Russell: There is No Real Table??

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:47 am

Skepdick wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:18 am
Your above are toothless without proper arguments.
That's a double standard on your part. For all the bullshit you've been spewing on this forum, I am yet to see a proper argument coming from you.

In the real world toilet paper is a far more valuable currency than arguments.
For the sake to expose your ignorance;
  • 1. All transcendental ideas are transcendental illusions.
    2. The idea of God is a transcendental idea
    3. God is a transcendental illusion.
    viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27609
  • P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
    P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
    C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.
    viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
There are other proper arguments I have presented within this forum.

In your case, you have presented zero proper arguments except shitting all over.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Skepdick » Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:47 am
Skepdick wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:18 am
Your above are toothless without proper arguments.
That's a double standard on your part. For all the bullshit you've been spewing on this forum, I am yet to see a proper argument coming from you.

In the real world toilet paper is a far more valuable currency than arguments.
For the sake to expose your ignorance;
  • 1. All transcendental ideas are transcendental illusions.
    2. The idea of God is a transcendental idea
    3. God is a transcendental illusion.
    viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27609
  • P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
    P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
    C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.
    viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
There are other proper arguments I have presented within this forum.

In your case, you have presented zero proper arguments except shitting all over.
You keep straw-manning my point. Obviously, you've made arguments, ignoramus.

But you have presented exactly as many PROPER arguments as I have - zero.

All of your arguments are fallacious. In fact, I am willing to bet $1000 that you can't make a non-fallacious argument.
It's only because you are a stupid philosopher is why you think arguments are a currency of any sort.

Even your appeals to empiricism are just lip service - you couldn't design even a trivial experiment to test/falsify most of your ideas, let alone spot a methodical error in your experimental approach.

Age
Posts: 3611
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Age » Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:16 am
Age wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:10 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:47 am

I don't have a personal definition for 'the universe'. I agree with the one defined and accepted by Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
So, are you saying that whatever "science" defines and accepts the Universe to be, then you would just agree with it?
Yes, but not 'just agree with it' blindly.
I believe in scientific theories with the relevant confidence level and subject to the qualified assumptions, limitations and circumstances.
Why would a person believe in theories, which are themselves essentially just an assumption made about what could be the case?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:16 am
In addition whatever scientific theories I accept, I will filter them through the philosophical lens [logical, critical thinking, rationality, wisdom, etc.].
What about if it was not just a theory being made but through science is was proved that God exists, would you believe or accept that? Or, is that just out of the question?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:16 am
Note the difference is, my belief is different from yours [?] which is accepted based on blind faith.
Seriously, how many times do I have to tell you that I do NOT have a belief?

To state what you have just SHOWS absolute pure ignorance.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:14 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:18 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:01 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:49 am

Why are you so obsessed with definitions in a loop rather than on reality?

Because the circularity of definitions is reality...don't believe me? Look at definitions in a dictionary, or the rotary movements in sports, or the movements of atoms, or the movements of stars, or cycles in the body, or the cycles in mechanics, or the cycles of genetic material in reproduction, or the cycles of money in economics, or input/output cycles in computing, or the cycles of the seasons, or the earth, or the cycles of....you get the point?

Probably not...you will just cycle Kant again or some proof against God....even that is a cycle....


I understand definitions can be looped, i.e.

No you don't, you tell yourself you understand, but you know nothing.
  • What is true,
    truth is fact,
    fact is real,
    real is true.
But you have to deal with reality by bringing the relevant context and perspective.

Context is the repitition of factors...it is a loop. Perspective is the reptition of memories or experiences...it is a loop.

I am not bring context...I am stating nothing but context as absolute....and everyone here is running loops around you while you do it.


You have no argument....at all, its not even not an argument....its not even wrong....


And for the record, the Muslims view their God as formless.


Wannabe intellectual.....
Your above are toothless without proper arguments.

