Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 4214
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
God is an unknowable because God do not have any empirical elements thus impossible to be real
There is more than one definition of God

The metaphysical triple omni God of classical theism may be unknowable but that is just one interpretation
The God of pantheism is definitely knowable because that God is simply the Universe
God can also be defined as the highest mental state that any human being can attain
God can also be defined as Consciousness which exists within the Universe
God can also be defined as energy in a spiritual rather than physical sense

God is not a prescriptive term so anyone can define it however they wish
All definitions of God are equally valid as each other because everyone defines God from their own individual subjective perspective
And so for everyone their definition is true for them and knowable in a very real sense even if it cannot be empirically demonstrated

No one can prove or disprove the existence of God and so no one can categorically say that God is definitely not real
All anyone can say is they either believe / think or do not believe / do not think God exists and nothing else

I do not think God exists but I cannot say he definitely doesnt exist because I dont actually know what God is
There are multiple definitions and I have no way of knowing if all of them are wrong or all of them minus one
Human beings define God as they want to but how true those definitions are is not something that can be known
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4420
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 am
Age wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:22 pm Talk about MISSING THE point or MARK.

IF it is UNKNOWN, then HOW do you KNOW what to 'impute' with it.

How can you logically and reasonably impute the UNKNOWN with empirical elements, or any thing?

'empirical' IS what is grounded on observation and experience. So, if some thing is UNKNOWN, then you obviously have NOT YET observed NOR experience it, and therefore you have NO comprehension of what it is comprised of. To 'impute' the UNKNOWN with absolutely ANY thing is absurd and ridiculous beyond any sensible comprehension.

By definition, the 'unknown' IS UNKNOWN, obviously.
How come you are so stupid?
Either because I just am, or because I am just what you view me as being, or because I like to portray some thing, in order to make you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that thing.

Why do you think or believe that I am "so stupid"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 am'Unknown' does not mean 'unknowable'.
I KNOW. And I have already KNOWN this.

Nothing that I have said even suggests any thing like that. So, WHY did you write this?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amI believe this is the point you missed out.
Unknown means possible to be real.
I have NOT missed this point. I just do NOT agree with it.

To me, 'unknown' does NOT mean 'possible to be real'.

'unknown', to me, just means 'that' what is not yet known. And,

'possible to be real' just means 'that' what could exist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amUnknowable [in this case] mean impossible to be known as real.
Has the word 'unknowable' been used previously in our discussions within this thread?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amIf someone has a disease that is difficult to diagnose, it meant the cause is unknown.
If some one has a disease that is difficult to diagnose, then, to me, that just means the disease, itself, is difficult to diagnose.

If the cause is not yet known is just a completely other matter.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amIn this case because there are empirical effects, there will be empirical causes but not yet known. Doctors can predict it is likely be due to bacteria, viruses, psychosomatic and whatever, but the cause will be fundamentally empirical yet unknown.
And, so to what is unknown, is the disease as well.

By the way, WHY do you use the word 'empirical' so often, especially considering using it serves absolutely NO purpose at all, to me.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amThe possibility of the disease will not be non-empirical like evil spirits lurking around.
What are 'evil spirits', to you? And, if 'evil spirits' do not cause the not yet diagnosed disease, then what do 'evil spirits' actually cause or do, exactly?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amMy point is, whatever is unknown wherever [here or 100 million light years away] and if it is imputed with empirical elements, then it can be proven empirically if the relevant empirical evidence are produced for verification.
Your point is noted.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amWhy not, I can speculate human-liked aliens exist as unknown [yet] entities in a planet 100 million light years away. Because the speculation is imputed with empirical elements then this yet unknown is knowable. Note of the elements in my speculation is empirically possible to be real.
You are just saying more or less the exact same with the dog example. Like you continually do, you are saying nothing new really.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amBut if some one speculate square-circles exist in a planet 1 light years away, then there is no question of unknowns, because square-circles are unknowable empirically.
If you say so and BELIEVE so, then it MUST BE true, correct?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amGod is not an unknown thing.
God is an unknowable because God do not have any empirical elements, thus impossible to be real.
But God is ALREADY KNOWN.

