Is "God" a Cogent Concept?

[createdtoworship]

That doesn't make the the true definition in any sense beyond mere consensus,

dictionaries usually operate on consensus, yes that is true. So if you disagree you would have to provide a source for why your definition should go against the consensus.

which is useless when dealing with an unfalsifiable claim

fasifiability is one of those obscure tactics of skeptics. But if fails miserably. for instance facts themselves are not falsifiable. If they were, they would be untrue and self defeat their factual status. So if facts are not fasifiable, then of course I would desire for my statements to also be unfalsifiable.

You quote what you find authoritative, not something that's remotely falsifiable or subject to critical thought in itself

facts are not falsifiable so I am good if my statements are not either. But saying my sources are not subject to critical thought is your opinion. And again I have quoted dictionaries and ancient historical manuscripts (called the Bible.) You have quoted nothing to back up your claims, so at this point. This is an easy argument for me to do.

that can't be danced around with selective interpretation. If you're expecting a source for everything, you have a bigger problem in terms of discussion that relies too heavily on authority and not basic criticism of thoughts as they are presented even if they aren't working from some particular school of thought, most people aren't nearly that anal

logic can be a source of evidence yes, but your logic itself is subjective because it relies on your opinion. My logic is based on consensus, either scientifically, or grammatically as in dictionaries. What is your source. I believe in latin the term is "EGO." It means one self. To view oneself as an authority is someone with a strong "ego."

Vacuums don't have mass, they exist in time, methinks you'd have to demonstrate that otherwise with your sources, because I'm no expert, but I feel like I already undermined that whole point with a simple example

vacuums don't have mass. That is because nothing is there sir. Nothing is actually a lack of mass yes, and to ask me if nothing is eternal is sort of an odd question.

Again, that's convenient definitions so you don't have to address God's cogency in itself, just be internally consistent with what you already presuppose

we are all biased in our own way, that does not mean we are innacurate it just means we see it from a certain world view. You yourself are biased as a skeptic.

Maybe toss out the bible, I don't take it remotely seriously, you're blowing smoke in regards to any such things, because I don't regard it as authoritative and you've failed to substantiate why it's authoritative in itself

I don't really care if you view it as authoritative or not, that is not my concern. Any time an archaologist cannot find the historical backdrop of a dig in the middle east, they will look it up in the Bible. They don't do that with the koran, or the book or mormon, or the bagvad gita, or any other religious book. That to me proves it is historical.

Outside of time means there is no progression at all, you're static essentially, so it becomes nonexistence effectively

that is subjective opinion. Have you ever been in a dimension above the time dimension. This is like saying that a three dimensional being is static, because a two dimensional being cannot comprehend what it's like to be three dimensional.

If I existed in all dimensions, but it's not unlimited, only a greater capacity relative to 1st and 2nd dimensional beings. I don't even have to watch the video to understand the childish analogy

My original comment was this: "I'm not absolutely unlimited in terms of the dimensions I interact with: being 3 dimensional does not throw out the other dimensions as part of those 3 dimensions, it means there's a wider perspective." So you are ulimited as it relates to being in a wider perspective. That was my original comment, then you said "no it's not unlimited." Then in this post you basically agreed that it is a greater capacity. Which is the same as saying it's unlimited as far as being in a wider perspective.

Sovereignty does not entail you aren't subject to something, otherwise you essentially special plead your God into obscurity and contradictions by saying it doesn't require anything, yet it also desires and has human emotions (in a perfect form)

saying something is special pleading but not providing evidence of it, or quoting sources to prove it is simply hearsay. And yes sovereignty does mean you are not subject to something. And according to common definitions of God, He is all knowing, everywhere at once, and all powerful. Omnicient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. So to me that actually means He does not require anything. Yes He has all the positive aspects of emotion, intelligence etc. But not the negative aspects. According to the moral case for God's existence you still have not provided a causation for why we view selfish behaviour as selfish. One can be selfish in a tribe and not be killing anyone off, it's not a direct threat to their existence, yet it is still frowned upon. If survival instinct cannot provide causality to morality, where did it come from?

 

[createdtoworship]

If you already assume God exists as something self evident, you're appealing back to that rather than demonstrating it is the case apart from referencing that a priori rationalization

I answer this in my last post.

And morality having a source is not the same as having a standard, a source is spatial, a standard is conceptual

I never mentioned a standard that is separate rationalization. So this is non sequitur, and sort of a red herring as to not have to answer the question of where did morality come from.

Where assumes a place in space and time rather than something we can demonstrate as a principle we apply to actions in regards to respecting people's autonomy,

This is mumbo jumbo talk. I am not sure anyone in this thread really understands what you are tying to say, here. Many others are having a hard time talking to you, because you philosophize everything so that you don't have to answer direct questions. It's just wiggling out of debate. But it makes people disrespect you as a person.

A historical appeal does not demonstrate that your deity is the source of morality in the slightest,

But it is possible. And you have no alternative, so I guess I am winning as having the only cause for morality, seeing you forfeit the discussion entirely as having no clue as to where morality comes from.

a standard of morality based on wellbeing is demonstrable and falsifiable, not an appeal to an authority or command, but consequences and the virtue of considering those consequences as enriching our behavior.

ok, now we are getting somewhere. Thank you finally entering this debate. So how is someone being unselfish attacking the wellbeing of a tribe or culture? Say for instance that a tribe got in line to eat of the recent kill. And someone cuts in line. That is no direct threat to the wellbeing of the tribe, there is plenty for everyone. So why is it frowned upon? You said that "a standard of morality based on wellbeing is demostrable and falsifiable."

