(June 9, 2012 at 12:30 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: If god is outside of the laws of nature, I can't see how he/it's possible.

Care to elaborate?

Quote:What is ultimate greatness? Greatness is a concept, but what is it outside of that?

If greatness was just a concept, it would have no value and be empty and void. Rather it describes things we perceive in reality. Ultimate Greatness would be a reality that is ultimately great. It's great to the extent it cannot be greater.

(June 9, 2012 at 11:28 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(June 9, 2012 at 11:07 am)Tempus Wrote: Clearly at least slightly confused - why use such an error prone method of communication?

I'm a little confused by what you meant here. Perhaps you can clarify.

Quote:Basically if a god exists it's a fact of reality.

And if we have knowledge of him, it's based on reality. This the point I am making.

You have not shown any evidence of this "knowledge of [it]". On top of that, you need to clarify who this "we" is.

Quote:If Ultimate Greatness exists,

What does this "Ultimate Greatness™" (trumpets blare) look like? Please demonstrate how that phrase is anything beyond meaningless word salad.

Quote: it seems all this spiritual knowledge

And now you are asserting a new idea of "spiritual knowledge". What is this "spiritual"? What is its relationship to knowledge? You have not shown any of this.

Quote:I'm talking about is not only possible but logical to assume would exist with his existence.

This is just a bald assertion, again invoking the same hackneyed circular reasoning, and it has no resemblance whatsoever to logic. None.

Quote:For example, if there was a conclusive philosophical argument to prove God in 10 years...

There is no such thing, and never will be. Arguments are not evidence. Assertions are not evidence. Assertions and arguments without evidence are sophistry (also known as BULSHIT).

Quote:and you know for certain this was a true argument and every philosopher and logician agreed upon the argument.

Are you seriously this naiive? how old are you, really? Serious question.

Quote:I don't think it would be rational to believe that God was not knowable until that argument came a long.

You have already demonstrated clearly that you do not have a grasp of what it means to be rational.

Quote:I think it's more rational to believe God made his knowledge properly basic in the soul the same as morality, were he to exist.

And again you have not provided any evidence whatsoever to support this assertion of a "soul", whatever that might be.

Quote:As I stated earlier:

To assert God exists and has given us knowledge of himself, so I made right decision would be circular reasoning. To assert God doesn't exist or that he exists but hasn't given knowledge of himself, so I made wrong decision would be circular reasoning.

And it's still as much word salad as the first time you said it.

Quote:It rather just comes to honestly asking yourself if it's genuine knowledge.

Intellectual honesty is something you are clearly lacking in here. Nothing you have asserted here about your made-up deity or supposed souls, etc., can be traced to either "genuine knowledge" or intellectual honesty.

Quote:And here I respect either Atheist decision that we don't know or Theists decision that we do know.

That would be an agnostic's position, but you cannot claim to "respect" it when you misrepresent it (and the atheist's understanding) so badly as you did above.

Quote:I myself believe I do know.

Based solely on your feelings and the above irrationalities and attendant word salad.

Quote:

---

(June 9, 2012 at 11:21 am)Ace Otana Wrote: I'm glad you use the words 'I think'. Many like to state it as if it's a fact.

Well I think it's a fact, but it seems impolite in a discussion forum in a debate to state things as facts, when the other side is debating it.

You did just that with your utterly ridiculous assertions about atheists' reasons for being atheists. And you have been sprinkling your assertions as if they were facts all through this thread.

Quote:

---

(June 9, 2012 at 11:21 am)Ace Otana Wrote: How can one know there is a god? How can you tell that it's not a delusion?

You see to me this is a fallacy.

WHAT fallacy are you claiming it is? You appear to simply be calling it a fallacy because you have no other defense against, as if calling it names would invalidate it somehow.

Quote: Their can be a relationship between God and the soul or mind or conscious that establishes this knowledge. It's possible.

This is just chock-full of begging-the-question. You would have to define and establish through evidence the existence of each of these before you could even begin to assert some sort of relationship between them.

Quote:The question should be, "Is there one?" Not "how can there be one".

The question is this: You are asserting this idea of a god-thing. Provide evidence to support your assertion.

(June 9, 2012 at 12:33 pm)Faith No More Wrote: The biggest assumption you have made is that your intutition is reliable

Not reliable for everything.

Quote: You are you using intuition to prove god exists

Not to others though.

Quote:, and then saying that your intuition is correct because god exists. This is circular reasoning.

I said that such knowledge would make sense if God exists. I do believe God exists, but I didn't conclude my intuition is correct based on that belief. I simply asked myself if I have properly basic knowledge of God. At the end I conclude based on that properly basic knowledge of God (this is from my perspective).

Quote:Care to elaborate?

