Philosophy Now Forum

[some wierd assumption that religious folk even understand the topic. Please show some proof they actually do understand the topic

So your "I don't believe" is predicated on what exactly? Some fool who has no clue? Does that make you even intelligent? A topic can be both factual and not understory d at all. We have a very long history. Try genetic defects! They are rarer than unicorns but variations beyond science comprehension are called defects. Science also had homosexuality labeled a mental disorder. Really? So we can see things they are seen and not remotely understood. Your lack of awareness in regards to religions confused articulations on the topic god is someone going on auto pilot.


Nature God same thing. One term means observer magically independent from it, science the other experiencially aligned to it. I certainly don't think that's religion today. They tend to love being magically intellectually independent just like science. It appears we have a mutual.agreement between much of science and religion. It's just the intellectualizing details that are argued over. Unimportant and irellevant actually to the topic god and nature both. Bad science bad religion nothing more.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:19 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:19 am

DMT wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:38 am Do you believe love exists? If yes then "belief" is a nonsensical application to the term god. It contradicts.

Love exists as an emotion that can be empirically inferred via structure of the brain, the chemicals, the human behavior, etc. Love is a justified true belief.

Belief [personal conviction of truth] can still be applied to the word 'God' but it is not a justified true belief, i.e. not verifiable, testable, falsifiable and the likes.

How many times do 'you' have to be told that if God exists or not, this is testable, thus verifiable AND falsifiable, BEFORE you can comprehend this FACT?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:19 amNot sure what is your main point.

And your notion of nature is very churchy. How Christian of you to believe that the term god is related to the human intellect. Or how dumb.......how bizaare your idea about nature only exists in what you read. Very churchy and Christian as well. Never bothered to actually put the books down and step out into it. See it all the time. Tourists.
.

Age wrote:
How many times do you have to be told that if God exists or not this is testable thus verifiable AND falsifiable

That would depend on ones definition of God [ of which there are many ] and your definition is different to that of others here
So to avoid any confusion can you once again provide your definition of God so that every one understands exactly what that is

DMT wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:44 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:19 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:19 am

Love exists as an emotion that can be empirically inferred via structure of the brain, the chemicals, the human behavior, etc. Love is a justified true belief.

Belief [personal conviction of truth] can still be applied to the word 'God' but it is not a justified true belief, i.e. not verifiable, testable, falsifiable and the likes.

How many times do 'you' have to be told that if God exists or not, this is testable, thus verifiable AND falsifiable, BEFORE you can comprehend this FACT?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:19 amNot sure what is your main point.

And your notion of nature is very churchy. How Christian of you to believe that the term god is related to the human intellect. Or how dumb.......how bizaare your idea about nature only exists in what you read. Very churchy and Christian as well. Never bothered to actually put the books down and step out into it. See it all the time. Tourists.
.

Age's respond is so stupid, I did not even bother to respond.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:55 pm "could the case just be that this one human being just BELIEVES they KNOW what the Truth is, but actually could be WRONG?"

oh, absolutely I could be wrong, about everything

just like you

Thank you. We then TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY AGREE.

I wonder now, If EVERY one AGREED with this, AND ACCEPTED IT, like we just have, then that is One thing that absolutely EVERY one AGREES with, and ACCEPTS, which would also, and coincidentally, make up and BE thee actual REAL Truth of things?

DMT wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:36 am [some wierd assumption that religious folk even understand the topic. Please show some proof they actually do understand the topic

So your "I don't believe" is predicated on what exactly?

Who are 'you' replying to here?

Until I KNOW, for sure, who 'you' are talking to, I would suggest that the saying, "I don't believe ...(whatever)" would be predicated or based on the FACT that that one, quite simply, does NOT believe .... (whatever).

DMT wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:36 amSome fool who has no clue? Does that make you even intelligent? A topic can be both factual and not understory d at all. We have a very long history. Try genetic defects! They are rarer than unicorns but variations beyond science comprehension are called defects. Science also had homosexuality labeled a mental disorder. Really? So we can see things they are seen and not remotely understood. Your lack of awareness in regards to religions confused articulations on the topic god is someone going on auto pilot.