And I agree with you that it is demonstrable in the fact that a standard exists, but it is far more rigid than simply if it is a cause for wellbeing.

 

[muichimotsu]

I cannot parse anything you're saying well enough to respond to it, though it seems to amount to "God's nature is circular because I say so" and "Aquinas is engaged in equivocation because I say so." Neither objection is meaningful in any way.

Beyond that, you are equivocating on the meaning of the word "simple." When theologians say that "God is simple," they are referring to the doctrine of divine simplicity (i.e., the idea that God has no parts), not claiming that theism can be easily explained. Clearly it can't be. You were asking how theists might argue for monotheism over polytheism, and one of the major methods involves the doctrine of divine simplicity. Trinitarianism actually affirms divine simplicity, since one of the major claims of Trinitarianism is that the three persons do have one identical essence or nature, not three.

If God's nature requires you to reference back to it in order to justify it, then it's circular, correct? And if you're talking about things that are not often conflated in their meanings as if they are remotely identical, that would be equivocation, right?

Oh, God has no parts, yet it's described as simplicity even though the persons would reasonably have to be described as parts, or you get into Modalism as something at least more cogent and not utilizing esoteric metaphysical language to parse out how 1 God and 3 persons isn't contradictory on its face

You can't be 3 distinct persons and have one nature unless you stretch the word's meaning to a nebulous fashion, I'm not unaware of the distinctions made, I'm not convinced they're anything cogent beyond an internally consistent structure presented, which is not indicative of truth itself.

 

[muichimotsu]

dictionaries usually operate on consensus, yes that is true. So if you disagree you would have to provide a source for why your definition should go against the consensus.

Dictionaries work on usage, not consensus as if they're polling people, it shifts with time

fasifiability is one of those obscure tactics of skeptics. But if fails miserably. for instance facts themselves are not falsifiable. If they were, they would be untrue and self defeat their factual status. So if facts are not fasifiable, then of course I would desire for my statements to also be unfalsifiable.

Facts are falsifiable in that we can have a situation that would show their contrary to be true and thus that the claims of them being fact in an absolute sense are untrue. But fact in scientific discourse is merely the observations, it's not settled in a conclusive sense

Falsifiability is not the same as being false, it's the possibility of being false with critical investigation, you don't seem to understand the concept remotely.

If you desire unfalsifiability, you don't want to actually examine your statements, which is intellectually lazy

facts are not falsifiable so I am good if my statements are not either. But saying my sources are not subject to critical thought is your opinion. And again I have quoted dictionaries and ancient historical manuscripts (called the Bible.) You have quoted nothing to back up your claims, so at this point. This is an easy argument for me to do.

If you just use an esoteric or generic notion of fact, of course you can claim they're not falsifiable, but that's not what I'm claiming

You quoting something does not lend credence to your claims when I'm not so facile to just take your quotations as authoritative, particularly the bible's claims related to an unfalsifiable entity

logic can be a source of evidence yes, but your logic itself is subjective because it relies on your opinion. My logic is based on consensus, either scientifically, or grammatically as in dictionaries. What is your source. I believe in latin the term is "EGO." It means one self. To view oneself as an authority is someone with a strong "ego."

Applying logical principles doesn't necessitate it being opinion, it means you're being critical to claims you make. Your "logic" is little more than sophistry, rhetoric masquerading as philosophy by saying that because something has this definition, it must be so all the time, which is faulty reasoning on its face.

vacuums don't have mass. That is because nothing is there sir. Nothing is actually a lack of mass yes, and to ask me if nothing is eternal is sort of an odd question.

A vacuum is not nothingness, it's still within space, rather than being utter negation, what nothing would mean in the most accurate sense of the term. Nothing is a lack of anything, not just mass, it isn't the vernacular sense you insist on because it just muddies the waters

we are all biased in our own way, that does not mean we are innacurate it just means we see it from a certain world view. You yourself are biased as a skeptic.

I'm biased towards holding the least false beliefs and most true beliefs as possible, I'm not claiming I'm certain on something I cannot make a sound and valid argument for

I don't really care if you view it as authoritative or not, that is not my concern. Any time an archaologist cannot find the historical backdrop of a dig in the middle east, they will look it up in the Bible. They don't do that with the koran, or the book or mormon, or the bagvad gita, or any other religious book. That to me proves it is historical.

Pretty sure the Quran does have some historical basis in referencing places we can find, but I'm not the one making claims of historical accuracy in regards to the bible and I'm also not the one making a faulty conflation between historical accuracy and accuracy of claims that are ahistorical in nature (God exists, for one)

that is subjective opinion. Have you ever been in a dimension above the time dimension. This is like saying that a three dimensional being is static, because a two dimensional being cannot comprehend what it's like to be three dimensional.

Have you? You speaking speculatively is little different than dealing in quantum mechanics and multiverse theory, it gets us nowhere in the discussion about god because you assume it's deduced by rationality in itself, which is asinine, since it's anthropomorphized, unlike logical principles, math, etc.