Well for one, creating energy violates a law of nature. If god is outside of time, he cannot cause anything seeing as to cause something requires the passage of time.

Quote:If greatness was just a concept, it would have no value and be empty and void. Rather it describes things we perceive in reality. Ultimate Greatness would be a reality that is ultimately great. It's great to the extent it cannot be greater.

Just because it's a concept doesn't make it meaningless. It has meaning, but only to us.

(June 9, 2012 at 11:52 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(June 9, 2012 at 11:43 am)Ace Otana Wrote: Need to first demonstrate that souls even exist, and god. Why would either of them exist? Why assume they do?

Here I am just assuming it's logically possible.

And, in the words of Richard Dawkins, "Well, doesn't that just make it too easy!" :ROLLEYES:

You are assuming your conclusion. And from your interactions here, it is clear you don't know enough about real logic to even use the term in a sentence.

Quote:Then the next question is, is whether we have genuine knowledge of God and soul and a relationship between the two.

No, there IS no "next question". Your assertion died in its tracks before they opened the starting gates.

---

(June 9, 2012 at 12:10 pm)Tempus Wrote:

(June 9, 2012 at 11:28 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I'm a little confused by what you meant here. Perhaps you can clarify.

Ah, sorry about that. I meant: "Clearly you're at least slightly confused [about whether you have knowledge or not] - why use such an error prone method of communication?" But I accept maybe I misunderstood.

Basically I meant why not use a clearer way of conveying this knowledge so that confusion could be more easily dispelled. Presumably this god is aware of such confusion and has the power to clear stuff up, but chooses not to. That is odd. If I contain within me this knowledge, I'm not aware of it. And if this god wants me to have it why not just create me aware of it and prevent situations where I would be unaware? That doesn't make any sense.

Indeed, if this supposed supreme being existed, it would be supremely rational and supremely logical and it would know that it would need to provide evidence of its existence, its authority, its big dick, etc., in order for us to believe/worship/etc., in us, which is what is asserted that it wants.

There would be none of this "hiding" business. A supreme deity not revealing itself ot all of its creations would be utterly illogical.

(June 9, 2012 at 12:42 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: Well for one, creating energy violates a law of nature. If god is outside of time, he cannot cause anything seeing as to cause something requires the passage of time.

Hmm...I'll think about that one. I don't know if God is outside of time or with us at the moment. I tend to believe in the latter, simply because past, present and future all existing with God outside of it, doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Quote:Just because it's a concept doesn't make it meaningless. It has meaning, but only to us.

Ok we are agreeing. You said "it's only a concept". So it's more then a concept.

Quote:Hmm...I'll think about that one. I don't know if God is outside of time or with us at the moment. I tend to believe in the latter, simply because past, present and future all existing with God outside of it, doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Yeah, the thing about the laws of nature is that they cannot ever be broken.
Not only do I question the possibility of his existence but his actions. How does he create without violating the laws of nature?

Quote:Ok we are agreeing. You said "it's only a concept". So it's more then a concept.

It's a concept but has meaning to us. Whether it has any basis in reality is another matter. Like the god concept, does it have any basis in reality?

(June 9, 2012 at 12:30 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: If god is outside of the laws of nature, I can't see how he/it's possible.

Research "quantum awakenings" and the entanglement theory.

(June 9, 2012 at 12:54 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: Yeah, the thing about the laws of nature is that they cannot ever be broken.
Not only do I question the possibility of his existence but his actions. How does he create without violating the laws of nature?

The laws of nature are not broken as far our experience with them goes, but can they broken? Can you prove they can't be broken?

Quote:It's a concept but has meaning to us. Whether it has any basis in reality is another matter. Like the god concept, does it have any basis in reality?

Well of course you already know my view.

(June 9, 2012 at 12:15 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(June 9, 2012 at 12:03 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: Logic doesn't actually prove anything

Can you elaborate? I think logic proves many things.

You have shown that you do not understand what logic is.

Quote:

Quote:When it comes to god, we've got nothing.

I see this is from your perspective.

Subjectivist Fallacy.

Quote:

Quote: Nothing that actually supports his/it's existence. Same with pixies, it's probably possible that they exist but do they actually exist? What suggests that they do? Same problem.

Well I believe God is different in the sense he has a relationship to the soul.

You have neither defined nor demonstrated any supporting evidence for either this god or this idea of a "soul".

Quote:I believe is is the eternal basis

That doesn't mean anything. It's word salad.

Quote: of goodness

You have provided no evidence whatsoever to support such an assertion.

Quote:, the source of the spirit,

And now you assert, unsupported, a "spirit"-thing.

Quote: the ultimate greatness that is the basis to all greatness.

that doesn't even mean anything.

