How religion does succeed in changing people minds in mass?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Reality is all-there is, and for theists, includes the supposed-God which logically and rationally has to be part and parcel of all-there-is.

Non-sequitur. It does not follow.

"All that there is" may include things that are eternal. Or, as you insist, it might not. But that's the vexed question, and you do not have evidence to show it is your way. I think you make an illegitimate amphiboly between your term "all that there is" and the idea of strict Materialism. That's not a legitimate move, if those terms are not coextensive.

So you would have to prove that they are coextensive. But you cannot. So your argument does not work.

"ALL-there-is" would encompass whatever is real.
To theists, God is real.
Therefore God is part and parcel of the theists' 'ALL-there-is'.

Where is the amphiboly, I did not state anything about materialism.

Theists cannot explain the exact mechanisms and processes of how God [non-material] will the material into existence.

This is only to say, "Theists cannot exhaustively explain God." Did you expect that any contingent, limited, mortal creature would be able to do that? If that objection were reasonable, we could also argue, "Materialists cannot explain things like the size of the universe or the nature of consciousness; therefore, their view cannot be right."

Would you accept logic that weak?

Then don't ask anyone else to.

I don't agree with 'materialism' thus not a materialist.

My philosophical stance is empirical realism which claim that whatever is real must be be verified and justified empirically and philosophically [rationally] within a specific framework and system.
The scientific framework and system [FSK] of reality is the most credible to represent the truth of reality thus it is the standard bearer relative to other FSKs.

Can you show me there is a more reliable FSK in representing reality than the Scientific FSK [which has its acknowledged limitation]?

It is so obvious if the scientific FSK cannot explain the real size of the Universe or the hard problem of consciousness, they will not claim any truths for them.

On the other hand theists claimed their God created and maintained the Universe-as-it-is is true but theists are unable to explain the mechanisms and process how God created the universe?

The truth is there is no real God that created the Universe.

My confidence is you will not be able to prove your God exists as real. Your idea of a God as reified is an illusion that arose as a consonance to soothe the inherent existential cognitive dissonance.
Other spiritual groups [Buddhism and the likes] has recognized the above and dealt with cognitive dissonance directly and empirically.

The other pacifist alternatives to theism are thus more realistic without clinging to a God which has the potential to enable acts of evil and atrocities to be committed upon non-believers.

[Age]

Obviously YES..AND,...Obviously NO.

Oh yes...."Age." I remember you now.

Bye.

Okay. You, obviously again, do not like the Truth, so good bye.

[Age]

Well. I have to confess that I witness a few years of conversation in this forum and I just rarely saw any agreement between debaters. So I was wondering how religion can succeed while we cannot.

Which 'religion"?

All of them.

For example, some might succeed by indoctinating and confusing people: cults do that. Or sometimes they use hallucinogens or abuse to render people pliable. Some succeed by force, making people submit to the will of their god by the sword, by bombs or by terror. Some succeed by having a great weight of cultural inertia behind them; people "born into' them believe them because they think it's part of "what they are" already, and don't know any alternatives. Some succeed by manipulating desperation, naivete or ambition.

But do any succeed by telling people the truth? That might be a good question to explore.

No one listens to the truth! What is the truth in your opinion?

Why do 'you' NOT listen to the truth?

[Age]

Which 'religion"?

All of them.

That answer won't do, for the reasons given below. There isn't a singular answer...there are a bunch of different ones.

For example, some might succeed by indoctinating and confusing people: cults do that. Or sometimes they use hallucinogens or abuse to render people pliable. Some succeed by force, making people submit to the will of their god by the sword, by bombs or by terror. Some succeed by having a great weight of cultural inertia behind them; people "born into' them believe them because they think it's part of "what they are" already, and don't know any alternatives. Some succeed by manipulating desperation, naivete or ambition.

But do any succeed by telling people the truth? That might be a good question to explore.

No one listens to the truth! What is the truth in your opinion?

It's interesting that you disagree with Jesus Christ about that, and agree with his accuser, the Roman procurator who executed him, named Pilate.

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life," (John 14:6), and "For this purpose I have been born, and for this I have come into the world: to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice.”

Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” and then went out with waiting for an answer. (John 18:37-38)

If 'jesus' said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life", then what is the I, which that "jesus" was referring to?

Or, in other words, what could the ' second coming of "jesus" ' refer to, EXACTLY, which is the actual Way, the actual Truth, and the actual Life?

When you discover what thee ANSWER to this question is, then the rest makes PERFECT SENSE.

[Age]

What is the truth?

Jesus Christ is the Truth.

So, a human being is the Truth? Is this correct?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then what EXACTLY is "jesus christ" if 'it' is NOT a human being?

[Age]

What if I prove that there is no such a thing as God?

Heh. Knock yourself out. Have a go.

That is the simple one. If there is a God then this means that there was a point that there was God and nothing else.

If the word 'was' here is replaced with the 'is' word, then this premise here is true.

Or, the 'point' word just refers to HERE-NOW, then the premise here is also true.

God then creates everything.

It the word 'creates' here is replaced with the words 'is creating, then the premise here is actually true.

But time is needed for the process of creation, God alone to God plus creation is a temporal process.

But being 'in creation' ALWAYS is a premise which is true.

This means that God has to have time in order to create time too.

Time is NOT a physical thing that is NOR could be created.

Also, how the word 'time', and its definitions was created, then what is sometimes referred to as time was passing and so in order 'time', itself, was created is another premises, which is again actually true.

This is a regress.

But what I have said is just a fact, and thus a premise, which is actually true.

Regress is not acceptable.

Regress can be acceptable, but only when LOOKED FROM thee True and Right perspective.

Therefore, the act of creation is impossible.

Creation is actually not just possible but is actuality. Otherwise, how could 'you' or ANY thing else be HERE-NOW.

Therefore, there is no God.

Depending on how the word 'God' is being defined, this will effect whether there is or is NOT a 'God'.

[Age]

That isn't correct. It takes temporal terms, and attempts to apply them to eternity.

Why? The act of creation is temporal.

No, the act of creation creates temporality. Time is a product of creation.

That's quite a different thing to say.

Time has nothing to do with entropy.

Well, one definition of time is, "The means by which we measure the rate of entropy." That's not the relevant definition, but it's also not wrong. We do use time in order to do that.

We do it every time somebody asks you, "How old are you?"

You say, "Fifty four."

They say, "Wow. You're old."

You say, "Not that old."

They say, "Well, you're closer to being dead than to being born."

And they're right.

Not necessarily so.

On the line between the two points "birth" and "death," fifty-four is probably closer to death than to birth. Fifty four years of time have passed.

If 'time', itself, has passed, then what, EXACTLY, is 'time', itself?

[Age]

So there was no point that God was alone?

The question is ill-formed. For the word "alone" supposes the existence of space and substance. The word simply does not apply to the eternal past, in which there are no dimensions such as space and substance.

The question is not ill-formed. If God as it is described in the Bible created the universe then there was a point that the creation did not exist.

Not necessarily so. This is because at EVERY given moment the Universe is created, the way It is, which is how God has supposedly and allegedly, created the Universe, that is; the way It IS.

At that point you only have God.

Which is what I have been saying, which is; hat point IS HERE-NOW, ALWAYS. Which, by the way, is EXACTLY how the word 'God' is defined.

[Age]

The question is not ill-formed. If God as it is described in the Bible created the universe then there was a point that the creation did not exist. At that point you only have God.

The problem is in the word "point." Creation is a "point." But eternity is timeless, and has no "points."

Think about it this way. You and I are on the Earth. That's a "point" in the universe, right? But where is the centre of the universe? Are we at it? Are we not? How would we know?

When you discover or learn and understand how the Mind and the brain actually work, then you will KNOW thee ANSWERS to these questions, including the question, How would we know?

We would only know, if the universe were bounded and finite.

Not necessarily so. And it is just completely untrue anyway.

If it's infinite, then there is no sensible way to even talk about "the centre of the universe."

There is, but you appear to completely BELIEVE otherwise. Therefore, there would be NO sensible way for 'you' to even talk about and discuss this.

The universe, if infinite, can have no "centre."

Thee Universe IS infinite, and the center can be and IS ALREADY KNOWN.

Then, the "centre of the universe" would not be a point at all. It would be an attempt to impose the language of the finite on an infinite system.

Not necessarily so. But you can only say and accept this because of your currently held BELIEFS.

That's what you're struggling with. You think that eternity-past can be regarded as a "point," and creation as another, with "time" as an overarching, transcendent reality above them. But that's not the right way to think about eternity, because time itself is created within the act of the creation of substance, is not eternal -- and eternity isn't a "point."

If this is what you BELIEVE, then okay.

[Age]

The question is not ill-formed. If God as it is described in the Bible created the universe then there was a point that the creation did not exist. At that point you only have God.

The problem is in the word "point." Creation is a "point." But eternity is timeless, and has no "points."

Timeless or temporal. You cannot create time since the creation of time requires time.

Think about it this way. You and I are on the Earth. That's a "point" in the universe, right? But where is the centre of the universe? Are we at it? Are we not? How would we know?

We would only know, if the universe were bounded and finite. If it's infinite, then there is no sensible way to even talk about "the centre of the universe." The universe, if infinite, can have no "centre." Then, the "centre of the universe" would not be a point at all. It would be an attempt to impose the language of the finite on an infinite system.

That's what you're struggling with. You think that eternity-past can be regarded as a "point," and creation as another, with "time" as an overarching, transcendent reality above them. But that's not the right way to think about eternity, because time itself is created within the act of the creation of substance, is not eternal -- and eternity isn't a "point."

I am not talking about eternity since to me it is a misconception. Again, if God created the universe then there is a point that the universe didn't exist.

Not necessarily so.

You only say and believe what you say here because you believe the word 'created' is in reference to some starting point, which was prior to NOW. Which is what is causing the confusion for 'you', and for 'many' other human beings.

At that point you only have God. What is wrong with this argument.

As partly explained in my last sentence, 'you' and "others" are LOOKING AT this from a COMPLETELY WRONG PERSPECTIVE.

[Sculptor]

Well. I have to confess that I witness a few years of conversation in this forum and I just rarely saw any agreement between debaters. So I was wondering how religion can succeed while we cannot.

Fear and trepidation.
Religion promises something that people think they need, though it does not provide what it promises.
It's called delusion, and people love it.

[Age]

You cannot create time since the creation of time requires time.

No, actually, it doesn't. It can "require" no time, if time itself does not yet exist! That's the point.

I am not talking about eternity since to me it is a misconception.

That's the problem. You can't conceive of eternity, so you're trying to make it a kind of "time" in your thinking. But it isn't.

You are evading my argument. Was there a point that universe didn't exist?

NO.

If yes then God was alone at that point. Otherwise, there is no need for God.

Yes there is and this is because of what 'God' ACTUALLY IS and because of what God is actually creating.

[Age]

No, actually, it doesn't. It can "require" no time, if time itself does not yet exist! That's the point.


That's the problem. You can't conceive of eternity, so you're trying to make it a kind of "time" in your thinking. But it isn't.

You are evading my argument.

No, I'm just trying to correct the error in thinking that keeps you imagining it IS an argument. It's actually not even coherent, I'm sorry to have to say. I mean that kindly, but you'll find it's just not coherent, once you understand that time is a creation and eternity is not a point.

If 'time', itself, is a creation, as you say it is, and that there is eternity, then how COULD 'time' have been CREATED in ETERNITY?

In fact, the whole thing depends on you treating eternity as a "point."

It's not. So you're left with only one "point," that of creation, at which time comes into being, along with space and matter.

But 'space' AND 'matter', by their very nature, could NOT come into being. They have ALWAYS exist.

Also, if you want to CLAIM that 'space' AND 'matter' came into being, then HOW could this even be possible? And, what could have possibly created these things?

And since there is no "distance between one point," there is no interval between eternity and creation.

LOL This is an extremely humorous way to 'try to' argue some 'thing'.

[Age]

You are evading my argument.

No, I'm just trying to correct the error in thinking that keeps you imagining it IS an argument. It's actually not even coherent, I'm sorry to have to say. I mean that kindly, but you'll find it's just not coherent, once you understand that time is a creation and eternity is not a point. In fact, the whole thing depends on you treating eternity as a "point."

It's not. So you're left with only one "point," that of creation, at which time comes into being, along with space and matter. And since there is no "distance between one point," there is no interval between eternity and creation.

So, the universe existed at the beginning?

YES.

But this sounds ABSURD and RIDICULOUS to you because of how you are imagining what the words 'at the beginning' means.

If that is true then what God did?

What It ALWAYS IS.

What is the meaning of creation ex nihilo?

It does NOT mean ANY thing.

The last three words are just ANOTHER ASSUMPTION of what MIGHT HAVE taken place. But, which OBVIOUSLY could NOT have happened NOR could have occurred.

[Age]

So, the universe existed at the beginning?

No; "creation" refers to all that exists in the material world.

God is spirit, says the Bible. He is not a mere part of the material world. He transcends it. He can act into it, but only because He is greater than it. He is the Creator; it is only the creation.

If this were even remotely close to thee ACTUAL Truth of things, then HOW EXACTLY could and does a 'Spirit' create the whole physical Universe, Itself?