My original comment was this: "I'm not absolutely unlimited in terms of the dimensions I interact with: being 3 dimensional does not throw out the other dimensions as part of those 3 dimensions, it means there's a wider perspective." So you are ulimited as it relates to being in a wider perspective. That was my original comment, then you said "no it's not unlimited." Then in this post you basically agreed that it is a greater capacity. Which is the same as saying it's unlimited as far as being in a wider perspective.

That's not unlimited, it's less limited than the 2 dimensions below me. Unlimited /=/ greater capacity, it means no limit to the capacity itself

saying something is special pleading but not providing evidence of it, or quoting sources to prove it is simply hearsay. And yes sovereignty does mean you are not subject to something. And according to common definitions of God, He is all knowing, everywhere at once, and all powerful. Omnicient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. So to me that actually means He does not require anything. Yes He has all the positive aspects of emotion, intelligence etc. But not the negative aspects. According to the moral case for God's existence you still have not provided a causation for why we view selfish behaviour as selfish. One can be selfish in a tribe and not be killing anyone off, it's not a direct threat to their existence, yet it is still frowned upon. If survival instinct cannot provide causality to morality, where did it come from?

When you're asserting God is special because the bible says so, that's circular, but saying that God has to be special because you're convinced as such is special pleading, you haven't demonstrated it beyond your assertion of God being perfect, etc.

Sovereignty means you aren't subject to particular things, you're claiming God is not even sovereign to any logic, etc, which is more special pleading to get around applying the concepts we have for cogency of beliefs to this particular entity you hold as sacrosanct.

If you shift the goalposts, then of course your argument is going to seem the best, but you're not playing on an even playing field, you're favoring your own conclusion from the start.

Selfishness in a tribe can threaten their existence in sabotaging resources and capacity to hunt and gather by selfish actions, you're oversimplifying what entails a threat or harm so that it excludes things that can demonstrably cause those things in terms of scale

 

[muichimotsu]

I answer this in my last post.

How? By claiming God as a fact and,m by your mistaken idea, that facts are not falsifiable, that means God must be unfalsifiable?

I never mentioned a standard that is separate rationalization. So this is non sequitur, and sort of a red herring as to not have to answer the question of where did morality come from.

I'm claiming you're categorically mistaken in using the term source rather than standard because one entails spatial existence or dependence in a sense that would make it based on obedience to authority rather than conforming to rational principles we can deduce.

This is mumbo jumbo talk. I am not sure anyone in this thread really understands what you are tying to say, here. Many others are having a hard time talking to you, because you philosophize everything so that you don't have to answer direct questions. It's just wiggling out of debate. But it makes people disrespect you as a person.

If they want to do that, it's their decision, but condescending is not helping your case, it's showing you're unwilling to even countenance a new position and prefer comfortable certainty

But it is possible. And you have no alternative, so I guess I am winning as having the only cause for morality, seeing you forfeit the discussion entirely as having no clue as to where morality comes from.

I'm denying that your phrasing is accurate, because morality doesn't have a where, it has a what as to its quality that we determine. You're assuming it goes back to some mind that makes the claim because you seem to only think something is sensible if it is ordered by a perfect mind or the like, which is laughably simplistic.


And no, it's not possible that your historical truth in a scripture means that the scripture itself is true, that's fallacious reasoning. It's possible the scripture could be right, but you're not making a valid correlation between historicity and truth of claims that aren't rooted in history

ok, now we are getting somewhere. Thank you finally entering this debate. So how is someone being unselfish attacking the wellbeing of a tribe or culture? Say for instance that a tribe got in line to eat of the recent kill. And someone cuts in line. That is no direct threat to the wellbeing of the tribe, there is plenty for everyone. So why is it frowned upon? You said that "a standard of morality based on wellbeing is demostrable and falsifiable."

And I agree with you that it is demonstrable in the fact that a standard exists, but it is far more rigid than simply if it is a cause for wellbeing

I never said someone being unselfish attacked the wellbeing of a culture, what someone presents as unselfish may not, in fact, actually be unselfish in the consequences that result from it, which is where we get into empirical consideration of what is supposedly "altruistic"

You're using an example that's selfishness in a minor sense and is more about basic courtesy rather than wellbeing, but it boils down to empathy in that case more than wellbeing in one sense we may understand it. Weelbeing can arguably apply as much to congenial human relationships, so not cutting in line allows us to get along better and understand that patience and such are virtues to adhere to because they have demonstrable benefits to human interactions

If you already assume you absolutely know what wellbeing is, then you're jumping ahead in the discussion to go back and assert that authority is how morality should be justified, not demonstrable principles applied to actions.

 

[FireDragon76]

You'd be wrong, Buddhism even by many scholarly positions, is arguably more a philosophy in the vein of Confucianism

Confucianism is widely considered a religion by scholars, because it deals with ultimate concerns and questions of transcendence, etc.

A Buddhist is someone who takes refuge in the Triple Gem, that is what most actual Buddhists consider to be a Buddhist. That is an inherently religious act.

not requiring the belief in rebirth as a reality, but as much a metaphor in the same vein as notions of illustrating change through metaphors like a burning candle (one of the ones I recall off the top of my head).

For an extremely liberal interpretation of Buddhist modernism, perhaps.

There are veins of Buddhism that are much more spiritual, but it's not remotely universal to hold such things anymore than all Christians necessarily must believe in a Triune God, even if that's orthodoxy in general discussions historically

Buddhism is really not singular in its religious praxis, there are many different expressions of it, even moreso than Christianity.

