Hahaha, that was good Poetic, I love the melodramatic music!!!

Some say God is truth
Some say God is false
Others say that both are true
Like humans having faults

Existing: in existence or operation at the time under consideration; current.

You sound like you're overthinking this.

You asked me a question and my answer is: both.

Are you not satisfied with that answer?

Hey Benkei!

It speaks to whether he's fit for the office. I think the wolves are circling. He might be firing his attorney now since his associates just got busted for campaign violations, again.

In any case can a human eradicate their goals and purposes?

Do you have an example of a half-lie ?

Is having no goals a goal?

What's a category error?

NICE Poetic!

Hey, do me a nice poem on God, a mottled color of truth!

Thanks

But it still begs the question why should a human have goals? For what purpose?

No, the positive Atheist say's:

1. God does not exist.

So your comment applies to them.

I'm a Christian Existentialist.

Otherwise, I'm comfortable with half-truth's existing. Which of course they do, right?

3) You don't know.



Do half-truth's exist?

Otherwise there's no such purpose for that human.

Do you agree with this?


No, because if that person does not want to fall in love (in that case), thier consciousness will turn yet to another unfulfilled goal/purpose.

Does the word "God" - as you are using it in this discussion - represent any physical being or object in the universe? Please choose one of the following answers:

1. Yes
2. No


1.Both.

a. The physical apple appears red. Upon further examination the apple is not red, but a mottled color of red.
b. We don't have a distinct color from the color wheel that describes 'mottled' red.
c. Therefore, we say it's both a and not a. (P and-p).
d. Otherwise, in our conscious mind, what is red/describe the color red.
e. Similarly, in our conscious mind, also describe in physical terms human sentience and/or Love.
f. Human's most prized possession is Love

Existentially, my limited ability to reason accurately, leaves me with saying both. To that end, and maybe in a fun kind of way, the concept of God is: God is a mottled color of truth.

Thoughts?

I don’t think it’s a bad thing. Not many people were capable of writing and reading in ancient times, so personally I’ll take whatever I can get, no matter how biased or unbelievable.

But yes, you’re right about the truth-value of history. So much history is left out of history.


Yep, I'm wit you on that brother!

Of course that's one of my gripes about far-right/extreme Fundamentalism. Just think, there could be information out there that could be so liberating for people...ie, the problem with evil, sexuality, and so on.

I've already mentioned my concern about LGBT folks (I'm heterosexual) and the condemnation from the far-right... .

That's cool. It's funny too, when we study history generally speaking, it begs the question of its truth value regardless of the subject matter...

For example, do we really know what George Washington said? Do we really know what Jesus said? etc. etc. etc...

Subjective truth (and bias) is written into history. It's recorded by subjects about subjects. And that's not a bad thing either, or is it?

That's cool. Is the character real to you?

To answer your question, in using the logic of language, our consciousness unfortunately limits us to things like: inductive reasoning, phenomenology, Kantian intuition, Physical science, cognitive science, and other experiences and physical and philosophical/psychological analogies... .

In my opinion, if one personally discovers and uncovers any real meaning for themselves, then one could associate that meaning with a leap of faith in order to make logical sense of their experiences. Of course that would beg the question concerning the nature of Faith. For example, is a so-called everyday pragmatic human faith the same as a theoretical/metaphysical type of faith, and so on.

So, if I say God is ineffable or spiritual/genderless like What I think God is, that would be based upon my inductive reasoning or logical inference of how the physical world [things that are physically seen and unseen and experienced] works viz. our consciousness and the limitations thereof.

That's my cursory version.

I'm guessing, by the way, that there must be some apologist who forwards an argument based on the idea that traits (including abilities, etc.) that are not evolutionarily necessary or advantageous are inexplicable, so "God must have done it"?


I'm not saying that. But since you as an Atheist believe God doesn't exist, you must have a different explanation I'm guessing... .

So since you have no answer, your Atheism remains untenable in the 21st Century!

No?

The being or entity or substance you call god does not exist because, like a planet made of chocolate, it’s impossible. It’s made up.


Mmmm, interesting. So are you saying God doesn't exist?

You'd have to explain why, in your view, that doesn't answer why something like purpose exists as a way we think about things. Can you explain that?


First, you can't answer the question of whether God exists or not right? Looks like I win there.

Second, I just explained it to you:
Most all humans have a purpose to fall in love and procreate. Is that instinct or higher consciousness or both? If it's both, you would have to admit that there still remains a mystery associated with animal or human existence. Otherwise we are left with your contradiction of the cosmological world having no purpose, yet the animals/humans who inhabit the world do indeed have a purpose.

I'll be waiting, surely you don't want to concede that Atheism is untenable yet do you? We just started the debate LOL


Let me demonstrate to the viewers another conundrum that maybe you can wrestle with.

