@Punshhh jesus is describing his version of ",truth" to his disciples. Saying IS describing.
I read this as jesus being an Elitist political priest.

I've never met you or had any monetary transactions with you so your description is false. And it won't be the first time you have been wrong or inaccurate! Monsieur strawman! — Asif

You completely miss the point. You dismiss objective truth, so how do you know you do not owe me $50; after all, I "describe" you as owing it me? I do not question that you think that you don't, but what is that to a subjectivist? We can sharpen it this way: we live far apart so I hire a guy to collect from you the $50 you owe me. Because he knows I speak the truth, because of my description, and himself being principled he will act on the truth, what are you going to tell him?

So you find it difficult to tell the difference between a false description and an accurate one?! — Asif

I do not usually. But again, the question is, how do you? Truth is description, according to you. Is the converse true? Either way are problems.

@tim wood Wow! This is next level bufoonery!
Truth being subjective or intersubjective doesnt make it any less absolute. Your example is bizarre and a strawman. I've said repeatedly not every description is true or accurate.
I will tell your mythical guy tim is delusional and tell your guy hes a dweeb for listening to bad descriptions!
Truth is description. Not every description is truth.
Seems a pretty clear truthful description timmy.

1) Truth is description. 2) Not every description is truth. — Asif

Truth may have descriptive aspects; truth may describe. I do not agree that truth is description - how does that even make sense? I am inclined to agree with 2).

Last time asking. If truth is description then how do you tell the difference between truth and not-truth?

@tim wood Tell me a truth without describing in some manner?
Not truth is an inaccurate or bad description.
Truth is an accurate description.
You can tell the difference between a bad or inaccurate description can you not Timothy?

Yes, I can, usually. But that because I do not share, am not hobbled by, your impossible definition. But alas, you do not answer how you know. I must conclude you do not know how - and therefore don't know what is true and what is not true. Maybe you know - somewhat - what feels good to you and what doesn't and are confusing that with truth. You wouldn't be the first to make that mistake.

@tim wood :rofl: Can you not read timmy!? I've wrote several times now how you distinguish truth from falsehood. The accuracy of the description. If you call a Cat a dog your description is inaccurate it is false.
Same way I know if water is hot. The water feels hot.
Feelings are what? Descriptions.
In your dogmatic confusion you are unable to digest clear common sense and so must strawman and make incorrect assumptions.
Still waiting for your refutation brother. :brow: :cool:

Sorry Asif; you're a waste of time.

Hi all!
A while ago I made a post in which i made clear that i'm an extreme noob when it comes to philosophy.
While having bought a history of philosophy book, I still have a few questions that I don't see will be answered by myself anytime soon. So to the question; What is the problem with the arguments that attempt to prove God? The kalam, The five ways, fine tuning, moral argument, ...

The reason why I ask is because I cannot differentiate bad philosophy from good philosophy. Neither do I know all of the intricacies of the structure arguments should have. (modus ponens, valid and sound) While there are a whole lot of people pushing these arguments. And there are also a whole lot of people pushing against them. I can't help but feel that the majority of the discussions that happen about these arguments aren't well grounded. And I'm assuming that people here know a fair deal and are able to give me a clear idea of what's wrong.

I would like to suppose that the arguments all try to deal with a deistic or theistic god.

Let me also add a subquestion to that and ask to the atheist. If these arguments are all a failure. Is that part of the reason why you are atheist?

Thank you! — DoppyTheElv

I wasn't going to go into great detail about Pan-psychism but i believe in the Bible due to Pan-psychism. I believe God/Jesus Christ causes evil essentially and that we are all figments of his imagination. I believe he is 100% justified mainly due to the voices in his "head" which are similar to the accuser or the devil and he is essentially alone to deal with his loneliness and we are just his chess pieces that he moves around the board. I suppose he might be able to over time have happiness increase through out the universe and to produce a profit.

My evidence is based on the concept of feeling/awareness emergentism which supposedly occurs in evolution. Feeling or Awareness doesn't really seem like something that could just pop up from an arrangement of particles and i believe it would be irrational to say that feeling or awareness didn't always exist. Like alot of People on this forum i've seen miracles and minor miracles but those are a based on subjective evidence.

Sorry Asif; you're a waste of time. — tim wood

:up:

If that is not enough for you,,,talk to someone else.

It seems plenty clear to me. — Frank Apisa

So ... that narrows down the options to just these two:

(C) My agnosticism is nobody's fucking business - it works for me - so just forget I even brought it up, because you don't want to understand me or you can't.

(D) None of the above apply. I'm a special snowflake.

:sweat:

jesus is describing his version of ",truth" to his disciples. Saying IS describing.

Well yes he was describing a kind of truth, but the way he was describing it explicitly explained how it was a truth not known through intellectual description, or human description of direct human experience. Look at the passage again, with the rest of the relevant text;
"Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?” Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.” John 14:5-10"

Can you read and understand what is being said through the words? Jesus is specifically explaining how his disciples will, can and already do know the truth of himself and God through living with him. There is no describing things going on in the way Jesus knows the truth of God, it is visceral, it is real experience primary to any mental apprehension, or description of it.

I read this as jesus being an Elitist political priest.

Jesus was not a priest, he was someone who experienced some kind of divinity and tried to convey it, its truth to those around him. Also, he was not political, although he did seek to expose political corruption from time to time.

If that is not enough for you,,,talk to someone else.

It seems plenty clear to me.
— Frank Apisa
So ... that narrows down the options to just these two:

(C) My agnosticism is nobody's fucking business - it works for me - so just forget I even brought it up, because you don't want to understand me or you can't. — 180 Proof

No it doesn't, but you are so narrow-minded, I suspect there is no way you will see that you are dead wrong.

Enjoy your denial.