 

[createdtoworship]

Dictionaries work on usage, not consensus as if they're polling people, it shifts with time

usage would not be accepted were it not for consensus.

Facts are falsifiable in that we can have a situation that would show their contrary to be true and thus that the claims of them being fact in an absolute sense are untrue. But fact in scientific discourse is merely the observations, it's not settled in a conclusive sense

Falsifiability is not the same as being false, it's the possibility of being false with critical investigation, you don't seem to understand the concept remotely.

If you desire unfalsifiability, you don't want to actually examine your statements, which is intellectually lazy

Facts absolutely cannot be falsifiable....
lets break it down.

1. facts are true (y/n?).....the answer is yes, facts are true.
   
   
2. falsifiable means that something can be proven false if the environment was "relevantly different" (source for definition below) (y/n?)....the answer is yes, this is the current definition proven my numerous dictionaries, and scientific articles, I quoted the person who made falsification popular, for context)
   
   
3. facts are falsifiable
   
   
4. facts are not falsifiable
   

so if 1 and 2 are true, the 3 cannot be true.

because 1 and 2 invalidate 3.

summary....if facts are true, and falsifiability requires something at least hypothetically to be false, then stating facts are falsifiable is an argument from silence. and thus negated by the fact that an argument from silence is a not a supported argument but a fallacy.

in conclusion:
facts cannot be falsified, because there is no observable reason to indicate them as false (even if they can be potentially falsified), stating so is an argument from silence.


sources:

for a definition of falsifiablility see this source:
Falsifiability - Popper's Emphasis On Falsifiability, Complications Of The Simple Model, Bibliography

If you just use an esoteric or generic notion of fact, of course you can claim they're not falsifiable, but that's not what I'm claiming

I already addressed this, I see you are nervous.

You quoting something does not lend credence to your claims when I'm not so facile to just take your quotations as authoritative, particularly the bible's claims related to an unfalsifiable entity

falsifiability is not needed, I already proved this. So I will no longer seek for it, and you must prove facts are falsifiable in order to have this block on it removed.

Applying logical principles doesn't necessitate it being opinion, it means you're being critical to claims you make. Your "logic" is little more than sophistry, rhetoric masquerading as philosophy by saying that because something has this definition, it must be so all the time, which is faulty reasoning on its face.

I didn't say applying logical principles necessitated opinions. I said your statements while they can be logically valid, still need supporting premises from sources.

A vacuum is not nothingness, it's still within space, rather than being utter negation, what nothing would mean in the most accurate sense of the term. Nothing is a lack of anything, not just mass, it isn't the vernacular sense you insist on because it just muddies the waters

so describe space in another term other than space. You cannot. So you prove my point that space is nothing.

I'm biased towards holding the least false beliefs and most true beliefs as possible

so believing the universe came from nothing via spontanious generation, is a true belief?

, I'm not claiming I'm certain on something I cannot make a sound and valid argument for

certainty is not an option in our world. There is no proof of anything. You literally cannot prove a single scientific fact. Well maybe one or two. But the chances of you proving a non mathmatical or logical fact is very slim.

Pretty sure the Quran does have some historical basis in referencing places we can find, but I'm not the one making claims of historical accuracy in regards to the bible and I'm also not the one making a faulty conflation between historical accuracy and accuracy of claims that are ahistorical in nature (God exists, for one)

this offers no refutation to what I said, so I won't reply. The bible is universally respected among middle eastern archaologists, that is very well documented.

Have you? You speaking speculatively is little different than dealing in quantum mechanics and multiverse theory, it gets us nowhere in the discussion about god because you assume it's deduced by rationality in itself, which is asinine, since it's anthropomorphized, unlike logical principles, math, etc.

Sir I only need to present a logical hypothesis that is possible. I don't need to prove it. You yourself believe the universe came from nothing even though you cannot know that for a fact. So again at this point, I am not intimidated in the least bit by your standpoint.

That's not unlimited, it's less limited than the 2 dimensions below me. Unlimited /=/ greater capacity, it means no limit to the capacity itself

arbitrary distinctions need not be addressed..

When you're asserting God is special because the bible says so, that's circular,

so quoting a historical account to prove a history is also circular? I already proved the Bible as historical.

but saying that God has to be special because you're convinced as such

never said God is special, not sure what you are referring to.

is special pleading, you haven't demonstrated it beyond your assertion of God being perfect, etc.

Sure an imperfect God could exist, that is possible. But however we see certain things in the universe that lack causitive means. Let me explain what I mean:

Many people try to prove God's existence with irreducible complexity. But you don't even need to do that. All that is needed is this.... If you have a painting how do you prove there was a painter? It's inherent. If you see something made how do you prove there was a maker that made it? It's inherent. We don't even need to go into intelligence or creationism. I am simply talking about cause and effect. If you see something made, it had a maker, if you see something painted it had a painter. The universe is here. So it boils down to the fact that it made itself from nothing, or something made it. Period. The maker on the other hand would be supernatural, and prexisted time and space. So there was no beginning to the maker. Time is a physical property that requires mass to operate according to Einsteins theory of relativity. If a maker was supernatural (beyond the physical universe), then it would naturally follow that He was beyond time as well. Because of the fact He superseded the physical universe.

When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation.

