Okay so you are completely convinced that scriptures are nothing but ordinary people's personal opinions.
There's nothing more you and I can discuss on this particular matter.
Do you agree?
Jan.
Proof there is a God
- Thread starter JBrentonK
- Start date
Okay so you are completely convinced that scriptures are nothing but ordinary people's personal opinions.
There's nothing more you and I can discuss on this particular matter.
Do you agree?
Jan.
Can you tell me what the definition I submitted, means in your own words. Because I don't see how this question applies to it.
Huh?
Jan.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Stop lying.
I used this definition way back with Write4U.
They are the same text.
You and others were bitching about ''Full'' and all that, crying into your beers about not being able to understand what it means, and asking me to explain it.
I went one better than that, and got a much clearer translation of the original text. So I have not changed or lied about definitions.
I'd ask you to apologize, but I've got a feeling I'd be wasting my time.
Jan.
Last edited:
So you admit that you offered the definition that you previously claimed was not your definition. This is what I mean by "lying": you offered a definition and then claimed it wasn't yours.
Sure. You lie to us and you expect an apology
It might be that the reason that you cannot offer a good definition is that you do not understand this subject.
Because I offer a definition, it doesn't mean it is my definition, unless you think it is my definition because I posted it on the thread, not that I thought up the words.
Why are you wasting time with this?
You know I haven't lied. So why keep this up.
It might be that I have offered a good definition but you don't know how to handle it, while maintaining your current worldview. Without having to make some changes.
Ignorance is bliss (so they say).
jan.
It's your definition because you spent a ton of time talking about but not offering a definition and when anyone asked you about your definition, you kept returning to this one. Until you then denied it. And now you're back on board. It is your definition because it is the one you offered. It is the one you refuse to try to explain.
Mostly to highlight your character. You do not want to communicate, you want to trick or bully people into belief.
You are trying to weasel out of a very poor lie. You offered a definition, you can't later claim its not your definition for the purposes of this discussion. I would prefer it if you offered a better definition.
Nobody here can "handle" it. So if you are really interested in discussion, you're going to have to try a different way of presenting that definition or try a different definition. You are not communicating.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
No Jan ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is believing that ancient litrature contains fact.
Lies breed lies and you have choosen to believe those lies. That is ignorance.
I can see you are tiring and I feel sorry for you. I hope you can survive this. I hope the others withdraw their attack and let you think things through. I am confident your inteligence will enable you to find better answers. Admitting we dont know is often better than supporting a lie.
Goodbye.
Alex
There are no such things as objects apart from humans defining them with words and definitions.
So we can agree that I offered this definition. Yes?
Can you give an example?
I offered a definition, yes. Is it my definition, as in I own it, no.
I don't see the need for a better definition, as this one encompasses every aspect of God, and incorporates every belief in God (personal, impersonal, Christian, Islam, Judaism, Animism, Buddhism, Sikhism, ancient Sumerien, Babylonian, Egyptian, etc...). It can also be used by atheists, just as an origin (no personality,or intelligence).
Basically it is universal (no pun intended).
I disagree.
I can't find a more comprehensive definition.
jan.
That's your opinion Alex. I have a different opinion.
I'm not tiring, and you need not pity me.
Others should withdraw their attacks, because they are unwarranted.
I have thought this through, and am just waiting to see if the attacks subside. Then we can carry on.
Anything else you wrote is just a continuation of your opinion, which is noted, but not necessary.
jan.
What object itself?
I am asking you for an example and you have yet to provide one.
Can you name something that has ever come into existence that is not merely a transformation of pre-existing stuff?
The point is I don't think you can.
You wish to claim God as the ultimate cause, originator etc, yet you can not seem to name one thing that is actually a creation?
The task at hand is you providing the proof, or even support, for your claims, and the subsequent analysis thereof.
You have set out the definition.
We are waiting for you to provide the proof/support for the existence of that thing in actuality, please.
If it helps, however, you asked how Brahman can not exist, and my response is that I see no necessity for Brahman as it is not proven that anything actually had a creation, rather than merely being a transformation of pre-existing stuff.
I.e. The premise inherent within the definition is not necessarily sound and thus there appears to be no necessity for Brahman.
Simple, really.
Now, are you going to get back to the issue at hand or continue to sidetrack further?
I may pin this comment from you on my board that I reserve for irony.
So you believe that everything simply came from something else, which came from something else, ad infinitum?
There is no beginning?
jan.
Is it possible to report people for being blatantly duplicitous? I mean, if someone posts a definition then it is surely quite reasonable to consider it their definition, and refer to it as theirs. Yet here is Jan deliberately (for I can see no other alternative other than stupidity and ignorance, and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt) trying to disrupt a discussion by attempting to say that something he posted is not his. And explaining that to him again and again by numerous people seems only to serve his purpose of avoiding the main crux of the criticisms until such time as they either get frustrated and move on or until they pick up on one of the irrelevant sub-issues that he might throw around. Either way Jan avoids the issues.
There is no discussion here any more. Jan has involved himself yet again and shot it from the sky, only this one took a while to descend, every effort being taken to garner some semblance of flight from the inevitability of being Janned.
There is no discussion here any more. Jan has involved himself yet again and shot it from the sky, only this one took a while to descend, every effort being taken to garner some semblance of flight from the inevitability of being Janned.
No, that is not what I believe, but can you prove that that is not how it is?
I have no idea of whether time exists other than as part of our universe.
I have no idea of what is not within our universe.
Do you?
I also do not believe one way or another as to the existence of a God that is unprovable and unscientific.
You have put forward a definition of God that is unprovable.
It is only considered to be necessary if you accept the premises upon which the definition is formulated.
But since you can not demonstrate the truth of those premises you can not claim that the God as defined is indeed necessary.
Your belief in that definition would seem to be based on your belief in those premises, and the extent to which your belief in those premises is informed by your belief in the God as defined, it is circular.
But no, I do not believe.
What is up with you people?
I offered a definition, it isn't my definition, I took it from a text.
Why do you have a problem with me not taking credit for it by calling it my definition. As though I thought of it.
jan.
But you do have an idea of something, such as cause and effect. Right?
While you may not be able to state that it is an absolute fact, you do have experience of it. Right?
jan.