Should we take Ray Comfort Serious? If no, what not?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
So, the "truth" has already been laid out for you in scriptures before you were born?
The truth always is.
You’re not separate from it, at any time.
Shit yeah!
They’re not shown to be wrong either.
I could believe the scriptures are right, and you can believe they are wrong. But our belief does not make them right or wrong.
So if the scripture defines God as the origin of everything, which they do. Then we are to take that as the definition. We don’t have to believe, or not believe it, to understand that.
Unfortunately, you are in denial of what “God” is defined as. This is why you are flapping about, being disingenuous, trying to steer the discussion in another direction, usually by drawing attention to me. Because if you accept what God is defined as, you will come to the conclusion, that despite what you believe, God is defined as the origin of everything.
Now Truth is defined as “The quality or state of being true”.
“True” is defined as “in accordance with facts or reality”
God is defined as the origin of everything, which can be perceived as reality.
Now while I accept and believe that, and while you don’t accept or believe that, it doesn’t change the definition.
To try and find evidence that God is as defined, instantaneously diminishes, the status of God, according to definition.
That means I would have already decided that God, is not as defined I would have changed the meaning of God to something that conforms to my reality. Would that be true? No because right from the beginning we would have changed the reality of the definition of God.
If you replace the word "God" with: Cat?
That would deflect the meaning of the definition of God, from those who know what a cat is.
But to someone who has no concept of the word “cat”, The definition would mean the same, as if it were the word “God”.
No. The word “cat” would be understood, the same way we understand, the word “God”.
Yet, in many cases, the Bible has been shown to be wrong or it contradicts itself. There are plenty of examples of this.
And, the same could be said about leprechauns and unicorns, so you are not raising a relevant point.
That is entirely false and shows you are not reading my posts or you're misunderstanding them. I understand perfectly the definition of God.
It doesn't matter in the least the definition of God, that is entirely irrelevant to the fact God has never been shown to exist. It is you who continuously uses the definition of God to prove God's existence. That is what is disingenuous.
But, you are the one who claims God as truth, "in accordance with facts and reality", yet there are no facts and no reality to God's existence, hence no truth.
You keep fallaciously using the definition of God to prove God's existence. Children in school know that's false. Funny, that as an adult, you still don't understand that simple concept.
Yes, I know, you are just making it all up to suit your narrative. You're a stuck record in that you simply can't understand that definitions of something does not mean they are real or exist. Children understand this concept, buy you don't.
I can use a dictionary, Jan. You on the other hand cannot understand that definitions of things don't make them real or exist. You will not find any definitions that link God to truth, because truth is “ the quality, or, state of being true” and it is based on facts and reality. There are no facts and no reality in regards to the existence of God.
"God", gods, unicorns, etc. It's all the same.
Truth is not a thing; it's a quality. An idea can have the quality of truth, or not.
Nobody has been able to show that the idea of gods or "God" has the quality of truth.
Well, of course it does. How can you proclaim that something is "true" without evidence?
On the contrary, it is absurd to arbitrarily decide something is "true" without evidence.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Jan is a record that has been stuck for years.
The only detectable change in that time is that he has, very, very slowly, been revealed as yet another angry creationist with no arguments. For years he studiously avoided giving any hint at all of his own beliefs, instead turning every response round to ask another question, rather than advancing a viewpoint of his own. I have had him on Ignore for years now, but I take my hat off to whoever it was that smoked his beliefs out.
That’s a belief.
That means you are not prepared to accept the definition.Which basically means you’re wrong.
Truth is quality and state of being true. There can be no falsity, in truth. It is supposed to be the goal of all knowledge, including scientific knowledge. There is nothing past that.
An idea is either true or false.
God as shown that, by manifesting what we regard as reality.
You can not accept, or believe it, but you can’t deny that’s what it means. Unless you choose to.
No one person, or group can show that, the best they can do, is speculate. Also you have no grounds to say that there is no evidence that show the definitions to be false. You can only believe it, or not.
Facts require evidence. Truth is perfect knowledge. Truth is purely objective.
It doesn’t matter what anyone decides, the truth will always be.
No it isn't. The facts we have do not indicate any gods, "God" or unicorns. We have the same absence of evidence for all of them, which makes them all equivalent from an objective/evidentiary/factual/"truth" point of view.
I'm not prepared to accept any definitions that you make up.
There is nothing in reality that manifests any God.
Yes. That's why God is not a fact - no evidence.
No. Knowledge is never perfect.
Which is why God is not truth - the idea of God is not objective.
Which facts are those?
As far as I know, the Dogon tribe got their information from beings that knew what they were talking about, long before science got it.
Which facts prove them wrong?
I’ve defined “God”, “Truth”, and “true”. Which one did I make up?
God Is reality.
You see all we did there was express our beliefs.
Your belief is purposely designed to conform to a version of reality you choose. Because you deny the meaning of things at the inception.
My belief is in line in line with the meanings, so I don’t have to make anything up. I just refer the core meanings.
How do you know that?
We’re not discussing the idea of God.
We’re discussing the definition of God.
No need for ideas of God.
None of that is true.
More on point, it's incoherent - none of it makes sense.