For example I ALREADY KNOW God is a possibility to be real. This is because I KNOW what 'God' is, exactly.

But what is impossible is you, at the moment of when this is written, being able to fathom this.
'Stupid' in this case is not meant to be derogatory but rather it mean the lack of intelligence is comprehending the intended point which is implied therein.

I stated;
  • 'Unknown' does not mean 'unknowable'.
    I believe this is the point you missed out.
    Unknown means possible to be real.
    Unknowable [in this case] mean impossible to be known as real.
Age: To me, 'unknown' does NOT mean 'possible to be real'.

You jumped to the implication 'Unknown' mean 'unknowable'.
You did not mention unknowable but implied it;

If to you, 'unknown' does NOT mean 'possible to be real'
then it also meant;
'unknown mean it is impossible to be real' i.e. unknowable.
That is an error.

Point is, if something is unknown, by definition it can only meant it is potentially knowable but not yet known, thus possible to be real. If it is to be real it must be justifiable empirically-philosophically.

If you are autistic it is not easy for you to connect all the dots.
Age
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:35 am
Age wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 am
How come you are so stupid?
Either because I just am, or because I am just what you view me as being, or because I like to portray some thing, in order to make you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that thing.

Why do you think or believe that I am "so stupid"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 am'Unknown' does not mean 'unknowable'.
I KNOW. And I have already KNOWN this.

Nothing that I have said even suggests any thing like that. So, WHY did you write this?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amI believe this is the point you missed out.
Unknown means possible to be real.
I have NOT missed this point. I just do NOT agree with it.

To me, 'unknown' does NOT mean 'possible to be real'.

'unknown', to me, just means 'that' what is not yet known. And,

'possible to be real' just means 'that' what could exist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amUnknowable [in this case] mean impossible to be known as real.
Has the word 'unknowable' been used previously in our discussions within this thread?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amIf someone has a disease that is difficult to diagnose, it meant the cause is unknown.
If some one has a disease that is difficult to diagnose, then, to me, that just means the disease, itself, is difficult to diagnose.

If the cause is not yet known is just a completely other matter.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amIn this case because there are empirical effects, there will be empirical causes but not yet known. Doctors can predict it is likely be due to bacteria, viruses, psychosomatic and whatever, but the cause will be fundamentally empirical yet unknown.
And, so to what is unknown, is the disease as well.

By the way, WHY do you use the word 'empirical' so often, especially considering using it serves absolutely NO purpose at all, to me.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amThe possibility of the disease will not be non-empirical like evil spirits lurking around.
What are 'evil spirits', to you? And, if 'evil spirits' do not cause the not yet diagnosed disease, then what do 'evil spirits' actually cause or do, exactly?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amMy point is, whatever is unknown wherever [here or 100 million light years away] and if it is imputed with empirical elements, then it can be proven empirically if the relevant empirical evidence are produced for verification.
Your point is noted.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amWhy not, I can speculate human-liked aliens exist as unknown [yet] entities in a planet 100 million light years away. Because the speculation is imputed with empirical elements then this yet unknown is knowable. Note of the elements in my speculation is empirically possible to be real.
You are just saying more or less the exact same with the dog example. Like you continually do, you are saying nothing new really.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amBut if some one speculate square-circles exist in a planet 1 light years away, then there is no question of unknowns, because square-circles are unknowable empirically.
If you say so and BELIEVE so, then it MUST BE true, correct?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amGod is not an unknown thing.
God is an unknowable because God do not have any empirical elements, thus impossible to be real.
But God is ALREADY KNOWN.

For example I ALREADY KNOW God is a possibility to be real. This is because I KNOW what 'God' is, exactly.

But what is impossible is you, at the moment of when this is written, being able to fathom this.
'Stupid' in this case is not meant to be derogatory but rather it mean the lack of intelligence is comprehending the intended point which is implied therein.

I stated;
  • 'Unknown' does not mean 'unknowable'.
    I believe this is the point you missed out.
    Unknown means possible to be real.
    Unknowable [in this case] mean impossible to be known as real.
Age: To me, 'unknown' does NOT mean 'possible to be real'.

