God is Impossible

[Prince_James]

Suana:

Actually, Sauna, he demonstrably showed what objective truth was.

In his post:

"You say that the notion of an objective truth is a belief <--- this is stated as an objective truth."

To deny objective truth is to affirm it. Therefore, objective truth necessarily exists.

 

[Sauna]

Suana:

Actually, Sauna, he demonstrably showed what objective truth was.

In his post:

"You say that the notion of an objective truth is a belief <--- this is stated as an objective truth."

To deny objective truth is to affirm it. Therefore, objective truth necessarily exists.

So the same then goes for God, to deny God is to affirm God, right?

 

[Ophiolite]

So that rules out gods, afterlives, heaven etc.

It constantly and repeatedly astounds me that in the minds of most people the existence/non-existence of God is intimately and irrevocably tied up with the presence, or absence of an afterlife. Would someone please explain to me why this childish, irrelevant connection is made so consistently.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Because people don't like their current life?

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Some of us wouldn't be looking forward to a future of nothingness, it's sad that you're satisfied with that.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Some of us wouldn't be looking forward to a future of nothingness, it's sad that you're satisfied with that.

Your sad meaningless life now doesn't imply a meaningful afterlife.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

I have a wonderful life, forever, and all you do is bitch and moan.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I have a wonderful life, forever, and all you do is bitch and moan.

Now you confused me with yourself. I do not bitch and moan. I merely expose your delusions. Which is obviously not desired by people like you who do not want to think for themselves.

 

[Prince_James]

Sauna:

No.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Monkey, you have the herd mentality of a lemming.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Monkey, you have the herd mentality of a lemming.

Yes, thank you for supplying a perfect example.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Yes, monk, you do have that mentality, plainly.

 

[c7ityi_]

Some of us wouldn't be looking forward to a future of nothingness, it's sad that you're satisfied with that.

why is it sad?

 

[swivel]

So the same then goes for God, to deny God is to affirm God, right?

No, because nothing inherent in the concept of "god" is internally in conflict with the idea of "nothing can be true".

You are saying that "Nothing can be true" AND "this sentence is true" at the same time.

If someone says, "There is no god" They aren't saying anything else that contradicts that statement.

The best you can POSSIBLY do with truth relativism is say, "I have FAITH that nothing is true". But, ah, you want the SURETY of your own beliefs, while robbing everyone else of the same.

Not good.

 

[Sauna]

No, because nothing inherent in the concept of "god" is internally in conflict with the idea of "nothing can be true".

What?

Where fuck did that come from?

You are saying that "Nothing can be true" AND "this sentence is true" at the same time.

No I am not and did not.

I did not write what you quote.

 

[swivel]

What?

Where fuck did that come from?



No I am not and did not.

I did not write what you quote.

I am showing you the logical equivalent of what you wrote. I understand that you don't see the connection, because if you did, you never would have written it in the first place.

When you said that "Truth is subjective", you were making an error in logic. I was demonstrating that for you.

Then you said that it would be the same as proving god by denying god. I wanted to show you the difference. There is no internal conflict with saying, "God does not exist".

It might take reading our last few exchanges several times for you to make the connections, but I urge you to try. It is very important.

 

[Tnerb]

I myself (honestly, - sorta), have always been interested for the past while with the idea i call 'castration.' Actually, that's how I obtain my reason aganist the women. I have been (this is related, follow me if you can) wanting, some how, to post a thread talking about women but i guess i'll leave that out for now. "Castration" is basically "this is the final straw". When you say something is true, in whatever sence, it is true. Of course this in itself leads to saying if this is true then what does it matter but what does that matter? Anyway, as I have stated tons of times, I think giving a truth in these matters of reason (especially in this thread) is a castrate, can't touch... I just wonder if that is possible in this thread.

I'm sorry if that says nothing at all, but I hope it is entertaining.
I'm pretty fucked up.

 

[Sauna]

I am showing you the logical equivalent of what you wrote. I understand that you don't see the connection, because if you did, you never would have written it in the first place.

No you are not.

You are attempting a straw man argument, one that I would rather not be bothered with.

When you said that "Truth is subjective", you were making an error in logic. I was demonstrating that for you.

Where was that?

I did not write what you quote, did I?

I referred particularly to "fact in terms of proof", especially to infer a validation apart from "subjective truth".

Then you said that it would be the same as proving god by denying god. I wanted to show you the difference. There is no internal conflict with saying, "God does not exist".

No I did not, nor would it accord with my argument to do so.

I posed a question to reply to Prince James' statement: "To deny objective truth is to affirm it. Therefore, objective truth necessarily exists."


Re. "God" and "objective truth" then, the two would obviously not be the same precisely because his truth is subjective, as of course is yours and mine.

It might take reading our last few exchanges several times for you to make the connections, but I urge you to try. It is very important.

Alternatively, it might be you who needs to catch up.

 

[swivel]

The question is absurd because the very notion of objective truth is a belief, not a fact in terms of proof, and a remarkably absurd one when examined logically, it being impossible to suppose the knowledge of an absolute, eternally universal object without an appropriately omniscient being to know it, ergo a God.

There. Direct quote.

You said that "the very notion of objective truth is a belief". However, you assert this as an objective truth. You aren't being subjective, saying "I think," or "It seems to me", or "from my perspective".

You are using words like "absurd" (twice) "impossible" and these strong words even get stronger as you start getting rude with me.

Therefore, what you have stated is that all objective truth is faith, but you use an objective truth to state it.

I realize now that you have a huge stake with continuing to say that you are right, and I am wrong, so please don't think that I am posting this with any hope of teaching you anything. I am merely wrapping up your nonsense to satisfy myself. This thread held up surprisingly well, but it is now toast.

Good day.

 

[Sauna]

There. Direct quote.
You said that "the very notion of objective truth is a belief". However, you assert this as an objective truth.

I most definitley did not, i.e.

Re. "God" and "objective truth" then, the two would obviously not be the same precisely because his truth is subjective, as of course is yours and mine.

You are using words like "absurd" (twice) "impossible" and these strong words even get stronger as you start getting rude with me.

In case you'd not yet noticed, impossibility was the theme of the thread.

Therefore, what you have stated is that all objective truth is faith, but you use an objective truth to state it.

There again you deliberately misquote. I referred to belief, not faith.

I realize now that you have a huge stake with continuing to say that you are right, and I am wrong,

Yes, of course I do, because of dishonesty at the expense of my integrity, in deliberately miseresenting my position, a position which I am entilted to know and to put, but you are not.

It is wrong to behave like that.

so please don't think that I am posting this with any hope of teaching you anything. I am merely wrapping up your nonsense to satisfy myself. This thread held up surprisingly well, but it is now toast.

I see no reason to suppose you to be qualified to teach.