“BOOM” Mic drop.
There ya go poseur boy phoenix.
What do you expect? Xmas was yesterday
1 Like
Yeah, I was scratching my head on that one also…
1 Like
lol… We are discussing ideas and beliefs. Members here have no difficulty at all expressing themselves “FREEY” or 'WHOLEHEARTEDLY." I promise you!!
You are wrong of course. Belief in god is a binary proposition. You either believe in god or you do not. That is all there is to it. Agnostic has little to do with belief as both Christians / theists and Atheists are agnostic, Agnosticism is about what you actually know, Atheism is about what you believe, You can not both believe in a God and not believe in a God at the same time. You are being dishonest to yourself, *At the very least you could be confused and sometimes believe in a god and at other times not believe in a god. You can not hold both propositions to be true at the same time. One or the other is true and avoiding it is not an answer, it is merely refusing to answer, Does a god exist or not, Yes or No It is just that easy, If you say yes, you are a theist. If you say ‘no’ you are an atheist.
I have seen no philosophical doctrine that can be discerned by reason. None. It is all based on fallacious assertions, appeals to emotion or abstract assertions without foundation. Please provide a philosophical argument for your theism.
Faith is no path to truth. There is no position or proposition which I can not hold based on faith. Basing Philosophical Theism on faith is basing it on NOTHING AT ALL. Faith is not a path to truth.
Devil or Satan: An Old Testament construct which began as an angel who did God’s bidding and evolved into the Evil Master of the current generation here on earth. Satan is a Christian invention. Christianity invented the monster, scared people with it, and then promised them the cure in the imaginary protection of the Jesus Christ character which is also likely invented.
Biggest crock of shit I have heard today. Demonstrate the slaughter of the innocent is a mathematical construct. Demonstrate how the death of 26 mullion people caused by your butcher god makes mathematical sense. One of the most moronic statements ever made on this site.
Already you have demonstrated a God belief… That is what “theist” means. You are a theist no matter which god you think exists or how you rationalize it. Theism = belief in god or gods.
And have no good evidence for any of them…
Fine, explain how you do know things and how the way you know things is as reliable as physics. Psych wards are full of people with independent experiences that can not be validated. How will your assertions be different from theirs?
Okay, you win the idiot of the year award after that comment. WTF are you talking about. This is the most inane comment I have ever heard. More ridiculous that the last stupid comment you made. Life is Physics, that is how we explain it. *Perhaps you are trying to make the theist assertion that Physics does not explain the origins of life, Or physics does not explain the meaning of life. Or physics does not actually explain why life can exist? Guess what… NEITHER DOES THE GOD HYPOTHEISIS. You do not get to explain one enigma with a greater enigma. Physicists are actually looking into it. You are just making blind assertions.
Physicists are on the hunt for a “theory of life” that explains why life can exist. https://physics.aps.org/articles/v12/2
You do not speak from logic. I doubt you understand logic at all. One inane assertion after another. Do you know how to argue one point at a time? Like most theists you pop in here with a popcorn ball of bullshit, assumption piled upon assumption and each unsupported assumption based on another unsupported assumption. Try posting a SINGLE TOPIC and see where it goes.
Good luck!
1 Like
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. - Eleanor Roosevelt
So you have an interest in logic, yet confirm to Nyar you are using “informal” or personalised logic? Why should I find that compelling evidence for your assertions?
First of all I would ask you to have patience. This is just an introduction which I thought is very necessary.
I don’t understand for what exactly you asking evidence, and for what assertion of mine. I don’t see I asserted anything in my previous post to you.
I see this is goal-less discussion, which is why probably everyone talking about me, rather than the topic. So I advise you to assess me in every way you want to know about me, rather than asking me. I think this as more reliable way, rather than short cut way to simply asking me which is not much reliable in any way.
Your definitions are just personal subjective beliefs about your ‘God’. They are no more valid than the usual traditional ones and just as meaningless in the absence of proof of any god’s existence, or that of your ‘Devil’.
You maybe right about my beliefs being subjective but passing judgement without actually letting me say what I think or what philosophy I hold is just too hasty. Don’t you think so?
So far you have not offered any argument or premises, only claims.
What is the point in offering everything in introductory posts, where you can talk whatever you like? Everyone will talk anything without a topic. Better wait for some threads from me to understand my position on various things, isn’t it right?
Members here already seems eager to conclude about me, as if I am attacking their beliefs. They seem to behaving like believers. Why enquire about me much in an introductory thread, and conclude hastily? This thread is going in all possible direction, and it’s all about me. I don’t want to talk about me. If anyone want to know about me then know from my thoughts, which I would post in some new thread with some topic.
How about verifying my thoughts, testing my understanding, then retesting, retesting, retesting and then come to overall conclusion about my position and me as well?
We are. That is why your statements/assertions/claims have all been critiqued.
2 Likes
Phoenix, you’ve made some extraordinary claims about how the universe works. You claim to have answers humans have been looking for since we first realized our mortality some where way back in time. Some of those claims seem rather unique to you, so it’s knowledge you alone have obtained? Of course that’s going to be met with skepticism. You first need to show your proof God exist, or your other claims fall apart.
Why bother? You are already contradicting yourself (your statements about using/not using formal logic) and you’ve barely started.
1 Like
You made several unproven and unevidenced assertions, initially about your “knowledge”. Then you asserted you had or obtained this knowledge through “your interest in” . Again you did not specify your level of interest, was it at professional? hobbyist? passing? or merely as a dilettante?
You also claimed the following ( mind, consciousness, experience, observation and thinking ), exist as subjects readily studied…for your “unspecified level of interest” and failed to answer my questions regarding the level/depth seriousness of your study.
You can be as vague as you like, but when claiming knowledge you will have to be specific on these pages or you will be tripped up.
1 Like
Phoenix, this is a debate forum, not a philosophy forum.
If you are seeking convivial discussion and reviews of personal philosophies cosmologies without honest critique then I suggest you seek out another philosophy site.
Contributors are expected to come with their ideas and arguments already formulated and ready for critical analysis and evaluation. We don’t invite theists to arrive and preach to us. You are expected to engage in discussion, present and defend your ideas and satisfy questions presented.
Debate forums can be difficult for theists who for the most part, generally identify their faith as an integral part of their personality. They tend to take criticisms of their ideas as personal attacks on their integrity and intelligence. We criticise ideas and do not engage in ad hominem attacks. At least not until all due patience and hospitality has been stretched to breaking point.
So far, what we have read about your ‘rogue’ theology, is, very seriously, nothing new. We have had many, many independent theists like you come to this forum over the years, promising logically sound explanations and revelatory insights to their particular versions of god. And invariably all we are presented with is faulty use of logic with fallacies, false analogies, appeals to ignorance & authority and a dash of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” examples. In short unsatisfactory unproductive wastes of time. Your self-professed and evident lack of science knowledge and dubious understanding of the processes of logic and reason does not bode well for any future exchange.
Lets get the ball rolling. You have made assertions about the qualities and nature of ‘God’. You have made the claim no-one can understand God without first acknowledging Satan.
Please show either the substantive evidence, or the philosophical proofs you have for the existence of a god. We can leave Satan for later.
Ahh! Eleanor, she was quite the girl for veiled insults, but as wife to the POTUS she could get away with it.
1 Like
Okay Grinseed, I will try to express my positions very soon through different new threads. I taken this thread just for introduction.
Scientific laws don’t exist, they are explanations created by science to explain how certain aspects of natural phenomena work, just as scientific theories are created to evidence broader explanations of why large natural phenomena exist as they do.
You’ve already claimed not only to believe in a deity, but that you can prove it.
Thus by definition…
YOU’RE NOT AN ATHEIST
YOU’RE NOT AN AGNOSTIC
YOU ARE A THEIST.
1 Like
Did you run some sort of poll to research this conclusion, or is it just an assumption you’ve plucked out of thin air?
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for anything supernatural?
You can’t argue anything into existence.
1 Like
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
That reads more like your prejudice about atheists to me. What is challenged here are beliefs presented without any objective evidence, and that is not limited to theistic beliefs.
Scientific theories are not proved, they are evidenced, when sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated, and properly peer reviewed, then they become accepted scientific theories.
You seem to enjoy making endless unevidenced assertions about miracles, but you’re putting your cart in front of your horse. First demonstrate sufficient objective evidence that miracles are even possible.
The problem is that if you had any tangible objective evidence for any deity it would hardly be breaking here would it, that idea is preposterous. However you have posted several lengthy posts, and not one word represents objective evidence and as always I marvel that people who are convinced they can evidence an extant deity, fail to open with the most compelling evidence they have.
It bodes very badly for your claim.
That claim roundly contradicts the one on your profile to be an agnostic.
Agnostic
noun
- a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
So which is it, as your spiel is already contradicting itself?
1 Like
@aketo every atheist is an agnostic atheist because nobody can know with absolute certainty that no god exists.
So you can just select atheist. If i ask you “do you believe that a god exists?” and your reply is “no”, you’re an atheist. If I ask you the same question and you reply with “yes”, you’re a theist. If you reply with “I dont know” you’re an idiot (pure agnostic).
Please give me your “logical” argument for the existence of god.
What?
I’m fascinated why you think saying “I don’t know” is an idiotic position. It’s a position this idiot takes about god(s) and many thousands of other areas in life. In fact I’m agnostic about most things.
Also a skeptic, I question everything. Not to scoff but to learn. I avoid truth claims, as indeed does science . Right now I’m reasonably certain about one thing; that I will die any time from around about now or within the next 15 or 20 years. I guess it’s possible I will live to be 90.However,so far no male in either my mother’s or father’s family has ever done so.
To simply call me or anyone else an idiot is only an ad hominem fallacy and may be ignored. Make a rational attempt to explain your claim and it may become reasoned discussion, which is welcome here.
The question do you believe that god exists is a binary question [Yes/No].
Believe
verb
accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
“the superintendent believed Lancaster’s story”
hold (something) as an opinion; think.
“I believe we’ve already met”
To answer the question with “I dont know” means you dont know what your own opinion on the subject is which seems a bit ignorant (unless you dont know what the subject is). Everyone has heard some of the atheistic/theistic arguments about the existence of god at some point in their lives. Even if it was as simply put as “I know for sure the lord exists, and he loves you”. If not you would have heard about a deity at some point in your life and you would have an opinion about it. So unless you’ve never heard about any of these things (which is very improbable), replying with “I dont know” is simply put, lying.
1 Like
[
Horse pucky.
To say I don’t know means exactly that. It doesn’t mean I don’t know my opinion, it means I do not have an opinion on a subject. Not the same thing
That makes me an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in god due to a lack of empirical evidence. BUT, I don’t know for a fact. He may exist ,no matter how unlikely that may be.
Wikipedia is the best I could find by way of explanation. Atheism is not a philosophy, but agnosticism can be. For me to be an agnostic is to simply hold that the existence of a deity" is currently unknown in fact."
Further ,that all claims about god are presently unfalsifiable. IE cannot be demonstrated to be true or false. Neither I nor any other human a being can stated as fact that there is no god.
I’m sorry if that’s not enough for you, but It’s the best I’m able to do right now. . Accept, don’t accept. I don’t mind either way. I’m not her to teach or change the opinions of others. I am here to discuss stuff with like minds and hopefully accept reasonable challenges to my opinion.
1 Like
I think I understand what Monke is saying.
Theism is a belief and a belief is the affirmation of a claim. Whereas atheism is the absence of that belief. To claim to not know whether you believe something or not is not agnosticism per se.
Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of a deity.
Agnosticism is not a claim to not know whether you believe the claim (theism) or not. One assumes most people know what they do or do not believe.
An agnostic can be a theist or an atheist, since agnosticism is about knowledge, and theism is a belief, and beliefs can be held with or without knowledge. Atheism is nothing more than the lack or absence of that belief (theism).
Personally I can’t believe something if no knowledge is possible as it is unfalsifiable, and I can’t believe things for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated.
However I am happy to acknowledge that some abstract god claims, are unfalsifiable, though this is deism not theism. I disbelieve these, as well as the falsifiable ones, but also remain an agnostic, which is to say I’m happy to acknowledge when a claim is unfalsifiable, but still obviously disbelieve it, as unfalsifiable claims are meaningless. Else I’d have to believe all unfalsifiable claims, which is absurd, or favour just one, which is biased, and therefore closed minded.