You jumped to the implication 'Unknown' mean 'unknowable'.
You did not mention unknowable but implied it;

If to you, 'unknown' does NOT mean 'possible to be real'
then it also meant;
'unknown mean it is impossible to be real' i.e. unknowable.
That is an error.

The only error I can see is you making completely WRONG assumptions here.

Point is, if something is unknown, by definition it can only meant it is potentially knowable but not yet known, thus possible to be real.


If it is to be real it must be justifiable empirically-philosophically.

If you are autistic it is not easy for you to connect all the dots.
I have ALL the dots connected ALREADY.

You, through your own diversion tactics, are just 'trying to' "justify" your own already held BELIEFS, and in doing so you are contradicting your own self and you are also disconnecting your own dots.

Your whole point is you can NOT define the word 'God' BUT you then insanely keep insisting that 'God' is an impossibility to be real, and worse stil forever more.

Now, WHY would a sane person say that they KNOW what is possible forever more?

By the way you obviously MISSED THE MARK about what I ALREADY comprehend.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4420
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:02 pm I have ALL the dots connected ALREADY.

You, through your own diversion tactics, are just 'trying to' "justify" your own already held BELIEFS, and in doing so you are contradicting your own self and you are also disconnecting your own dots.

Your whole point is you can NOT define the word 'God' BUT you then insanely keep insisting that 'God' is an impossibility to be real, and worse still forever more.

Now, WHY would a sane person say that they KNOW what is possible forever more?

By the way you obviously MISSED THE MARK about what I ALREADY comprehend.
Note I have provided the relevant and proper arguments in syllogism to support my thesis.

It is open for all to counter but you have not provided any convincing counter to my argument.

My 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.

In 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.
Point is whatever the definition of God is, it has to be agreed by theists.
It is stupid to insist I argue against my own definition which could be bias.

Thus I have presented the definition of God as claimed by theists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
My argument is based on the definition of the ultimate God from the multitude of definitions.

What is wrong with the above is picking a definition by the more sophisticated theologians.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8472
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Dontaskme »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 am
My 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.
The human brain is a programmable medium that can be trained to react to it's own personal cultural conditioning, which is in all accounts infused into it's blank slate from birth, it's no different to a mechanical computer.
The personal brain acts as a filter that will hear only what it wants to hear depending on it's particular conditioned beliefs available to it at the time, born of it's own personal individual unique experiences. This filter is only a tiny proportion of what's actually going on in reality.

And what's actually going on in reality is all CONSCIOUSNESS. How ever a particular brain looks at it's reality is only possible as and through it's unique lens of perception according to how it sees. All perceptions are merely interpretations aka mentally construed stories of what is, and not actually ''WHAT IS''
Identification with the story of me... just means that all that can be seen from the lens of each 'me' perception can only mean two things.. separation and opposition, as in this is 'my story' 'my belief'
Veritas 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.
Define 'atheist' ?

Then define this I AM that is also an 'atheist' ?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 amPoint is whatever the definition of God is, it has to be agreed by theists.
It is stupid to insist I argue against my own definition which could be bias.
All you have got are self bias opinions based on what you THINK you believe.

2 examples of your self biased opinions/claims is that you are an 'atheist' and you are also an I AM

Now all you have to do is define this I AM that is also an 'atheist' and define both to be real in your belief?


Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 amThus I have presented the definition of God as claimed by theists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
My argument is based on the definition of the ultimate God from the multitude of definitions.

What is wrong with the above is picking a definition by the more sophisticated theologians.
Now define a ''theologian'', and prove it exists to be real.

If you fail to answer by just ignoring the issue, then all you have are EMPTY arguments and principles.

I know that, but do you know that?

.
Age
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 am
Age wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:02 pm I have ALL the dots connected ALREADY.

You, through your own diversion tactics, are just 'trying to' "justify" your own already held BELIEFS, and in doing so you are contradicting your own self and you are also disconnecting your own dots.

Your whole point is you can NOT define the word 'God' BUT you then insanely keep insisting that 'God' is an impossibility to be real, and worse still forever more.

Now, WHY would a sane person say that they KNOW what is possible forever more?