(here is an article showing a survey done in 2009 that 51% of scientists believe in a higher power: Scientists and Belief)

update:

(disclaimer: I don't believe we can prove most things. Most facts cannot be proven, most science cannot be proven etc. However I believe that some things can be proven. The universe had a maker. We all accept this, or the alternative is that the universe made itself, spontaneous generation was disproven 100 years ago, thus there is only one option. The universe was created. Now the thing that created the universe, must according to cause and affect have intelligence, and be rational. It must also contain any positive character traits, self sacrificial love etc. Things that are not explained by herd instinct. Herd instinct accounts for some morality, but not self sacrificial love. A wolf may gather food for the rest of the pack, but not at it's own demise, it will most likely eat first, then get it. Humans on the other hand have been known to sacrifice for others. This type of love has no natural origins. Thus the one who created the universe must have that type of love, in order to create it in it's creation. The only thing that resembles a loving creator that is intelligent and rational. Is the Christian God. This to me is proof.

Updated on some misconceptions:
Right now I wish to dispelled the most popular viewpoint among athiests, a multiverse created the universe:
How could a collection of rocks floating in a multiverse gain the ability to create an entire universe from absolutely nothing? I await your reply. Secondly, say a miracle happened and a multiverse allowed asteroids floating in a multiverse ability to wave a magic wand and create an entirely separate universe from nothing (ex nihilo). Why would a multiverse create another completely separate universe that it had no working relationship with? Just to be nice? So we not only have miraculous meteors, but we have benevolent meteors. Not only that but these meteors are timeless and have no beginning, even though they have mass, and are susceptible to time via general relitivity. This is sounding more and more like mythology. It takes more faith to believe that. Than It Does to believe, God who n is self existent and self defining (per the definition of God), creating the universe in order to ultimately save, love, and glorify his creation, and to spend eternity, exploring how he in fact created, and to spend time with His creation, in loving fellowship.

To deny a maker of the universe is to deny cause and affect in general. If the universe itself does not need a cause, if the greatest affect in the universe, the universe itself does not need a cause, why should we think cause and affect should be honored any other place within that universe?

Sovereignty means you aren't subject to particular things,

glad you are seeing it my way.

you're claiming God is not even sovereign to any logic, etc, which is more special pleading to get around applying the concepts we have for cogency of beliefs to this particular entity you hold as sacrosanct.

to be sovereign over logic is to say there is something greater than logic. This is incoherent. That is like saying God is more arithmatic than math itself. this also makes no sense, your your rebuttal is incoherent.

If you shift the goalposts, then of course your argument is going to seem the best, but you're not playing on an even playing field, you're favoring your own conclusion from the start.

how have I shifted goal posts? And should I not favor my own view? I would seem to be internally conflicted if I didn't.

Selfishness in a tribe can threaten their existence in sabotaging resources and capacity to hunt and gather by selfish actions, you're oversimplifying what entails a threat or harm so that it excludes things that can demonstrably cause those things in terms of scale

no, no, no just because SOME selfishness can lead to "sabotaging" a tribe, not all selfishness does. For instance cutting in line. Pushing someone out of the way to use the porta potty first, or countless other example of selfish behaviour that is non detrimental to a tribe. So again this does not refute what I was saying, so let me repeat it:

According to the moral case for God's existence you still have not provided a causation for why we view selfish behaviour as selfish. One can be selfish in a tribe and not be killing anyone off, it's not a direct threat to their existence, yet it is still frowned upon. If survival instinct cannot provide causality to morality, where did it come from?

 

[muichimotsu]

Confucianism is widely considered a religion by scholars, because it deals with ultimate concerns and questions of transcendence, etc.

A Buddhist is someone who takes refuge in the Triple Gem, that is what most actual Buddhists consider to be a Buddhist. That is an inherently religious act.

Scholars don't necessarily agree on the classification of religion, there's more consensus based on particular schemes, which I'll fully admit I'm not well versed in (we didn't really have even a class on theories of religion that I recall in college, though we also rarely seemed to have a class on Islam, also disappointing given how often people seem to talk about it, my major exposure initially was Richard Rich's Muhammad the Last Prophet, which was an animated presentation that conformed with stricter Islamic standards, not depicting Muhammad and others because they're special). Confucianism can regard that, but it can also be about societal good in itself, rather than referencing heaven and such, which some scholars (one of which is in the philosophy department of my alma mater last I recall) could interpret as more metaphorical or unimportant to their system

I use Buddhist in part because there are strong influences I still find in it, though I don't buy into the supernatural aspects even if I find them fascinating with the imagery and symbolism, like Kannon Bosatsu, Jizou, etc. (Japanese Buddhist names, much easier to spell than the Hindu/Pali ones)

For an extremely liberal interpretation of Buddhist modernism, perhaps.

I mean, I never really claimed to be some follower of the Buddha, which would probably be what many associate with a Buddhist label

Buddhism is really not singular in its religious praxis, there are many different expressions of it, even moreso than Christianity.

It's also fairly affable to syncretism and eclectic interpretations, Christianity taking more flexing

 

[muichimotsu]

usage would not be accepted were it not for consensus.




Facts absolutely cannot be falsifiable....
lets break it down.

1. facts are true (y/n?).....the answer is yes, facts are true.
   