I have responded in the other thread, the Abrahamic God is a God that is supposedly formless in general.
Btw the Christian and Islamic God can manifest in various forms, e.g. Jesus or Isa, and including angels in Islam.
I regard myself as a reasonable expert on Islam, so don't try to pull a fast one on me with regard to Islam.
But God is not limited to forms.

It is like saying that God can manifest as a glass, or animal or human being...because all of these contain and exist through an intrinsic emptiness...but emptiness is not limited to these objects.

Void,voiding itself manifests as infinite definitions but these definitions exists through void.

Various forms necessitates God can be proven, infinite that God cannot be proven. Various is an element of infinite. God can be both proven and not proven. However each proof, based upon a finite definition, necessitates the proof as not only empty but subjective.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:47 am

Age wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:16 am
Age wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:10 pm


So, are you saying that whatever "science" defines and accepts the Universe to be, then you would just agree with it?
Yes, but not 'just agree with it' blindly.
I believe in scientific theories with the relevant confidence level and subject to the qualified assumptions, limitations and circumstances.
Why would a person believe in theories, which are themselves essentially just an assumption made about what could be the case?
This is VERY stupid in insist no person should believe in theories, i.e. justified theories as in Science, Mathematics, Geometry, etc.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:16 am
In addition whatever scientific theories I accept, I will filter them through the philosophical lens [logical, critical thinking, rationality, wisdom, etc.].
What about if it was not just a theory being made but through science is was proved that God exists, would you believe or accept that? Or, is that just out of the question?
If Science can justified God [as defined by theists] exist as real, then, I will accept that.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:16 am
Note the difference is, my belief is different from yours [?] which is accepted based on blind faith.
Seriously, how many times do I have to tell you that I do NOT have a belief?
To state what you have just SHOWS absolute pure ignorance.
This is another stupid claim of yours.

Note what is "belief" in philosophy and you are reminded you are in a philosophy forum.
  • Belief is the attitude that something is the case or true.[1]
    In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to personal attitudes associated with true or false ideas and concepts.
    However, "belief" does not require active introspection and circumspection. For example, few ponder whether the sun will rise, just assume it will.
    Since "belief" is an important aspect of mundane life, according to Eric Schwitzgebel in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a related question asks: "how a physical organism can have beliefs?"[2]
    -wiki
Do you reject the above within the confine of philosophy.

To reject the concept of belief is as if you are denying the concept of breathing.
In this case you are merely insisting you do not breathe, but perhaps claim it is only air going through your nose.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:57 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:14 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:18 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:01 am
Your above are toothless without proper arguments.

I have responded in the other thread, the Abrahamic God is a God that is supposedly formless in general.
Btw the Christian and Islamic God can manifest in various forms, e.g. Jesus or Isa, and including angels in Islam.
I regard myself as a reasonable expert on Islam, so don't try to pull a fast one on me with regard to Islam.
But God is not limited to forms.

It is like saying that God can manifest as a glass, or animal or human being...because all of these contain and exist through an intrinsic emptiness...but emptiness is not limited to these objects.

Void,voiding itself manifests as infinite definitions but these definitions exists through void.

Various forms necessitates God can be proven, infinite that God cannot be proven. Various is an element of infinite. God can be both proven and not proven. However each proof, based upon a finite definition, necessitates the proof as not only empty but subjective.
You are ignorant again.
It is not about manifesting into various creations of God.

In Islam, God specifically extended God's spirit into Mary's private part [in Arabic farjahā; FRJ it mean vagina] to generate Jesus.
  • 21:91. And she who was chaste [farjahā; FRJ; guarded her private parts] [Virgin Mary], therefor We breathed into her (something) of Our spirit and made her and her son a token for (all) peoples.

    66:12. And Mary, daughter of Imran, whose body was chaste [farjahā; FRJ; guarded her private parts], therefor We [Allah] breathed therein something of Our [Allah's] Spirit. And she put faith in the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was of the obedient.
Allah created everything else but extended itself in term of its Spirit to Jesus Christ and certain angels, like Gabriel.