By the way you obviously MISSED THE MARK about what I ALREADY comprehend.
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.
Veritas 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?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 amPoint is whatever the definition of God is, it has to be agreed by theists.
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.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 amIt is stupid to insist I argue against my own definition which could be bias.
LOL as if you are NOT biased now. LOL
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 amThus I have presented the definition of God as claimed by theists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God[/quote]

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?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 amMy argument is based on the definition of the ultimate God from the multitude of definitions.
So, which ONE of the MULTITUDE of definitions is it actually?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 amWhat is wrong with the above is picking a definition by the more sophisticated theologians.
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?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4420
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 am
Age wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:02 pm I have ALL the dots connected ALREADY.

You, through your own diversion tactics, are just 'trying to' "justify" your own already held BELIEFS, and in doing so you are contradicting your own self and you are also disconnecting your own dots.

Your whole point is you can NOT define the word 'God' BUT you then insanely keep insisting that 'God' is an impossibility to be real, and worse still forever more.

Now, WHY would a sane person say that they KNOW what is possible forever more?

By the way you obviously MISSED THE MARK about what I ALREADY comprehend.
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.
You are too ignorant and unable to differentiate between beliefs and Justified True Beliefs.
Scientific knowledge is justified true beliefs as being justified through the scientific methods and peer review thus are objective.

Are you rejecting all scientific knowledge accepted by the scientific community because to you they are merely somebody's BELIEF?

Some Philosophical theories are contentious but what is critical is they are supported by proper argument which is open for criticisms.

What I believe is 1 + 1 = 2.
You insist 1 + 1 = 5.
I have asked you to show me which of my premise is false, but you cannot.

Note, insisting on personal SEEING as objective without being supported by arguments and proofs is normally claimed by the intellectually-immature and mentally ill.

You are a mental case with regard to the above issues.
Veritas 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.

The default is, if I argued against the theists' claim for God, then I MUST use the theists' definition of God.

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.

The 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.

Such 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.
I will often point to some theists that the ultimate definition of God is the ontological God that overrides every other definition.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 amPoint is whatever the definition of God is, it has to be agreed by theists.
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.
If you are really serious with this, you must consult a psychiatrist.

Kant 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.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 amIt is stupid to insist I argue against my own definition which could be bias.
LOL as if you are NOT biased now. LOL
You are merely laughing at your own stupidity.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 amThus I have presented the definition of God as claimed by theists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
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.
I have already explain, there can be thousands of definition of god, but they all are reduced to the ontological definition of God due to the inherent 'one-up' within all humans.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 amMy argument is based on the definition of the ultimate God from the multitude of definitions.
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.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 amWhat is wrong with the above is picking a definition by the more sophisticated theologians.
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.

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].
Early on, theists started with simple definition of God, e.g. the bearded man in the sky, see below;

Image

Then as human evolves more intelligently, [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.
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.

Btw, you used 'LOL' very frequently.
That is very subliminal to cover your incompetence in your argument.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4214
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Scientific knowledge is justified true beliefs as being justified through the scientific methods and peer review thus are objective
All scientific theories are merely the best approximation of what is objectively true
Science does not deal in absolute certainty other than with disproof or falsification
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4420
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Scientific knowledge is justified true beliefs as being justified through the scientific methods and peer review thus are objective
All scientific theories are merely the best approximation of what is objectively true
Science does not deal in absolute certainty other than with disproof or falsification
Rather,

All scientific theories are objectively true and are the best approximation of what is assumed by Science to exists out there independent of human conditions.
Since it is merely an assumption so there is no question that there is or MUST be something real out there independent of the human conditions.

This is why Science always start with a hypothesis and then test and verify to get as close as possible to what it had assumed.

This is why Popper asserted,
scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.

What is critical is, despite no certainty, scientific theories are useful and objective, i.e. testable and the same results will be achieved by any one who want to do it.

In contrast, in Theology, the idea of God cannot be tested at all.
Age
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

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 am
Veritas 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;

Image

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.
Age
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Scientific knowledge is justified true beliefs as being justified through the scientific methods and peer review thus are objective
All scientific theories are merely the best approximation of what is objectively true
Science does not deal in absolute certainty other than with disproof or falsification
The reason science does not deal in 'absolute certainty' is because science is more or less just the studying of things. So, once some thing IS known, with 'absolute certainty', then there is nothing more to study, regarding 'that' thing.