Nature God same thing. One term means observer magically independent from it, science the other experiencially aligned to it. I certainly don't think that's religion today. They tend to love being magically intellectually independent just like science. It appears we have a mutual.agreement between much of science and religion. It's just the intellectualizing details that are argued over. Unimportant and irellevant actually to the topic god and nature both. Bad science bad religion nothing more.

Okay. If 'you' say so.

DMT wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:44 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:19 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:19 am

Love exists as an emotion that can be empirically inferred via structure of the brain, the chemicals, the human behavior, etc. Love is a justified true belief.

Belief [personal conviction of truth] can still be applied to the word 'God' but it is not a justified true belief, i.e. not verifiable, testable, falsifiable and the likes.

How many times do 'you' have to be told that if God exists or not, this is testable, thus verifiable AND falsifiable, BEFORE you can comprehend this FACT?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:19 amNot sure what is your main point.

And your notion of nature is very churchy. How Christian of you to believe that the term god is related to the human intellect. Or how dumb.......how bizaare your idea about nature only exists in what you read. Very churchy and Christian as well. Never bothered to actually put the books down and step out into it. See it all the time. Tourists.
.

Once again, I have absolutely NO idea who this is targeted at.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:23 am

Age wrote:
How many times do you have to be told that if God exists or not this is testable thus verifiable AND falsifiable

That would depend on ones definition of God [ of which there are many ] and your definition is different to that of others here

Therefore, and quite simply, IF one wants to KNOW, for sure, that the God, in which they TALK ABOUT exists or NOT, then they would HAVE TO BE the one that provides a definition. THEN, and ONLY THEN, can THAT be tested, and thus verified OR falsified.

I have ALREADY POINTED OUT the FACT that 'you', human beings, so called "arguing" over whether God exists or not, BUT NEVER defining what this 'God' thing is, is about the most ludicrously STUPID thing, 'you' human beings do. And let us face it - Of ALL KNOWN creatures in the Universe, human beings are the ones who do the MOST STUPIDEST of things.

I have frequently asked 'you', human beings, here in this forum, about what is 'your' definition for the word 'God'? I have YET to get a response.

I have provided MY definition/s a few times already. NO one has seemed to want to question nor challenge me about this, so I just let it be.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:23 amSo to avoid any confusion can you once again provide your definition of God so that every one understands exactly what that is

'God', in the visible sense, is thee physical Universe, Itself, (of which there is ONLY One).
'God', in the non visible sense, is thee non visible Mind, Itself, (of which there is ONLY One).

The two, the visible and the non visible, together make up thee WHOLE One. This One is thee Creator, Knower, and Seer of ALL things.

Thee One can ONLY exist with the two, and it is thee two FOREVER-NOW and ALWAYS-HERE co-existing, which is HOW thee One Creates Everything.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:43 am

DMT wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:44 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:19 am

How many times do 'you' have to be told that if God exists or not, this is testable, thus verifiable AND falsifiable, BEFORE you can comprehend this FACT?

And your notion of nature is very churchy. How Christian of you to believe that the term god is related to the human intellect. Or how dumb.......how bizaare your idea about nature only exists in what you read. Very churchy and Christian as well. Never bothered to actually put the books down and step out into it. See it all the time. Tourists.
.

Age's respond is so stupid, I did not even bother to respond.

And THIS just give me MORE WEIGHT in regards to what I say about just HOW BELIEFS STOP 'you', human beings, from learning, understanding, AND SEEING thee actual Truth of things.

I respond with a just an OPEN clarifying question but INSTANTLY an Truly OPEN question, just waiting for a clarifying answer, is SEEN as a STUPID RESPONSE.

This is a PRIME EXAMPLE of just how quickly BELIEFS BLIND a person as well as STOP them "dead" in their tracks.

