Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 am
Note I have provided the relevant and proper arguments in syllogism to support my thesis.
I have noted and well aware that you thesis is 100% absolutely flawless and that you have made so called "arguments", which you BELIEVE are irrefutable.
Okay?
Note that I have noted your BELIEFS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 amIt is open for all to counter but you have not provided any convincing counter to my argument.
As I have stated numerous times ALREADY, which you have proven numerous times ALREADY - You are completely incapable of SEEING any thing that does counter your so called "arguments". This is because you are completely and utterly CLOSED OFF.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 amMy own held 'Beliefs" ??
As stated my own held belief is grounded in Science then filtered through the philosophical lens of logic, critical thinking, rationality and wisdom.
I do NOT care where you THINK your BELIEFS came from. To me, they are still BELIEFS, and that is whole point I have been making here. That is; you ONLY LOOK AT things, based solely from your already very strongly held BELIEFS.
Nope, what I believe is not MY beliefs but they are
shared-beliefs with Science and many of the greatest philosophers of all times, e.g. Kant, Hume, and others.
"shared-beliefs" are just as ill gotten, and destructive, as one's own BELIEFS are.
BELIEFS 'with science' has the exact same negative affect as BELIEFS 'with religion' (or 'with any thing else' for that matter). BELIEFS, themselves, are what I have been pointing out and highlighting 'with you'. 'you', 'veritas aequitas", are the prime example of a human being STUCK and BLINDED by the BELIEFS they have and HOLD. That is WHY I am using you for evidence of the damaging effects that BELIEFS can and do do.
Once again, and just "coincidentally" again, the ones you 'just happen to' agree with just also 'happen to be' the "greatest".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 amYou are too ignorant and unable to differentiate between beliefs and Justified True Beliefs.
To me, they are BOTH obviously BELIEFS. Therefore, they BOTH have the same damaging effects on 'you', human beings.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 amScientific knowledge is justified true beliefs as being justified through the scientific methods and peer review thus are objective.
LOL
So, which "side" of the climate change debate is TRUE and RIGHT?
BOTH use so called "scientific knowledge". BOTH are supposedly "justified true beliefs". BOTH are claimed as being "justified" through the so called "scientific methods and peer reviewed" thus are BOTH are called "objective" as well.
So, which "one" is TRUE, RIGHT, AND CORRECT?
On percentages, the "one" you 'AGREE WITH' will BE RIGHT, ("coincidentally").
This is HOW the human brain works.
The human brain will NOT allow the human being to SEE the STUPIDITY of what it says when it is 'trying to' "justify" its own already held BELIEFS. That is; until AFTER the FACTS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 amAre you rejecting all scientific knowledge accepted by the scientific community because to you they are merely somebody's BELIEF?
There is NO 'one' scientific community.
I do NOT reject ALL scientific knowledge.
I do, however, like to point out and SHOW just how ridiculous the human brain can be in 'trying to' "justify" its own already held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS. 'you', "veritas aequitas", are the BEST example of a human being completely distorted by their own already held BELIEFS. So, at the moment, I have chosen you, and so I am using you for what I like to do.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 amSome Philosophical theories are contentious but what is critical is they are supported by proper argument which is open for criticisms.
"some" LOL. To me, ALL philosophical 'theories' are contentious. The word 'theory' infers that what is assumed and being proposed IS contentious.
What I believe is 1 + 1 = 2.
You insist 1 + 1 = 5.[/quote]
When did I ever even suggest this, let alone supposedly "insist" this?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 amI have asked you to show me which of my premise is false, but you cannot.
I have SHOWN. you are incapable to SEE.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 amNote, insisting on
personal SEEING as objective without being supported by arguments and proofs is normally claimed by the intellectually-immature and mentally ill.
Do you have any actual evidence for ALL these things you claim that the so called "intellectually-immature" and "mentally ill" supposedly "insist"?
How many of these "types" of people do you talk to and chat with?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 amYou are a mental case with regard to the above issues.
Any one who even shows any sign of not agreeing with you, to you is a "mental case".
You appear to be under some sort of illusion that if you denigrate "others" enough, then that makes what you BELIEVE more true. But the fact is that some SEE you as being the one who is truly disillusioned here. To think that looking at the personality of "others", and calling them names, throughout a discussion with you in a philosophy forum is how arguing through logical reasoning works, then the readers are wondering what was actually wrong with people like you at the time.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 amIn this case of the issue related to theism, you are stupid in insisting I must define 'God' in my own terms when I am an [a]theist.
I am well aware that this is your BELIEF as well. You have said this a number of times ALREADY.
Also, have I "insisted" that you "must" define 'God'? Or, have I just highlighted the FACT that you keep insisting that some thing, which you can NOT even define yourself, is an impossibility to be real?
This is VERY stupid.
Explain to the readers how just asking you a completely OPEN clarifying question is so called "VERY stupid"?
Here is a suggestion for you, STOP assuming that I am saying some thing, just LOOK AT the questions, and then just ANSWER THEM, then readers will NOT see who is the actual one doing VERY a STUPID thing here.
EVERY time I just ask you an obviously very OPEN clarifying question only, and you START making ASSUMPTIONS, and then you start replying from that ASSUMPTION, then the readers start SEEING the Truly CLOSED and unintelligent human brain at work.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 amThe default is, if I argued against the theists' claim for God, then I MUST use the theists' definition of God.
AND there has NEVER been any dispute about this, from me, regarding this issue. Although, you BELIEVE otherwise. You BELIEVE otherwise is because you do NOT look at and see the actual words I write down but instead you ASSUME I am saying and meaning some thing else.
I WANT you to provide the actual definition that you are 'trying to' argue against. I WANT you to then maintain THAT definition until we have LOOKED AT it and discussed it FULLY. But you seem to be incapable of doing this. You, inevitably, go off tangent and onto some thing like you are now.
This is the default in the critique and counter of theory in any research paper, scientific theory, in court or any where else.
The default is to rely on the claimant definition in relation to the claim.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 amThe only time the opponent get involve with definition [in the case of theism] is when the claimant's definition is incoherent and thus the opponent has to direct him to the generally accepted definition.
When you STOP BELIEVING that you KNOW what THE definition of some thing IS, and/or you STOP BELIEVING that you KNOW what the "generally accepted definition" of some thing IS, then you will be able to move forward. Until then you are STUCK, PREVENTED, and PROHIBITED from moving forward.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 amSuch could happen when a theist define his God as that bearded man in the sky and he would be advised that is an outdated definition.
LOL. you were the very one who used this definition to argue against. That was until I informed you of just how ridiculous it was to use that definition, and then ONLY AFTER that you have now changed your direction to this definition is now and "outdated definition".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 amI will often point to some theists that the ultimate definition of God is the ontological God that overrides every other definition.
And for you to make the claim that you KNOW forever more what WILL BE an impossibility, is you seeing yourself as overriding EVERY one and EVERY thing else. To make such a claim is put yourself ABOVE absolutely EVERY thing else.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 am
But people who are categorized into ANY group, with an 'ist' on the end of it, or even just people, have not yet agreed on 'the' definition of God. This is partly and a huge reason WHY 'you', human beings, still can not work out if God exists or not.
When you use the phrase " 'you' human beings" it really make my hairs stand on ends.
Great AND perfect. I am achieving the outcome I sought.
I say things like this to POINT OUT and SHOW to readers how human beings, in the times of when this was written, were SO CLOSED that they almost NEVER asked for clarification what "another" meant when they said and wrote things. The peoples of those days just kept ASSUMING and BELIEVING things based on what they ALREADY BELIEVED was true and right.
Those people were NOT able to LOOK FROM the Truly OPEN Mind because they kept LOOKING FROM their CLOSED thinking, from the brain.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 amIf you are really serious with this, you must consult a psychiatrist.
And what will happen if I do NOT follow this "MUST"?
Am I going to be punished for NOT following your "MUST" order here?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 amKant has provided arguments on how every definition of God is reducible to the ontological God and that is grounded on human evolution and psychology based on the '
one-up' impulse in all humans.
In order to stop the infinite regression inevitable in a 'one-up' impulse, theists will end up with the ontological God.