Quote:He is a universal foundation of reality.

Nor does that. All that is, is meaningless word salad.

Quote:Prixies at most are possible being.

Really? And Crumple-Horned Snorkacks too. that doesn't mean they exist, no matter how much you are going to quibble over "possibilities".

Quote:However God is believed

Is he? By whom? Why this sudden and mysterious switch to the Passive Voice?

Quote: to be a necessary being,

No, it is not, and the "Argument from Necessity" has been long-debunked. And again, arguments are not evidence.

Quote:hence, if he exists, then logic knowing he must exist, is not the same as prixies.

Very poor piece of semantic prestidigitation there, ace.

Quote:

Quote:Sure both questions are valid. I guess we should ask both questions.
Indeed, like the impossible structure - . It's not possible because it violates the laws of physics. So the question if there is one becomes meaningless. So...is it possible for a god to exist?

What do you think? Of course you know my answer (Hint: it's in the OP as well as under my religious views) but what is your answer?

Retreating into "possibilities" is sophistry and bullshit. You are making an extraordinary claim. This requires extraordinary evidence. Without that extraordinary evidence, your "possibilities" are so low as to approach zero.

Quote:Do you think Ultimate Greatness is logically possible?

"Ultimate Greatness" is word salad.

---

(June 9, 2012 at 12:26 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(June 9, 2012 at 12:10 pm)Tempus Wrote: Ah, sorry about that. I meant: "Clearly you're at least slightly confused [about whether you have knowledge or not] - why use such an error prone method of communication?" But I accept maybe I misunderstood.

Basically I meant why not use a clearer way of conveying this knowledge so that confusion could be more easily dispelled. Presumably this god is aware of such confusion and has the power to clear stuff up, but chooses not to. That is odd. If I contain within me this knowledge, I'm not aware of it. And if this god wants me to have it why not just create me aware of it and prevent situations where I would be unaware? That doesn't make any sense.

Well here is the thing. I think free-will and beliefs go together. Those whom did 9/11 would not have done it, if they didn't believe in what they are doing.

When you chose to believe it is wrong, it's a choice, but it's the right one. Choice doesn't mean it is baseless.

Ofcourse if God wanted everyone to have it, then everyone would have it. But perhaps he wants people to chose to have it, in the same way we chose to believe killing apostates for leaving a religion be it a true one or not, is wrong.

It's a choice. Not everyone does the same choice.

Perhaps he wants you to pull out the sword of God so to speak instead of just being forced to believe he exists. Perhaps he wants you you to chose to recognize him in the midst of the falsehood.

The next thing is aside from the soul being given properly basic knowledge, there is no way else to know about God really.

Suppose he writes in the sky that he exists, how do you know he is good? how do you know he is loving? how do you know he is great?

For all you know, without knowledge, he is evil, and intends to torture you.

Everything he tells you can be a lie. He can be lying to you.

Even after you die, you don't know if he is telling the truth to you.

So you can see, if we are to have knowledge to him, coming down to us or talking to us or writting in the sky or bringing a million books down from the sky, all would not really prove anything, aside from a creator.

Proving a Creator does nothing, because you know nothing about the Creator.

In other words, you are making up excuses for your made-up gawd figure to hide. How utterly convenient.

---

(June 9, 2012 at 12:33 pm)Faith No More Wrote: MysticKnight, you are making many assumptions to justify your belief. The biggest assumption you have made is that your intutition is reliable, and from what I can tell you have justified that with the idea that you believe god would instill this knowledge within you. You are you using intuition to prove god exists, and then saying that your intuition is correct because god exists. This is circular reasoning.

Indeed.

---

(June 9, 2012 at 12:34 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(June 9, 2012 at 12:30 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: If god is outside of the laws of nature, I can't see how he/it's possible.

Care to elaborate?

Quote:What is ultimate greatness? Greatness is a concept, but what is it outside of that?

If greatness was just a concept, it would have no value and be empty and void. Rather it describes things we perceive in reality. Ultimate Greatness would be a reality that is ultimately great. It's great to the extent it cannot be greater.

Word. Salad.

---

(June 9, 2012 at 12:39 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(June 9, 2012 at 12:33 pm)Faith No More Wrote: The biggest assumption you have made is that your intutition is reliable

Not reliable for everything.

Quote: You are you using intuition to prove god exists

Not to others though.

Quote:, and then saying that your intuition is correct because god exists. This is circular reasoning.

I said that such knowledge would make sense if God exists. I do believe God exists, but I didn't conclude my intuition is correct based on that belief. I simply asked myself if I have properly basic knowledge of God. At the end I conclude based on that properly basic knowledge of God (this is from my perspective).

Which is just as circular and question-begging.