Btw, so far you have been countering all my arguments with flimsy knowledge, off tangents, ranting, no proper arguments and worst of all with arrogance based on ignorance of the subject matter.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:05 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:57 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:14 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:18 am

Your above are toothless without proper arguments.

I have responded in the other thread, the Abrahamic God is a God that is supposedly formless in general.
Btw the Christian and Islamic God can manifest in various forms, e.g. Jesus or Isa, and including angels in Islam.
I regard myself as a reasonable expert on Islam, so don't try to pull a fast one on me with regard to Islam.
But God is not limited to forms.

It is like saying that God can manifest as a glass, or animal or human being...because all of these contain and exist through an intrinsic emptiness...but emptiness is not limited to these objects.

Void,voiding itself manifests as infinite definitions but these definitions exists through void.

Various forms necessitates God can be proven, infinite that God cannot be proven. Various is an element of infinite. God can be both proven and not proven. However each proof, based upon a finite definition, necessitates the proof as not only empty but subjective.
You are ignorant again.
It is not about manifesting into various creations of God.

In Islam, God specifically extended God's spirit into Mary's private part [in Arabic farjahā; FRJ it mean vagina] to generate Jesus.
  • 21:91. And she who was chaste [farjahā; FRJ; guarded her private parts] [Virgin Mary], therefor We breathed into her (something) of Our spirit and made her and her son a token for (all) peoples.

    66:12. And Mary, daughter of Imran, whose body was chaste [farjahā; FRJ; guarded her private parts], therefor We [Allah] breathed therein something of Our [Allah's] Spirit. And she put faith in the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was of the obedient.
Allah created everything else but extended itself in term of its Spirit to Jesus Christ and certain angels, like Gabriel.

Btw, so far you have been countering all my arguments with flimsy knowledge, off tangents, ranting, no proper arguments and worst of all with arrogance based on ignorance of the subject matter.
I read something about Mary, and forms or something....I can't take this seriously anymore.

Your Islamophobia is boring....

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:40 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:57 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:14 pm

But God is not limited to forms.

It is like saying that God can manifest as a glass, or animal or human being...because all of these contain and exist through an intrinsic emptiness...but emptiness is not limited to these objects.

Void,voiding itself manifests as infinite definitions but these definitions exists through void.

Various forms necessitates God can be proven, infinite that God cannot be proven. Various is an element of infinite. God can be both proven and not proven. However each proof, based upon a finite definition, necessitates the proof as not only empty but subjective.
You are ignorant again.
It is not about manifesting into various creations of God.

In Islam, God specifically extended God's spirit into Mary's private part [in Arabic farjahā; FRJ it mean vagina] to generate Jesus.
  • 21:91. And she who was chaste [farjahā; FRJ; guarded her private parts] [Virgin Mary], therefor We breathed into her (something) of Our spirit and made her and her son a token for (all) peoples.

    66:12. And Mary, daughter of Imran, whose body was chaste [farjahā; FRJ; guarded her private parts], therefor We [Allah] breathed therein something of Our [Allah's] Spirit. And she put faith in the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was of the obedient.
Allah created everything else but extended itself in term of its Spirit to Jesus Christ and certain angels, like Gabriel.

Btw, so far you have been countering all my arguments with flimsy knowledge, off tangents, ranting, no proper arguments and worst of all with arrogance based on ignorance of the subject matter.
I read something about Mary, and forms or something....I can't take this seriously anymore.

Your Islamophobia is boring....
Stupidity again.
You are insulting your own intelligence.

A phobia is an irrational fear.
The fear of Islam's advocacy of evil and violent acts upon non-believers [as evident] is real fear, thus not a phobia.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:08 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:40 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:57 am

You are ignorant again.
It is not about manifesting into various creations of God.

In Islam, God specifically extended God's spirit into Mary's private part [in Arabic farjahā; FRJ it mean vagina] to generate Jesus.
  • 21:91. And she who was chaste [farjahā; FRJ; guarded her private parts] [Virgin Mary], therefor We breathed into her (something) of Our spirit and made her and her son a token for (all) peoples.