Theists will argue among themselves with their own definition of God, but philosophically the ultimate definition of God is the ontological God.
The "ultimate" definition. LOL.
And your definition of the 'ontological God' is?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 am
LOL as if you are NOT biased now. LOL
You are merely laughing at your own stupidity.
If that is what you BELIEVE I am doing, then that MUST BE what I am doing, correct?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 am
Even to consider that a wikipedia version of 'God' would some how be the one claimed by "theists" is even to ridiculous to even talk about.
How many people who are labelled with the "theist" tag, would you say claim 'that' definition is of 'God'.
You are so STUCK IN your own BELIEFS that to even say would you said is on the brink of complete insanity. You said; "Thus I have presented THE definition of God as claimed by "theists". Do you REALLY BELIEVE this stuff you write?
As I argued above, the default is to rely on the theists' definition of God.
Who is a 'theist'?
IF you could even come to a logical definition that actually worked for the word 'theist', then out of those human beings what is the AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED definition of the 'God' word?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 amI have already explain, there can be thousands of definition of god,
Considering it was I who has been the one POINTING OUT that there are many different definitions and NOT one agreed upon and accepted definition, and it was you who kept insisting that you KNOW what the 'theists' definition IS and also KNOW what thee 'ultimate' definition IS, then it is very funny now to SEE you admit that there can be thousands of definitions of the word 'God'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 am but they all are reduced to the ontological definition of God due to the inherent 'one-up' within all humans.
What do you think IS the 'ontological' definition of 'God'?
Also, what does " 'one-up' within ALL humans actually mean "?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 am
So, which ONE of the MULTITUDE of definitions is it actually?
That is the point with your shallow mind which cannot think further.
As explained, all definitions of God are reducible to the ontological God.
How about instead of 'trying to' humiliate and/or denigrate me you just ANSWER the clarifying questions posed to you.
You are the one making the claim that you KNOW what is IMPOSSIBLE, for the rest of eternity, so how about just answering the clarifying questions and proving what you claim?
Your attempts of humiliating "others" is only SHOWING more about YOU than it is of the "others".
Now, if you have not so far, then what is YOUR definition of the 'ontological God'?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 am
LOL
What do you mean by 'sophisticated' here?
You have previously alluded to the fact, by saying, that people who believe in God, thus theologians, are all mentally ill. But suddenly, and very coincidentally, when you want to use a 'definition' of some thing, then that definition just happens to be written by now supposedly "sophisticated" people.
Does it even concern you, that is if you are even at all aware, how just absolutely every thing falls into place with you, even though you contradict yourself completely numerous times?
That is where you are ignorant again.
And this is just ANOTHER example of you LOOKING AT the "other" and LABELING them, instead of just ANSWERING the question posed to you.
By the principles of the Normal Distribution one can expect of a small percentile of all theists would have very high intelligence [not necessary wisdom].
Is there such a thing as "Normal Distribution" or is this just ANOTHER example of how things 'fall into place", with you'?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 amEarly on, theists started with simple definition of God, e.g. the bearded man in the sky, see below;
Then as human evolves more intelligently,
To me, human beings do NOT evolve 'more' intelligently.
Human beings are born Truly intelligent, but sadly lose this ability during their upbringing.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 am[a]theist began to question the reality of God against every definition that theists can come up with until they are pushed into the corner and no further with the ontological God.
Are you SURE that you KNOW EVERY definition that "theists" came up with, let alone can come up with?
LOOK and HEAR this, I KNOW the definition of 'God' which can be evidenced AND proved scientifically as well as through argument form, in a logical reasoning manner.
The more sophisticated and intelligent theists were those like St. Anselm, Descartes, Leibniz and others who came up with the idea of the ontological God.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 am
Btw, you used 'LOL' very frequently.
That is very subliminal to cover your incompetence in your argument.
BUT, once AGAIN, I have NOT yet provided an argument. How come you still have NOT comprehended this yet?
I have ALREADY provided you THEE PERFECT God, which ALREADY EXISTS. You, however, are completely BLINDED by your OWN BELIEFS that you can NOT see thee Truth.
I do NOT 'have to' provide an argument. Thee Truth speaks for Its Self.