Old threads of discussion I have had.

[The Grand Nudger]

Don't you have another thread for -this- particular complaint, too?

[Mystic]

Don't you have another thread for -this- particular complaint, too?

Chirp chirp chirp, I am Khemikal, I know I refuted MysticKnight because I can chirp chirp chirp.

[FatAndFaithless]

Go take a walk.

[Mister Agenda]

This was good discussion on stages of goodness and God:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-25537.html

I think it took a long time to get people to understand what I was stating (this was when I was a Deist).

I later tried to make into a formal argument:

When we perform good actions and become better people, we ascend in stages of existence.
Ascension in stages of existence is only explained by existence of God.
Therefore God exists.

Of course the reason for 1 and 2, were stated in the thread.

Your argument is never sounder than your premises. There's no good reason to believe either of your premises is correct. What does 'stages of existence' even mean in this context? You can become a better person without the status your existence changing at all.

If 'stages of existence' DID mean something AND was actually true, there's no reason to think God is the only explanation for it. Could be the Tao or Karma or something unknown.

Therefore, 'God exists' does not follow, it's merely a third assertion.

[Mystic]

This was good discussion on stages of goodness and God:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-25537.html

I think it took a long time to get people to understand what I was stating (this was when I was a Deist).

I later tried to make into a formal argument:

When we perform good actions and become better people, we ascend in stages of existence.
Ascension in stages of existence is only explained by existence of God.
Therefore God exists.

Of course the reason for 1 and 2, were stated in the thread.

Your argument is never sounder than your premises. There's no good reason to believe either of your premises is correct. What does 'stages of existence' even mean in this context? You can become a better person without the status your existence changing at all.

If 'stages of existence' DID mean something AND was actually true, there's no reason to think God is the only explanation for it. Could be the Tao or Karma or something unknown.

Therefore, 'God exists' does not follow, it's merely a third assertion.

See the discussion for the explanation.

[Mister Agenda]

You can deceive yourself. But if you didn't understand in truth, you would ask for clarification.  But you are reacting in a defensive mechanism way. You are asserting it is all none-sense to avoid the truth in the arguments that clarify it.

You've given us no reason to suspect you've got any truth to bother with. If you've got it, be a better Messenger, and don't waste your time blaming your audience for your failures to communicate coherently.

[Mystic]

A place I think I replied to Simbo, I said this with respect to score/rank keeping of morality:

You bring a good point, in that, how do we have ranks or values of goodness and honour, if there is no score keeping system. What if we don't care about our deeds, does that make our deeds irrelevant? Or do we still inherit our actions, get a value for them, and have an objective rank? And if so how?

If we are valuing our actions by our subjective experience, we can chose to forget and not care about our deeds. Others might care and be harder on themselves. There is no objective score sheet however.

In the case of God however the value of each person is known to him and inherited in the soul. Good actions get inherited and bad actions get inherited.

---

I was a Deist back then.

[The Grand Nudger]

Try reading "The Geometry of Desert" Mystic. We do have a "ranking system"...it can even be modeled, and provide predictions to how a group of people x will respond to some act y.

[Mister Agenda]

See the discussion for the explanation.

Can ANYONE who has participated in that discussion explain what you mean by 'stages of existence'?

[Mystic]

You can deceive yourself. But if you didn't understand in truth, you would ask for clarification.  But you are reacting in a defensive mechanism way. You are asserting it is all none-sense to avoid the truth in the arguments that clarify it.

You've given us no reason to suspect you've got any truth to bother with. If you've got it, be a better Messenger, and don't waste your time blaming your audience for your failures to communicate coherently.

And I know very well that excuse "you haven't communicate coherently" Moses was accused as such, and he know it was due to the ears of people, and that is why he prayed for the one God will send to the whole world, to untie his knots on his tongue which is not fault of Moses, but God got upset, why? Cause he had Aaron, which proves Aaron, and his family, were true successors of Moses, though Jews don't perceive. So he wanted him to look immanently in the future. And in the dead sea scrolls, there is a binding promise to the offspring of Aaron, that's it's only the pure and righteous from them, that the covenant pertained to with respect to the Priesthood.

Truth is not so hard to find if we search. Mohammad is in the Torah clearly for example, if one just thinks about that. There must be "one who God will send", that is different then all MEssengers God has sent, in that he is sent to the whole world, which means the Torah and Moses and his successors, weren't the final deal.

And the Messenger has long come, and his book is revealed to unite all tongues of all Prophets including Mohammad, and in that lies the truth of Ali and his offspring. 

There is so much proofs for everything we need to know but we don't search.

This is just an example of Christians and Jews not thinking about the Torah properly.

They will read all the verses alluding to this, and not think about it.

I believe in God. Humans, at this point, not so much. But I have to try.