   
2. falsifiable means that something can be proven false if the environment was "relevantly different" (source for definition below) (y/n?)....the answer is yes, this is the current definition proven my numerous dictionaries, and scientific articles, I quoted the person who made falsification popular, for context)
   
   
3. facts are falsifiable
   
   
4. facts are not falsifiable

so if 1 and 2 are true, the 3 cannot be true.

because 1 and 2 invalidate 3.

summary....if facts are true, and falsifiability requires something at least hypothetically to be false, then stating facts are falsifiable is an argument from silence. and thus negated by the fact that an argument from silence is a not a supported argument but a fallacy.

in conclusion:
facts cannot be falsified, because there is no observable reason to indicate them as false (even if they can be potentially falsified), stating so is an argument from silence.


sources:

for a definition of falsifiablility see this source:
Falsifiability - Popper's Emphasis On Falsifiability, Complications Of The Simple Model, Bibliography






I already addressed this, I see you are nervous.


falsifiability is not needed, I already proved this. So I will no longer seek for it, and you must prove facts are falsifiable in order to have this block on it removed.



I didn't say applying logical principles necessitated opinions. I said your statements while they can be logically valid, still need supporting premises from sources.




so describe space in another term other than space. You cannot. So you prove my point that space is nothing.



so believing the universe came from nothing via spontanious generation, is a true belief?

certainty is not an option in our world. There is no proof of anything. You literally cannot prove a single scientific fact. Well maybe one or two. But the chances of you proving a non mathmatical or logical fact is very slim.




this offers no refutation to what I said, so I won't reply. The bible is universally respected among middle eastern archaologists, that is very well documented.



Sir I only need to present a logical hypothesis that is possible. I don't need to prove it. You yourself believe the universe came from nothing even though you cannot know that for a fact. So again at this point, I am not intimidated in the least bit by your standpoint.





arbitrary distinctions need not be addressed..





so quoting a historical account to prove a history is also circular? I already proved the Bible as historical.
never said God is special, not sure what you are referring to.
Sure an imperfect God could exist, that is possible. But however we see certain things in the universe that lack causitive means. Let me explain what I mean:

Many people try to prove God's existence with irreducible complexity. But you don't even need to do that. All that is needed is this.... If you have a painting how do you prove there was a painter? It's inherent. If you see something made how do you prove there was a maker that made it? It's inherent. We don't even need to go into intelligence or creationism. I am simply talking about cause and effect. If you see something made, it had a maker, if you see something painted it had a painter. The universe is here. So it boils down to the fact that it made itself from nothing, or something made it. Period. The maker on the other hand would be supernatural, and prexisted time and space. So there was no beginning to the maker. Time is a physical property that requires mass to operate according to Einsteins theory of relativity. If a maker was supernatural (beyond the physical universe), then it would naturally follow that He was beyond time as well. Because of the fact He superseded the physical universe.

When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation.

(here is an article showing a survey done in 2009 that 51% of scientists believe in a higher power: Scientists and Belief)

update:

(disclaimer: I don't believe we can prove most things. Most facts cannot be proven, most science cannot be proven etc. However I believe that some things can be proven. The universe had a maker. We all accept this, or the alternative is that the universe made itself, spontaneous generation was disproven 100 years ago, thus there is only one option. The universe was created. Now the thing that created the universe, must according to cause and affect have intelligence, and be rational. It must also contain any positive character traits, self sacrificial love etc. Things that are not explained by herd instinct. Herd instinct accounts for some morality, but not self sacrificial love. A wolf may gather food for the rest of the pack, but not at it's own demise, it will most likely eat first, then get it. Humans on the other hand have been known to sacrifice for others. This type of love has no natural origins. Thus the one who created the universe must have that type of love, in order to create it in it's creation. The only thing that resembles a loving creator that is intelligent and rational. Is the Christian God. This to me is proof.

Updated on some misconceptions:
Right now I wish to dispelled the most popular viewpoint among athiests, a multiverse created the universe:
How could a collection of rocks floating in a multiverse gain the ability to create an entire universe from absolutely nothing? I await your reply. Secondly, say a miracle happened and a multiverse allowed asteroids floating in a multiverse ability to wave a magic wand and create an entirely separate universe from nothing (ex nihilo). Why would a multiverse create another completely separate universe that it had no working relationship with? Just to be nice? So we not only have miraculous meteors, but we have benevolent meteors. Not only that but these meteors are timeless and have no beginning, even though they have mass, and are susceptible to time via general relitivity. This is sounding more and more like mythology. It takes more faith to believe that. Than It Does to believe, God who n is self existent and self defining (per the definition of God), creating the universe in order to ultimately save, love, and glorify his creation, and to spend eternity, exploring how he in fact created, and to spend time with His creation, in loving fellowship.

To deny a maker of the universe is to deny cause and affect in general. If the universe itself does not need a cause, if the greatest affect in the universe, the universe itself does not need a cause, why should we think cause and affect should be honored any other place within that universe?
glad you are seeing it my way.
to be sovereign over logic is to say there is something greater than logic. This is incoherent. That is like saying God is more arithmatic than math itself. this also makes no sense, your your rebuttal is incoherent.

how have I shifted goal posts? And should I not favor my own view? I would seem to be internally conflicted if I didn't.

no, no, no just because SOME selfishness can lead to "sabotaging" a tribe, not all selfishness does. For instance cutting in line. Pushing someone out of the way to use the porta potty first, or countless other example of selfish behaviour that is non detrimental to a tribe. So again this does not refute what I was saying, so let me repeat it:

According to the moral case for God's existence you still have not provided a causation for why we view selfish behaviour as selfish. One can be selfish in a tribe and not be killing anyone off, it's not a direct threat to their existence, yet it is still frowned upon. If survival instinct cannot provide causality to morality, where did it come from?