To me, just being able to LOOK AT and SEE the 'absolute certainty', or thee Truth of things, is far easier and simpler, than 'trying to' make up "theories" about what 'could be' the case, and then studying to FIND OUT IF those ASSUMPTIONS were correct or not. The latter is to susceptible to 'confirmation biases'.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5482
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Age wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:03 am
Age wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:26 amAlso, NOTE that I have ALREADY provided the EVIDENCE for the PERFECT empirical GOD ALREADY.
Show your evidence and proof in this thread.

Others can contribute their views.
As I have said previously; The Universe, Itself.
That's not proof.

How much more empirical evidence do you NEED?
Empirical evidence of a god would be everyone seeing a god at the exact same time performing things a god does.

If thee Universe, Itself, does NOT provide enough for you to observe and experience, then I do NOT know what else could.
You surely have no idea of what proof is.


And, if you do NOT see absolute PERFECTION
Perfection is subjective, it's not necessarily universal.


in the actual living thing as the Universe, Itself, which has created 'you' and EVERY thing else, then you are FREE to observe and experience any thing, anyway you like.
You sound quite naive. Honestly, how old are you?
Age
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:14 pm
Age wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:03 am

Show your evidence and proof in this thread.

Others can contribute their views.
As I have said previously; The Universe, Itself.
That's not proof.

Why not?

How much more empirical evidence do you NEED?
Empirical evidence of a god would be everyone seeing a god at the exact same time performing things a god does.

AND EVERY one IS SEEING a 'God' at the exact same time performing things a God does when they LOOK AT thee Universe and OBSERVE what thee Universe does, which IS; Create ALL things, which IS EXACTLY what A God is supposed to HAVE DONE, hitherto.

If thee Universe, Itself, does NOT provide enough for you to observe and experience, then I do NOT know what else could.
You surely have no idea of what proof is.

And surely some thing else might actually be the case here.

You surely may be MISSING THE mark completely here.

And, if you do NOT see absolute PERFECTION
Perfection is subjective, it's not necessarily universal.

I have stated the EXACT SAME thing numerous times ALREADY.

That is, IF you do NOT see PERFECTION, then that is NOT because the Universe is NOT perfect but because that is only how you LOOK AT and SEE things.

in the actual living thing as the Universe, Itself, which has created 'you' and EVERY thing else, then you are FREE to observe and experience any thing, anyway you like.
You sound quite naive.

Okay. To me, this view of YOURS is PERFECT here.

I sound naive because I SEE things differently than you do.

Honestly, how old are you?
Does it matter.

'you', adults, continually LOOK AT making judgments of the one writing, instead of just LOKING AT the words and concentrating on them.

You have NOT once said WHY, what I have written, is WRONG. All you have said is that I am WRONG, because I am supposedly "naive", and also implied because of "age", as though that would have any actual bearing on accuracy or not.

Now, until you EXPLAIN WHY thee Universe, itself, is NOT proof of an already existing PERFECT empirical God, then you have really said nothing of substance so far, other than just expressed your OWN BELIEFS only.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5482
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Age Originally wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:00 am
As I have said previously; The Universe, Itself.
Then SpheresOfBalance wrote on Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:14 pm: That's not proof.
Age then Wrote on Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:58 pm: Why not?
Because you're assuming that only a god could create such a thing, yet science has proven otherwise.

How much more empirical evidence do you NEED?
Then SpheresOfBalance wrote on Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:14 pm:Empirical evidence of a god would be everyone seeing a god at the exact same time performing things a god does.
Age then Wrote on Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:58 pm: AND EVERY one IS SEEING a 'God' at the exact same time performing things a God does when they LOOK AT thee Universe and OBSERVE what thee Universe does, which IS; Create ALL things, which IS EXACTLY what A God is supposed to HAVE DONE, hitherto.
I'm glad you used the word supposed, which means that you're finally trying to be honest. Again it's an assumption, which science does not support.

