 amI suggest you present your claim clearly.
I have already.

You just keep MISSING them.

The Universe, Itself, IS a PERFECT empirical example of God, Itself. - A

The ontological God, for ever more, IS POSSIBLE to be real. IF and WHEN one remains OPEN, then for ever more the POSSIBILITY remains. Only with the time period of 'for ever more' could 'the POSSIBILITY of God being real' be SHOWN to be false. - B

Or, unless of course, there is some actual EVIDENCE that, for ever more, an ontological God is an impossibility to be real. But if any one believes that God to be real, for ever more, is an absolute IMPOSSIBILITY, then obviously that one is NOT open. - B
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:00 amI will raise the relevant thread for you to explain.
You do NOT need another thread for me to say what I have already explained a few times already, in about 50 words or less.

But what is the name of the "relevant thread" so that I can explain it to you again there?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:00 amNotice how I have to do this so often like feeding food to a baby.
And notice how you like to make out that you are the mature and responsible adult here. But also notice how often it is you that is unable to SEE things. Also notice your inability to actually LOOK AT any thing other than what you already BELIEVE is the truth.

Also, IF you supposedly HAVE TO keep starting new threads for me to explain the exact same thing, which you say I have NOT yet done, then WHY do you KEEP MISSING what I say in EACH of those threads?
Post Reply