(C) My agnosticism is nobody's fucking business - it works for me - so just forget I even brought it up, because you don't want to understand me or you can't.
— 180 Proof

No it doesn't, ... — Frank Apisa

Now there you go, sir - finally confessing to (C) wasn't so hard after all, was it? And 'good for the soul' too. :sweat:

... but you are so narrow-minded, I suspect there is no way you will see that you are dead wrong.

Why ASSume that, Frank, when YOU REFUSE TO SHOW ME ... what makes your (positions for or against "gods" are nothing but "blind guesses") claims vis-à-vis agnosticism true?

180 Proof
1.6k
(C) My agnosticism is nobody's fucking business - it works for me - so just forget I even brought it up, because you don't want to understand me or you can't.
— 180 Proof

No it doesn't, ...
— Frank Apisa
Now there you go, sir - finally confessing to (C) wasn't so hard after all, was it? And 'good for the soul' too. :sweat: — 180 Proof

I did not "confess" to C...I did not even hint that C was correct.

If you were not playing past your depth, you would realize the C is the last one I would choose, because I advertise MY AGNOSTISM dozens upon dozens of times in any thread where it is appropriate. FAR from considering my agnosticism "nobody's fucking business"...I want it to be EVERYBODY's business. I want everyone possible to consider it for adoption.

Anyone but a complete fool would recognize that. But as I said, you are playing way past your depth.

... but you are so narrow-minded, I suspect there is no way you will see that you are dead wrong.
Why ASSume that, Frank, when YOU REFUSE TO SHOW ME ... what makes your (positions for or against "gods" are nothing but "blind guesses") claims vis-à-vis agnosticism true? — 180

If you were not playing past your depth, you would see that I have given concise responses to your questions, but that you do not have what it takes to understand them.

So...continue to flail.

Much as I hate to acknowledge it, I am enjoying your distress.

As you can see above...180 just does not get it.

So here's where we are:

EricH - Please please give me a definition of the word "God"
3017amen - God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

EricH - What does the word "that" refer to in this sentence?

A conscious being; Jesus. — 3017amen

I'm not sure what you mean by "A conscious being; Jesus." Could this be re-phrased as "A conscious being, AKA Jesus."?

I'm not sure what you mean by "A conscious being; Jesus." Could this be re-phrased as "A conscious being, AKA Jesus."? — EricH

Sure, I don't see why not.

Ah, good! I stand corrected, Frank. So if not (C), leaving (A), (B) or (D), then which is closest to your position?

(A) My agnosticism is based on objective, corroborable, evidence and is true. Here is the sound argument: ...

(B) My agnosticism is based on subjective insights and is true for me (as far as I'm concern). Countless times already I've shared my insight that every position taken for or again "gods" is nothing but a "blind guess".

(C) My agnosticism is nobody's fucking business - it works for me - so just forget I even brought it up, because you don't want to understand me or you can't.

(D) None of the above apply. I'm a special snowflake. — 180 Proof

It seems a bit redundant. If it's "a conscious being AKA Jesus", then wouldn't it be simpler to just say "Jesus"?

No, and good question. Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist.

OK. Now we can proceed. Here's what we got:

EricH - Please please give me a definition of the word "God"
3017amen - God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

EricH - What does the word "that" refer to in this sentence?
3017amen - A conscious being, AKA Jesus.

And so now we can put these 2 together and we have. . . . . . .

God is a conscious being, AKA Jesus, which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

This is poetry, not a definition.

God is a conscious being, AKA Jesus, which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.This is poetry, not a definition. — EricH

On the contrary. Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist.

180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa Ah, good! I stand corrected, Frank. So if not (C), leaving (A), (B) or (D), then which is closest to your position?

(A) My agnosticism is based on objective, corroborable, evidence and is true. Here is the sound argument: ...

(B) My agnosticism is based on subjective insights and is true for me (as far as I'm concern). Countless times already I've shared my insight that every position taken for or again "gods" is nothing but a "blind guess".

(C) My agnosticism is nobody's fucking business - it works for me - so just forget I even brought it up, because you don't want to understand me or you can't.

(D) None of the above apply. I'm a special snowflake.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

I reject C as the least likely.

I reject A, B, and D also. None are close to my position enough to be considered "closest to".

I offer instead Option E:


I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

:rofl: (D) it is. Thanks for "flailing" around with me, Frank. My work is done here.

:lol:

D) it is. Thanks for "flailing" around with me, Frank. My work is done here. — 180 Proof

He didn't pick D, so I'm confused. Actually, if he did, it would certainly make sense because only you yourself, know yourself. I don't know Frank, like Frank knows himself.

What you are not you cannot percieve to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you--AH Maslow

:lol:

180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa :rofl: (D) it is. Thanks for "flailing" around with me, Frank. My work is done here. — 180 Proof

You are an amateur, 180. That kind of thing might work in a forum where they discuss Area 51 in Roswell...or who really killed President Kennedy, but it is just laughable here.

I'm not too proud to say, "Thank you" for the laugh, though.

So...THANKS! :lol:

(D) None of the above apply. I'm a special snowflake. — 180 Proof

:victory:

None are close to my position enough to be considered "closest to". — Frank Apisa

:smirk: :ok:

He didn't pick D, so I'm confused. — 3017amen

Of course he did; of course you are. Take your meds, lil troll.

:wink:

You are an amateur, 180. — Frank Apisa

Yeah, I do love philosophizing. Thanks for acknowledging that. Hoped you'd learn from my example - 'old dogs, new tricks' and all that, huh? - but I guess not. Anyway, Happy 84 again, Frank! :party:

I hate to say it but 180z projection of anger only substantiates your position even more! It's kind of a cognitive science thing I think...

At least it's consistent with his nihilistic belief system; he's got nothing to argue!!! LOL