If thee Universe, Itself, does NOT provide enough for you to observe and experience, then I do NOT know what else could.
Then SpheresOfBalance wrote on Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:14 pm:You surely have no idea of what proof is.
Age then Wrote on Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:58 pm: And surely some thing else might actually be the case here.
You surely may be MISSING THE mark completely here.

No, proof is something that absolutely leaves no room for doubt, no room for assumptions, something that's empirical or evidence supported by the scientific method.

And, if you do NOT see absolute PERFECTION
Then SpheresOfBalance wrote on Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:14 pm:Perfection is subjective, it's not necessarily universal.
Age then Wrote on Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:58 pm: I have stated the EXACT SAME thing numerous times ALREADY.
That is, IF you do NOT see PERFECTION, then that is NOT because the Universe is NOT perfect but because that is only how you LOOK AT and SEE things.

Nope! Quantify perfection as it pertains to the universe.

in the actual living thing as the Universe, Itself, which has created 'you' and EVERY thing else, then you are FREE to observe and experience any thing, anyway you like.
Then SpheresOfBalance wrote on Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:14 pm:You sound quite naive.
Age then Wrote on Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:58 pm:Okay. To me, this view of YOURS is PERFECT here.
I sound naive because I SEE things differently than you do.

Nope, difference is not an issue. That you ignore all science which for many years has caused religion to withdraw it's prior dogma, is the issue.

Then SpheresOfBalance wrote on Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:14 pm:Honestly, how old are you?
Age then Wrote on Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:58 pm: Does it matter.
Yes, it does! because older people have lived longer and have usually amassed much wisdom and knowledge. Young people tend to make the same mistakes that older people made when they were younger. I've attended college for a short time, how about you?

Age then Wrote on Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:58 pm:'you', adults, continually LOOK AT making judgments of the one writing, instead of just LOKING AT the words and concentrating on them.
Nope, we see that ones writing is that of a young person because we used to be young.

Age then Wrote on Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:58 pm:You have NOT once said WHY, what I have written, is WRONG. All you have said is that I am WRONG, because I am supposedly "naive", and also implied because of "age", as though that would have any actual bearing on accuracy or not.
I just did! I tend to go one step at a time. It's true that the whys of things are most important, but I take it slow, taking each statement, and rebuttals in stride.

Age then Wrote on Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:58 pm:Now, until you EXPLAIN WHY thee Universe, itself, is NOT proof of an already existing PERFECT empirical God, then you have really said nothing of substance so far, other than just expressed your OWN BELIEFS only.
Again, you have not provided empirical evidence of a god, of course you can believe what you want.
As you can see above, I mentioned some why's, now it's your turn to counter, if you choose to do so.
Age
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
God is an unknowable because God do not have any empirical elements thus impossible to be real
There is more than one definition of God

The metaphysical triple omni God of classical theism may be unknowable but that is just one interpretation
The God of pantheism is definitely knowable because that God is simply the Universe
God can also be defined as the highest mental state that any human being can attain
God can also be defined as Consciousness which exists within the Universe
God can also be defined as energy in a spiritual rather than physical sense
ALL of these ARE KNOWABLE, and ALREADY KNOWN.

The ANSWERS to each of them can be PROVEN scientifically and through logically reasoned arguments, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY, also.

God is not a prescriptive term so anyone can define it however they wish
All definitions of God are equally valid as each other because everyone defines God from their own individual subjective perspective
And so for everyone their definition is true for them and knowable in a very real sense even if it cannot be empirically demonstrated
surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:13 amNo one can prove or disprove the existence of God and so no one can categorically say that God is definitely not real
This is a HUGE CLAIM. How do you KNOW, for sure, that NO one, forever more, can prove or disprove the existence of 'God'?
surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:13 amAll anyone can say is they either believe / think or do not believe / do not think God exists and nothing else
There is so MUCH MORE that could be and will be said.
surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:13 amI do not think God exists but I cannot say he definitely doesnt exist because I dont actually know what God is
There are multiple definitions and I have no way of knowing if all of them are wrong or all of them minus one
Human beings define God as they want to but how true those definitions are is not something that can be known
How do you ALREADY KNOW that "how true those definitions are is not something that can be known"?
Post Reply