    66:12. And Mary, daughter of Imran, whose body was chaste [farjahā; FRJ; guarded her private parts], therefor We [Allah] breathed therein something of Our [Allah's] Spirit. And she put faith in the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was of the obedient.
Allah created everything else but extended itself in term of its Spirit to Jesus Christ and certain angels, like Gabriel.

Btw, so far you have been countering all my arguments with flimsy knowledge, off tangents, ranting, no proper arguments and worst of all with arrogance based on ignorance of the subject matter.
I read something about Mary, and forms or something....I can't take this seriously anymore.

Your Islamophobia is boring....
Stupidity again.
You are insulting your own intelligence.

A phobia is an irrational fear.
The fear of Islam's advocacy of evil and violent acts upon non-believers [as evident] is real fear, thus not a phobia.
Scaredy pants...if a Muslim walkes though the door you would either sh"" or c"m yourself.....

Age
Posts: 3611
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Age » Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:21 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:47 am
Age wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:16 am

Yes, but not 'just agree with it' blindly.
I believe in scientific theories with the relevant confidence level and subject to the qualified assumptions, limitations and circumstances.
Why would a person believe in theories, which are themselves essentially just an assumption made about what could be the case?
This is VERY stupid in insist no person should believe in theories, i.e. justified theories as in Science, Mathematics, Geometry, etc.
Have you EVER seen ANY of my OPEN clarifying questions as being EXACT what they ARE, which is; just an OPEN clarifying question ONLY?

WHY do you continually read into and see things in my questions, which are NOT even there?

Also, WHY do you ESPECIALLY think I am "insisting" some thing, when I am OBVIOUSLY just asking a Truly OPEN clarifying question?

You come across as though you are paranoid or so insecure of yourself.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:16 am
In addition whatever scientific theories I accept, I will filter them through the philosophical lens [logical, critical thinking, rationality, wisdom, etc.].
What about if it was not just a theory being made but through science is was proved that God exists, would you believe or accept that? Or, is that just out of the question?
If Science can justified God [as defined by theists] exist as real, then, I will accept that.
Provide that definition of 'God' [as defined by so called "theists"], then scientifically justifying 'that' 'God' could at least BEGIN.

So, we await for YOU to provide the definition of 'God' [as defined by so called "theists"].
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:16 am
Note the difference is, my belief is different from yours [?] which is accepted based on blind faith.
Seriously, how many times do I have to tell you that I do NOT have a belief?
To state what you have just SHOWS absolute pure ignorance.
This is another stupid claim of yours.
This is another example of you see "others" less intelligent as you.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:47 am
Note what is "belief" in philosophy and you are reminded you are in a philosophy forum.
  • Belief is the attitude that something is the case or true.[1]
I do NOT have the attitude that some thing is the case or true. Therefore, as I have been saying, I do NOT have a belief.

I do NOT because if I did, then I would not be OPEN.

Note how many times you have been informed of this. Note you appear to the readers each time you ignore this, and then write some thing as you have done here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:47 am
In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to personal attitudes associated with true or false ideas and concepts.
Note how you BELIEVE you KNOW ALL these things.

I will inform you AGAIN, you do NOT know what 'THEE' definition IS, nor do you know how ALL of certain labeled groups of human beings use or define things. You just ASSUME you KNOW this. AND, BELIEVE you KNOW this.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:47 am
However, "belief" does not require active introspection and circumspection. For example, few ponder whether the sun will rise, just assume it will.
Since "belief" is an important aspect of mundane life, according to Eric Schwitzgebel in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a related question asks: "how a physical organism can have beliefs?"[2]
-wiki
[/list]
Very easily.

The answer to this question is very simple to work out, that is; If you are Truly Honest and OPEN.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:47 am
Do you reject the above within the confine of philosophy.
Do you always have to ask leading and/or misleading questions?