ANOTHER reason 'you' do NOT respond is because 'you' are COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of answering my Truly OPEN clarifying questions is because IF 'you' were OPEN and Honest, then this would REFUTE your OWN statements or theories.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:02 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:55 pm "could the case just be that this one human being just BELIEVES they KNOW what the Truth is, but actually could be WRONG?"

oh, absolutely I could be wrong, about everything

just like you

Thank you. We then TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY AGREE.

I wonder now, If EVERY one AGREED with this, AND ACCEPTED IT, like we just have, then that is One thing that absolutely EVERY one AGREES with, and ACCEPTS, which would also, and coincidentally, make up and BE thee actual REAL Truth of things?

I'm missin' your point. Mebbe you can dumb it down for me.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:07 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:02 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:55 pm "could the case just be that this one human being just BELIEVES they KNOW what the Truth is, but actually could be WRONG?"

oh, absolutely I could be wrong, about everything

just like you

Thank you. We then TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY AGREE.

I wonder now, If EVERY one AGREED with this, AND ACCEPTED IT, like we just have, then that is One thing that absolutely EVERY one AGREES with, and ACCEPTS, which would also, and coincidentally, make up and BE thee actual REAL Truth of things?

I'm missin' your point. Mebbe you can dumb it down for me.

IF we ALL just accepted and agreed that we ALL could be WRONG about every thing we say, and just remained OPEN to this FACT, then could this FACT be one of the things, which I say IS thee actual Truth of things, which, by the way, just about EVERY one here INSISTS is an IMPOSSIBILITY?

See, I am frequently INFORMED, in this forum, that there is NO ONE actual Truth of things. Yet, my question has always been, COULD THERE BE One?

Now, IF the saying. 'I could be wrong, about every thing' IS an actual True FACT, which absolutely EVERY one agreed with, then COULD that saying be thee One actual Truth of things (or at least be one of what thee actual Truth of things IS).

Was that, what 'you' call, "dumbed" down enough, for 'you'?

"I am frequently INFORMED, in this forum, that there is NO ONE actual Truth of things."

Yeah, they're wrong. Truth (what is real) exists.


"Was that, what 'you' call, "dumbed" down enough, for 'you'?"

Not really. Don't worry about it, I'm thick from time to time.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:08 pm

DMT wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:44 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:19 am

How many times do 'you' have to be told that if God exists or not, this is testable, thus verifiable AND falsifiable, BEFORE you can comprehend this FACT?

And your notion of nature is very churchy. How Christian of you to believe that the term god is related to the human intellect. Or how dumb.......how bizaare your idea about nature only exists in what you read. Very churchy and Christian as well. Never bothered to actually put the books down and step out into it. See it all the time. Tourists.
.

Once again, I have absolutely NO idea who this is targeted at.

Simple. intelligence and reason can be performed without subjective awareness. You function interpersonally at the level of a laptop computer. Nothing to brag about psychologically imaturity isn't philosophy. .

BardoXV wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:47 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:40 am

BardoXV wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:43 pm More specifically a Lutheran but I listen to a lot of Atheist programs and call-in shows. Mostly I agree with the Atheist as they demolish the Theist who tries to prove the existence of God. I look at the old testament as parabel since Jesus had to learn the practice somewhere.

Oh you silly billy - what is parabel?

Jesus had to learn something did he?

Here is your evidence of God www.androcies.com

A parabel is a made up story to illustrate a point.

That sounds an awful lot like 'parable' and is actually a homophone to it. That's amazing.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:58 am

BardoXV wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:47 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:40 am

Oh you silly billy - what is parabel?

Jesus had to learn something did he?

Here is your evidence of God www.androcies.com

A parabel is a made up story to illustrate a point.

That sounds an awful lot like 'parable' and is actually a homophone to it. That's amazing.

I suppose the next question is, was Jesus born with all the knowledge, or did he need to learn it. If he was born with it did he also know that one day some people would speak English?