Has Christianity finally been debunked?

[snapshot]

Just place a question mark at the end in place of the period.

Originally Posted by JcP

but I am more than happy to agree that neither of us knows. That it's possible there is a God and it's possible that there is no God. I'm only posting to you because you questioned the ability for questioning and faith to coexist. Which we've proven.

I don't see how we've proven that.

And I still don't know exactly what you're talking about when you say "God"? It doesn't make logical sense to me, which is why I don't know. How can there be a creator of that which has always existed (a creator of infinite regression)? And how can something come out of nothing? How can something come out of nothing if something always existed and there never was nothing? If there is a creator of an infinite regression, then it's not really an infinite regression, since there is a starting point.

That's why I see atheism as faith, just like my spirituality. They both require "empirical evidence" we do not have...at least in terms of how you choose to set the standards for what counts as truth :-).

Would you say that the fact that I don't believe in that which you, or any other person who says they believe in God, makes me an atheist?

I feel like I'm being labeled an atheist by theists simply for not believing what they believe. If someone believes in something that I don't understand or that doesn't make sense, that doesn't mean I have faith; to me, it means there must be a contradiction somewhere, either in my thinking or theirs which is impossible to accept without some sort of irrational reasoning.

I don't consider myself an atheist, with regards to Sam Harris. I'm just trying to understand via reasoning. At its base, from what I've gotten so far, it seems like you're saying God is That Which Is, since I can't understand anything more than that because it all seems illogical:

How can there be a creator of that which has always existed (a creator of infinite regression)? And how can something come out of nothing? How can something come out of nothing if something always existed and there never was nothing? If there is a creator of an infinite regression, then it's not really an infinite regression, since there is a starting point.

So, from my point of view, these are logically bulletproof arguments against any sort of creator argument, since a creator, through logical consistency, also needs a creator; since infinity negates a starting or an endpoint; since something cannot come from nothing.

I'm not saying I know there is no God. I'm saying I don't have enough information to process, which would be able to lead me to begin to consider such a conclusion (that God doesn't exist). I am saying that logical contradictions cannot exist, and thusly any definition of God with a contradiction, I can safely say, cannot exist--nor, certainly, could one argue such a case. This is why I say that faith comes after thinking is ceased. If I believe there is a God, even after these considerations, I have to have ceased thinking about these considerations, because they are blocks which shield me from accepting the concept of God logically.

I'm not saying what you feel is wrong, or that your feelings are invalid, but I do think that, even though questioning may have led you to your belief, it is ultimately feeling, not thinking, which keeps people tuned into that belief.

[JcP]

I'm sorry the simplistic question/answering is over, since when we get into longer complex discussions, it inevitably ends with the same results...but perhaps this time will be different.

Originally Posted by snapshot

And I still don't know exactly what you're talking about when you say "God"? It doesn't make logical sense to me, which is why I don't know. How can there be a creator of that which has always existed (a creator of infinite regression)?.

there doesn't. If something has always existed, that which has always existed is its own creator. If something is infinite, you do not need an external creator...so I'm not sure why you think I'm suggesting this. Perhaps the word "creator" is what's confusing.

Since things exist, either these things have always been, or they were divinely manifest (something out of nothing). If the first is true, this universe is all there is (God) and makes itself (consciously or otherwise). If the latter is true, then this universe is LIMITED, but outside of this limited universe is an infinite God who made the universe.
To use a computer metaphor: Either you are God to the citizens in Sim City since you control the game, or there is no player and Sim City is the God to the citizens of Sim City (and therefore, the citizens of Sim City are God to themselves). But since Sim City exists, someone has the power to create...and it seems logical to assume someone created the game, since all things have a creator.

God in terms of the white man in the sky is not logically wrong, as it is one possibility, but it does require a leap in faith (as does any belief about God other than "don't know.")

Originally Posted by snapshot

And how can something come out of nothing? How can something come out of nothing if something always existed and there never was nothing? If there is a creator of an infinite regression, then it's not really an infinite regression, since there is a starting point..

Correct. Since no one knows the true nature of the universe, whether it is infinite or had a starting point is a question still in the realm of faith.
IF something came out of nothing, then a divine act has occured. And that divine act would indicate a divine creator who made the act happen.
IF there was no starting point, then we are in infinity. In which case everything in the universe is infinite (including you and me). If the universe "has always been" then that universe is God. It creates itself.

Originally Posted by snapshot

Would you say that the fact that I don't believe in that which you, or any other person who says they believe in God, makes me an atheist?.

Depends. Do you "not know" or do you know? I, for instance, am certain I am not certain about the nature of God.
If you don't believe in God, you would be an atheist. If you "don't know," then no, you would not be an atheist.