What you have proposed above is not even in the 'confine of philosophy'.

What you have proposed above is not even agreed upon and accepted by ALL, therefore, it is your own ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:47 am
To reject the concept of belief is as if you are denying the concept of breathing.
Are you at all possible to explain HOW and/or WHY you ASSUMED some thing, BEFORE you even KNEW what the True and Real ANSWER IS, and then JUMP to some CONCLUSION, which is so OBVIOUSLY WRONG that this gets more and more laughable.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:47 am
In this case you are merely insisting you do not breathe, but perhaps claim it is only air going through your nose.
And you are so BLINDED that find this absolutely hilarious now. I LOVE watching you perform.

jayjacobus
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by jayjacobus » Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:27 pm

Maybe Russell was over thinking "table". Ask a child, "There is no Real Table?" What are you talking about, abou, abo, ab, a? Ah, I see now. It's too complex for 7 pages of posts.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:56 am

Age wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:47 am

What about if it was not just a theory being made but through science is was proved that God exists, would you believe or accept that? Or, is that just out of the question?
If Science can justified God [as defined by theists] exist as real, then, I will accept that.
Provide that definition of 'God' [as defined by so called "theists"], then scientifically justifying 'that' 'God' could at least BEGIN.

So, we await for YOU to provide the definition of 'God' [as defined by so called "theists"].
I have provided the ultimate definition of God as defined by theists, note here;

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27640
and this;
  • St Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion, defined God as
    "a being than which no greater can be conceived" [2]
    -wiki
Now you can use Science to prove the above exists are real?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:59 am

jayjacobus wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:27 pm
Maybe Russell was over thinking "table". Ask a child, "There is no Real Table?" What are you talking about, abou, abo, ab, a? Ah, I see now. It's too complex for 7 pages of posts.
Read the chapter and his book 'Problems of Philosophy'.

Age
Posts: 3611
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Age » Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:05 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:56 am
Age wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:47 am
If Science can justified God [as defined by theists] exist as real, then, I will accept that.
Provide that definition of 'God' [as defined by so called "theists"], then scientifically justifying 'that' 'God' could at least BEGIN.

So, we await for YOU to provide the definition of 'God' [as defined by so called "theists"].
I have provided the ultimate definition of God as defined by theists, note here;

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27640
and this;
  • St Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion, defined God as
    "a being than which no greater can be conceived" [2]
    -wiki
Now you can use Science to prove the above exists are real?
Yes, science proves the Universe exists.
The very existence of 'science' actually relies on the Universe existing.
Therefore, science confirms the Universe/God is real.

The Universe/God can also be a being than which no greater can be conceived, OBVIOUSLY. Although this is NOT the physical Universe is NOT the REAL term for the Being, of which there is no greater, it can suffice here for now.

So, now that that is settled, would you like to move on?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:20 am

Age wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:56 am
Age wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:21 am


Provide that definition of 'God' [as defined by so called "theists"], then scientifically justifying 'that' 'God' could at least BEGIN.

So, we await for YOU to provide the definition of 'God' [as defined by so called "theists"].
I have provided the ultimate definition of God as defined by theists, note here;

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27640
and this;
  • St Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion, defined God as
    "a being than which no greater can be conceived" [2]
    -wiki
Now you can use Science to prove the above exists are real?
Yes, science proves the Universe exists.
The very existence of 'science' actually relies on the Universe existing.
Therefore, science confirms the Universe/God is real.

The Universe/God can also be a being than which no greater can be conceived, OBVIOUSLY. Although this is NOT the physical Universe is NOT the REAL term for the Being, of which there is no greater, it can suffice here for now.

So, now that that is settled, would you like to move on?
You are being deceptive in sliding the premise with Universe/God.
You need to prove the Universe is the ontological God [as defined by theists] first.

Science has proven the known universe exists not the Whole Universe exists.
The idea of the Whole Universe is a transcendental illusion.
Show me a scientific paper which prove the scientific universe is the ontological God?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests