Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:00 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:46 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:13 am
What I stated is culminated in the above point.
That is "word salad" ??

It just show you are incapable to participate in philosophy with proper arguments.
How can one make a proper argument against something that connects a bunch of assumed words that mean nothing?

You keep trying to negate a positive without defining the positive, and when you give a definition of the positive it your definition and not the definition others are observing.

You hinge point of God is an empty term your whole argument revolves around in various circles trying to hide the fact the term is undefined and even the term God by definition is "undefined".

A transcendental illusion is still, as an illusion, an image...hence defined.

But God can't be an illusion because by nature God is undefined....
How come you are so ignorant?
A transcendental illusion can be defined,
'Can be defined' do not mean it is real.
What I am proving is the defined God [transcendental illusion] cannot be real.

What by negating a definition that is void and formless? Tell me how you negate zero without getting zero?

To theists God is defined as a real being that listens and answers prayers.
see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
Why do you insist God is undefined?

Real simple because prayers are undefined, listening is undefined...all phenomenon as changing eventually become undefined.

And you still ignore the definitions that say God is undefined. You also ignore the paradox of definition that occurs when God as undefined leads to infinite definition.

It's a paradox no matter what you do, and no matter what you say you will always be cherry picking infinite definitions and your argument will always be negated by some definition you cannot disprove.

Thus my argument is to counter the theists' argument that their defined God [ontological] is an illusion thus it is impossible to be real.

Uh...no...you cherry pick and avoid what you can't handle...hence that is why you have no argument.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:43 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:46 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:03 am

How can one make a proper argument against something that connects a bunch of assumed words that mean nothing?

You keep trying to negate a positive without defining the positive, and when you give a definition of the positive it your definition and not the definition others are observing.

You hinge point of God is an empty term your whole argument revolves around in various circles trying to hide the fact the term is undefined and even the term God by definition is "undefined".

A transcendental illusion is still, as an illusion, an image...hence defined.

But God can't be an illusion because by nature God is undefined....
How come you are so ignorant?
A transcendental illusion can be defined,
'Can be defined' do not mean it is real.
What I am proving is the defined God [transcendental illusion] cannot be real.

What by negating a definition that is void and formless? Tell me how you negate zero without getting zero?

A definition is a definition, the definition per se cannot be void and formless.
What you are doing is you are defining "void and formless" as "void and formless."
In this case you have in your mind the idea of 'void and formless'.
But that is only an idea or thought, it is cannot be anything real.

I am not negating zero without zero.
I am showing you that your defining "void and formless" as "void and formless" is meaningless.
You should stop the act of defining "void and formless" as "void and formless."
Whatever, you are not pointing to anything real except an illusion.

To theists God is defined as a real being that listens and answers prayers.
see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
Why do you insist God is undefined?

Real simple because prayers are undefined, listening is undefined...all phenomenon as changing eventually become undefined.

And you still ignore the definitions that say God is undefined. You also ignore the paradox of definition that occurs when God as undefined leads to infinite definition.

It's a paradox no matter what you do, and no matter what you say you will always be cherry picking infinite definitions and your argument will always be negated by some definition you cannot disprove.

You are going off tangent again.
A jihadist defined his God as real who has commanded the jihadist to war and kill non-believers.
So it is possible a jihadist could be standing right in front of you to chop off your head [as evident in I.S.I.S acts] and all you do is to say God cannot be defined??
You have lost touch with reality.

Thus my argument is to counter the theists' argument that their defined God [ontological] is an illusion thus it is impossible to be real.

Uh...no...you cherry pick and avoid what you can't handle...hence that is why you have no argument.

My argument is linked to the reality of the real evil and violent acts of theists who defined their God as real.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:52 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:46 am
What I am proving is the defined God [transcendental illusion] cannot be real.

To theists God is defined as a real being

Why do you insist God is undefined?

Thus my argument is to counter the theists' argument that their defined God [ontological] is an illusion thus it is impossible to be real.

Define this 'theist' ...if you don't define what is ''theist'' then you are stuck in the same 'pot / kettle' dilemma.

All you will come up with is word salad, for words are all you've got. Now, no words can define 'what is', or every word defines 'what is'.

All you can do is make up stories about what you believe to be real.
Meanwhile, all that's really real is what cannot be seen or spoken about.

You cannot prove a defined God (TI) to be unreal, until you define 'theist' to be real...the entity named a 'theist' you yourself claims to exist that is capable of having beliefs.. I will keep pointing that important point out to you until you are able to define 'theist' to be real being.

.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:16 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:43 am A jihadist defined his God as real who has commanded the jihadist to war and kill non-believers.

No person has a God. God is not 'someones' possession. As in His God or Her God. That's just excessive religious verbiage taken literally too far which is typically within the dream of separation, the belief in a separate self that has to defend it self to the death, when clearly there is God that knows NO death or birth. For God is unborn therefore cannot die.

God simply means either 'you die' and I live, or I die and 'you live' < do you understand that VA?
That which lives never dies, and that which dies never lives > do you understand that VA?
There is only room in here for one. Reality is Nondual.. NOT TWO

.. there is only GOD..or consciousness or what ever you want to call this life. There is only one of us here, believe it or not, it's irrefutable. So what ever happens, it's all the same one happening to itself always and forever nothing changes.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:43 amSo it is possible a jihadist could be standing right in front of you to chop off your head [as evident in I.S.I.S acts] and all you do is to say God cannot be defined??
You have lost touch with reality.

Only religious people caught up in their own dogmatic belief structure succumb to such activity. Normal sensible people will not get involved in such mindless senseless occupation, built purely on misidentification with the true self.
Stupid people chopping off their own heads is no skin of God's nose.
.

Philosophy Now Forum

Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion

Re: Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion

Re: Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion

Re: Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion

Re: Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion