Ravi is an authority on the Philosophical nature of Mysticism (your position), and has spent time with the leading scholars of the Atheistic movement too.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you are now arguing about the origination of the word... which I agreed was greek.
Keep up.
It being greek doesn't make it a philosophy.
Fortunately lil Ravi isn't an authority on language but you've once again appealed to authority.
Atheism, existentialism and postmodernism don't say what you say they do except in isolated incidents. You can't generalize the whole use of a concept except as it is formalized in a system, which atheism doesn't have. There aren't associated beliefs with atheism, there is only the basic mental state of not believing in a God.
Is that a better description for this mechanistic logic you are using ad nauseum to try to analyze virtually any defense one puts forward as fallacious instead of looking at the argument and seeing what value it has. Instead you just dismiss it at face value because it's defending something you've already concluded before rational thought is without value.
Because the metaphysical principles of Buddhism are not absolutely rooted in rational/logical language. The experiential and intuitive aspects of life are what root one in the experience of satori. You feel it, you experience it. You don't expect others to believe that you have experienced it, you demonstrate that you have become awakened through actions and words.
Given that your argument holds as much evidence as his no doubt Hamas will reject his god.
Okay, so Atheism is resorting to the same Philosophical tactics. Explain then, because the principle of Identity DOES affirm my position how ATheism is different (though I know this can not be done, try for it).
atheism is different from theism, yes, I never denied that. Your point? Atheism being the opposite of theism doesn't make it self contradictory any more than black being the opposite of white makes it self contradictory, or nothingness being the opposite of somethingness
The simple moral of this story is that finite understandings do nothing to the existence of God. This is why I see it as philosophically impossible to refute the existence of God.
By that admittance, it's philosophically impossible to prove it, since any understanding you have of anything is finite. Any revelation you believe is from "God" is still written in a finite language, so the rule still applies and any belief in "God" purely based in faith. Any arguments are preaching to the choir
No, just the position of Atheism itself is self contradictory. That Metaphysical thing we were discussing earlier.
We don't need to prove it. There is evidence for the existence of God. One is that so many people today believe it. Only 9% of the population disbelieve in God.
That's because you mistakenly assume metaphysics requires a theistic basis, which you haven't demonstrated why this is so except that you presume in order for metaphysics to have coherence apparently you need an absolutely necessary being, which is just distracting as a red herring.
If there's evidence, that means you already seek to prove it. If God is believed in by faith, that means evidence is not the issue, it's whether your "soul" is prepared to believe in God not by sight, but by the spirit. And now you're making another fallacy by arguing through majority.
Order is order, the laws exist, to try to find the origin behind them only distracts you from the already impressive burden of seeing the order that exists within natural chaos. To posit an orderer for order suggests that the order itself is not orderly, but is in fact chaotic. Therefore people suggesting that order needs an anthropomorphic source are presuming that nature is somehow inhuman or antihuman, when that contradicts the fact that humans are part of nature.
No, it has nothing to do with this. Logically to be intellectually honest, one can not disbelieve in God. Thats all this proves.
In fact, evidence has plenty to do with WHICH God to believe in.
Logically I disbelieve in "God" for multiple logical reasons. Your disagreeing with it doesn't automatically debunk my claims. Your arguing against them is not perfect either. To be more accurate, I disbelieve that the question of "God"'s existence is even relevant or meaningful. Which by your skewed logic means I'm agnostic or skeptical, which is only partly right, since I'm atheist in the metaphysical sense of not having God-belief as part of my worldview.
Evidence as experiential motivation is not the same thing as evidence in the sense of the source of a proof. In fact evidence would not be the right word, it would be experience, which is relevant in Buddhism as well, I might add.
Part of logical consistency is something can not bring itself into existence. Since Philosophers believe knowledge is infinite, it needs an infinite provider.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?