1. I'm a composer and performer. I play both by ear and am classically trained and know most everything about music theory.

2. Most all humans love or like to listen to music.

3. Music theory obviously has no biological significance at all.

Explain to me why number three is false?

We're at an impasse. You are not answering the existential question about the why's of existence.

Your talking around the question and deflecting away from your own truth.

Example: most all humans have a purpose to fall in love and procreate. Is that instinct or higher consciousness or both? If it's both, you would have to admit that there still remains a mystery associated with animal or human existence.

Otherwise we are left with your contradiction of the cosmological world having no purpose, yet the animals/humans who inhabit the world do indeed have a purpose.

Am I missing something there?


Regarding the other:

1. God does not exist.

True or false?

I bet you can't defend your position.

Your point alludes to cosmology. I'm talking consciousness/cognitive science. So, can you answer why human's have purpose and why that's important?

Your second point, unless I've missed something regarding 'P', were you able to simply answer the important/relevant question:

1. God does not exist.

Again, is it true or false? (If you answered it please let me know where, or just answer it now.)

I'll wager you can't defend it, yes. No textbook needed is there?

Same reason why we don't take your word for it that God doesn't exist!

You're still in the dark. Why do I have goals? What does that confer? Happiness/purpose?

You contradicted yourself from your earlier statement that there is no purpose. Then you said human's have goals.


Then on your next point. I might be mistaken, but if you're claiming God does not exist in a proposition, you have to defend it.

What would you like me to address?

In your case, you contradicted yourself on the topic of Purpose

And secondly, you didn't understand basic deductive/formal logic in defending your claim that God doesn't exist.

Great !! So far I'm up on the Atheist 3-0 and counting LOL

Welcome Joe! Which items out of the seven in the OP would like me to parse?

Well if it's irrelevant why are you asking? How about if I give you some hints: Maslow and James among many others...

Agreed, however man-made rules and certain dogma can be detrimental to the human condition. The Jesus I believe in promotes love and pacifism. In that sense, politics and government was not his kingdom.

Does the word "God" - as you are using it in this discussion - represent any physical being or object in the universe?


In a Kierkegaardian sense I conceive God as an ineffable experience. Though if I were to put it into words I would say the Christian God is spirit. And for what it's worth there is some scripture that supports that. And of course the Book of Thomas that was left out of the Bible includes Gnosticism...

Are there any psychologists who support your view?

Are you talking about the ineffable?

Indeed...fascism and narcissism comes to mind too...

Even a so-called religious experience does not constitute evidence for the veracity of any particular religion or even for religion as such).


Interesting are you sure about that? Have you ever had a religious experience? Have you experienced miraculous happenstance?

Per the OP, have you ever had an NDE?

I'll let you and Dingo hash the political issues out, in the meantime and in a similar way, I think you would agree that here in America our currency suggests the merits of Deity tipping the scales in favor of Christianity.

In God we trust. Generally speaking, maybe God has blessed this country. One of the greatest countries in the world IMHO.

Hey BC wanted to give you some love there.

As you know I'm a critic of most Fundamentalism when it comes to Christian apologetics and certain theology.

What really bothers me and saddens me is the harm that you alluded to relative to those old school paradigms. And even though I am heterosexual, it really hurts me when I see homosexual men and women committing suicide over some erroneous Bible interpretation.

As a Christian Existentialist you may know that I don't consider the Bible a perfect book. And you may know that so-called ' rationale ' relates to: Church politics, lost gospels, translations, different religions excluding certain books, medical science, and so forth.

The Fundamentalist taking literal interpretation from everything in the Bible contributes to extremism. We know common sense says there's much historic contextual allegory and metaphor that's part of the human condition... .

This is another reason why I frame the topic '... 21st Century.' It's time we get smarter and balance both science and religion appropriately. I mean in the case of LGBT the Bible is not a medical science book. And for all we know due to church politics, it's certainly possible scripture could have been easily edited out. After all, we know for example that ambiguous genitalia babies exist. And maybe they weren't reported then...

As you were.

Cool 180! Come back when you have time. Be safe on your trip. Actually maybe pick one of the seven topics to parse I'd be happy to debate those with you...

Ha, sounds good TS! Be back at cha soon.

Yep I love me some William James as well. Just like Maslow he was a psychologist turned philosopher so he has some good experience behind his theories.

That would certainly be under the heading of consciousness and phenomenology which again, does not help Atheism.

The varieties of religious experience book, deserves another thread... I've got it... . Great read!

conventions of logic don't actually have anything to do with ideas of "needing to defend" anything


Are you sure.

1. God doesn't exist.

Atheism says that statement is true. Are you saying you can't defend that?