Honestly, you're engaging in strawmanning and gish galloping so much, I don't think it's worth it to engage further because you're trying to ascertain some absolute certainty and intentionally use words in a convenient fashion to arguments (fact is not defined in the sense you used it exclusively, I'm speaking of scientific facts, not facts in the vernacular).

And you intentionally misrepresent Big Bang Theory, to say nothing of my cosmology, which I haven't remotely stated in the way you mischaracterize.

You're on ignore until you can demonstrate you're not just trying to corner someone based on goalpost shifting to fit your preconception instead of considering you could be wrong

 

[createdtoworship]

How? By claiming God as a fact and,m by your mistaken idea, that facts are not falsifiable, that means God must be unfalsifiable?

Sir listen to what you are saying. You are saying that something is true if it can have the ability to be false, maybe you can see your error now.

I'm claiming you're categorically mistaken in using the term source rather than standard because one entails spatial existence or dependence in a sense that would make it based on obedience to authority rather than conforming to rational principles we can deduce.

No I said that there is no logical reason for morality. There are some types of morality that exist that cannot be answered to be originating in herd instinct. Such as cutting in line.

If they want to do that, it's their decision, but condescending is not helping your case, it's showing you're unwilling to even countenance a new position and prefer comfortable certainty

Sir I am not the one condescending. I use plain speech because everyone understands it, and I don't need to hide behind big words to cover up my lack of evidence. I am not condescending, I am simply stating that making your posts confusing on purpose, is not helping your case it just makes people not want to talk to you.

I'm denying that your phrasing is accurate, because morality doesn't have a where, it has a what as to its quality that we determine.

So your saying that selfishness even though it's universally the same, as in "selfishness is bad" has occurred in 100% of tribes and cultures disregardless of religion, technology or government. And that each of these tribes all agree that selfishness is bad, even though they never talked to each other. And that this is something that "we" determine? Why the consistency?

You're assuming it goes back to some mind that makes the claim because you seem to only think something is sensible if it is ordered by a perfect mind or the like, which is laughably simplistic.

I am saying there is no reason for the consistency of the morality if millions of organisms are all evolving individually, they should all have different views of the fact that selfishness is wrong, but they don't. By and large they don't.

And no, it's not possible that your historical truth in a scripture means that the scripture itself is true, that's fallacious reasoning.

so is it also true that other historical books that are validated as historical are not in fact true as well, or does this rule only apply to the Bible? Again I am not saying it's historicity is proof, I am saying it gives credence that it's not myth. Almost all historians believe Jesus existed as a historical figure, they simply don't believe He was divine. So I use other reasons for giving evidence of that, namely the evidence for the resurrection.

I never said someone being unselfish attacked the wellbeing of a culture, what someone presents as unselfish may not, in fact, actually be unselfish in the consequences that result from it, which is where we get into empirical consideration of what is supposedly "altruistic"

I don't honor the term altruistism. See animals can be altruistic, but to say they have sacrificial love for example is false.

You're using an example that's selfishness in a minor sense and is more about basic courtesy rather than wellbeing, but it boils down to empathy in that case more than wellbeing in one sense we may understand it.

so the burden of proof lies on you to prove that all selfishness results in an attack on the "wellbeing." I have only indicated that potentially speaking selfishness can arise as a lack of "basic courtesy" and there is no logical source for basic courtesy due to the fact that evidentially speaking it cannot be demonstrated in the animal world, but is unique to humans. Which implies that humans have a higher standard of morality and that this morality has not earthly causation that we can objectively tack it on to.

Weelbeing can arguably apply as much to congenial human relationships, so not cutting in line allows us to get along better and understand that patience and such are virtues to adhere to because they have demonstrable benefits to human interactions

so how does that tie into herd instinct, I don't see wolves waiting in line to eat of a kill. But I see humans with a demonstrably higher morality, and it does not involve a bigger brain because, smarter people are not necessarily more loving than people with lower IQ's or lesser Brain size.

If you already assume you absolutely know what wellbeing is, then you're jumping ahead in the discussion to go back and assert that authority is how morality should be justified, not demonstrable principles applied to actions.

If you are defining wellbeing as being some special recipe that only you know, then no I probably would not use that definition, I would probably use the common definition as found in dictionaries. Again saying wellbeing means something that is not in the dictionary is only opinion and not based on available sources we have.

 

[createdtoworship]

Honestly, you're engaging in strawmanning and gish galloping so much, I don't think it's worth it to engage further because you're trying to ascertain some absolute certainty and intentionally use words in a convenient fashion to arguments (fact is not defined in the sense you used it exclusively, I'm speaking of scientific facts, not facts in the vernacular).

And you intentionally misrepresent Big Bang Theory, to say nothing of my cosmology, which I haven't remotely stated in the way you mischaracterize.

You're on ignore until you can demonstrate you're not just trying to corner someone based on goalpost shifting to fit your preconception instead of considering you could be wrong

Thank you for this debate, but simply saying that there is no evidence the universe exploded from absolutely nothing is not a misrepresentation. It either came from something or it didn't that is the basic law of noncontradiction. Proving that God exists is pretty straight forward. Also proving God is very similar to a Christian God.... Firstly if you see something made, you know it had a maker. You don't even have to get into intelligent design at all for this point. Simply if you see something made, you know it had a maker. The fact that the universe is an effect, means it had a cause. IF the largest effect in existence did not have a cause, then essentially that would disqualify all of the laws of cause and effect, which would be irrational. So it must have had a cause. Again, if you see something made, you know it had a maker. Most scientists believe the universe had a big bang. Because of the fact the universe is expanding, and that if you reverse that there was a singularity at one point. So again I go back to the original statement, if you see something made, you know it had a maker. This is solid logic without any external evidence needed. God does not need causation because general relativity shows that time accelerates mass ( if you have no mass you dont have time). God is massless and outside the time domain. Thus the same principle does not apply to God, He does not have a cause, because He is not an effect at all due to not having mass, and time for that matter. My second evidence that God is beyond the time domain is that there are many dimensions beyond the time domain, as it's just the fourth dimension. So of course if He is God he would have access to those. Thirdly the reason I believe God is timeless is because one of His definitions is omnipresent. That means everywhere at once, it's hard to be everywhere at once if you have mass. So again according to the theory of relativity if you don't have anything to slow down or speed up with time, then it is of no affect. Now for the christian part: Imagine baking a cake in which no ingredients currently exist. If you can't do that, then a creator can't create a universe in which He did not have intelligence. If it is a character trait that is valuable in the universe, versus not valuable, like evil. Then yes the creator would have to have that character trait. I look at this as basic causation. Any effect in the universe must have a cause, the greatest effect (the universe), must have had the greatest cause. We see love in the universe so logically the creator would have to have that character trait. Evil again, is a lack of character. Or a not doing of something you should. So God naturally would not be required to have that trait because it's a lack of a trait. God would only be required to have love, intelligence and any other positive character trait like patience for example. this is very close to the Christian God. Intelligent, patient, loving, forgiving.

 

[FireDragon76]

Confucianism can regard that, but it can also be about societal good in itself, rather than referencing heaven and such, which some scholars (one of which is in the philosophy department of my alma mater last I recall) could interpret as more metaphorical or unimportant to their system

Heaven, 天 (Tiān), is an important concept in Confucianism and it's simply naive to deny it, even if Confucianism doesn't focus on transcendence in the western religious sense.

I use Buddhist in part because there are strong influences I still find in it, though I don't buy into the supernatural aspects even if I find them fascinating with the imagery and symbolism, like Kannon Bosatsu, Jizou, etc. (Japanese Buddhist names, much easier to spell than the Hindu/Pali ones)

The concept of "supernatural" isn't even coherent within Buddhism, since it's a Dharmic religion.

I mean, I never really claimed to be some follower of the Buddha, which would probably be what many associate with a Buddhist label

Few Buddhists insist that following the Buddha implies blind fideism, certainly, that would amount to religious fundamentalism.

It's also fairly affable to syncretism and eclectic interpretations, Christianity taking more flexing

On the whole, yes, though certain forms of Buddhism are dogmatic or exclusivistic in their own way. Some forms of Nichiren Buddhism, for instance, during Japan's militarist period in the 20th century, refused to participate in the imperial cult. And some Buddhists discourage taking refuge in worldly deities or beings.

 

[createdtoworship]

Honestly, you're engaging in strawmanning and gish galloping so much, I don't think it's worth it to engage further because you're trying to ascertain some absolute certainty and intentionally use words in a convenient fashion to arguments (fact is not defined in the sense you used it exclusively, I'm speaking of scientific facts, not facts in the vernacular).

And you intentionally misrepresent Big Bang Theory, to say nothing of my cosmology, which I haven't remotely stated in the way you mischaracterize.

You're on ignore until you can demonstrate you're not just trying to corner someone based on goalpost shifting to fit your preconception instead of considering you could be wrong

That is fine, your viewpoint is completely dismantled already. If you wish to continue this talk, please address my numerous posts proving God's existence and proving the christian God from logic. Thanks.

 

[muichimotsu]

Heaven, 天 (Tiān), is an important concept in Confucianism and it's simply naive to deny it, even if Confucianism doesn't focus on transcendence in the western religious sense.



The concept of "supernatural" isn't even coherent within Buddhism, since it's a Dharmic religion.

So we're going with immanence rather than transcendence, perhaps? The spiritual aspects are what can be debated as regards the metaphorical or literal meaning behind such words in the texts

Few Buddhists insist that following the Buddha implies blind fideism, certainly, that would amount to religious fundamentalism.

Not sure I entailed blind fideism with the use of the word "follower"

On the whole, yes, though certain forms of Buddhism are dogmatic or exclusivistic in their own way. Some forms of Nichiren Buddhism, for instance, during Japan's militarist period in the 20th century, refused to participate in the imperial cult. And some Buddhists discourage taking refuge in worldly deities or beings.

Yeah, Pure Land is especially bad, in the similarities to Christianity. And yeah, monastic variations in any religion can have that effect in that it becomes about self denial and extreme notions of that.

I'm not unfamiliar with Buddhism as varying a great deal, but I also don't pretend to be an expert. Trying to find out how to change it, though the interface has changed enough in however many years it's been since I started posting late last year.

I honestly wouldn't want to use atheist as a term to describe my beliefs in these forums because I don't find it accurate to representing a complete worldview, Buddhism at least does it better, because it's more comprehensive, atheists can believe in any kind of moral, epistemological, metaphysical notions, the only shared trait is not believing in deities.