I don't believe that which anyone else says they believe in in terms of God. I often agree with points people make, but faith is completely personal. That's the difference between spirituality and religion. One is based on personal discovery, while the other is based on prescribing to a dogma.

Originally Posted by snapshot

I feel like I'm being labeled an atheist by theists simply for not believing what they believe. If someone believes in something that I don't understand or that doesn't make sense, that doesn't mean I have faith; to me, it means there must be a contradiction somewhere, either in my thinking or theirs which is impossible to accept without some sort of irrational reasoning..

Hrm...perhaps it's a matter of semantics, as this is the first time I've seen you distinguish what you believe to that which is somehow universally true. If you agree that the true nature of the universe is not known, but based on the evidence you have seen you see no evidence for God, that's one thing. To me, it seems you believe that logic leads to the TRUTH that there is no God...which is silly since we do not know the truth (and, by the way, the reason we can discuss things about this and 'agree to disagree' with neither being wrong or right.).
If you are an atheist, that's fine. I personally find atheism ridiculous, but I also recognize that I personally hold beliefs you have every right to find equally as ridiculous.

Originally Posted by snapshot

I don't consider myself an atheist, with regards to Sam Harris. I'm just trying to understand via reasoning. At its base, from what I've gotten so far, it seems like you're saying God is That Which Is, since I can't understand anything more than that because it all seems illogical:.

At least you and I agree that it's not illogical, just that "it all seems illogical," which is the real disagreement you and I have had from day one.

Originally Posted by snapshot

"How can there be a creator of that which has always existed (a creator of infinite regression)? And how can something come out of nothing? How can something come out of nothing if something always existed and there never was nothing? If there is a creator of an infinite regression, then it's not really an infinite regression, since there is a starting point. "

So, from my point of view, these are logically bulletproof arguments against any sort of creator argument, since a creator, through logical consistency, also needs a creator; since infinity negates a starting or an endpoint; since something cannot come from nothing..

They aren't logically bulletproof to my point of view, as I've completely deconstructed these arguments already. But I will try again.
If we are in a system of infinity, God is the name given to the force of infinity...a self-creating system of infinity (not to mention the fact that for infinity to truly be infinite, logically it would have to include God and No God simultaneously, else it would not be infinity, but infinity minus God or No God).
If we are in a system that is FINITE, God is the name given to the force that created the finite system...an external system of infinity.

"A creator needs a creator" is something that you believe to be true based on the facts you currently have. People who believe God to be the dude with the white beard would argue that while what we know now does not provide any proof for their beliefs, they see a logic in believing that something has to have started things, otherwise how is there anything? In essence, they remove infinity from the universe and put it outside of it in a personified Infinte consciousness they call God.

the second option is logically consistent, but is still just as "unproveable" as the 'illogical' option above...that God is the system of "a creator needs a creator" that is infinite and transcends creation itself. God is the universe itself and everything in it and that our consciousness is not only a product of "God" but God him/her/itself. There is no need for a personified "outside" God, because God is everything.

Originally Posted by snapshot

I'm not saying I know there is no God. I'm saying I don't have enough information to process, which would be able to lead me to begin to consider such a conclusion (that God doesn't exist). I am saying that logical contradictions cannot exist, and thusly any definition of God with a contradiction, I can safely say, cannot exist--nor, certainly, could one argue such a case. .

If you agree that you do not have enough information to process, you are not an atheist, as an atheist has come to a conclusion. You are still seeking more information before deciding what you believe is or is not true.

Originally Posted by snapshot

This is why I say that faith comes after thinking is ceased. If I believe there is a God, even after these considerations, I have to have ceased thinking about these considerations, because they are blocks which shield me from accepting the concept of God logically..

Then I think you misconstrue faith. Faith is believing in something. It is not, however, knowing something. Buddhism (a faith of sorts) THRIVES on asking questions. a huge chunk of the practice is thinking about koans (which you might TOTALLY get into, based on how logical and pragmatic you are about things), and asking questions and thinking.
Faith is not an answer. It's the gateway to infinite questions (most of which, have no answers).

Originally Posted by snapshot

I'm not saying what you feel is wrong, or that your feelings are invalid, but I do think that, even though questioning may have led you to your belief, it is ultimately feeling, not thinking, which keeps people tuned into that belief.

thinking is the only thing that makes you think that. My thinking tells me otherwise. Thinking keeps me tuned into my belief, as I see complete logical consistency in my belief and the unity of all beings. If your thinking leads you elsewhere, that's FINE.

As I've said from day 1 with you, I don't know anything. But I know I don't know. Or, since you like philosophy, as Socrates said to a student who asked him "do you know yourself?" "No. But I know this not knowing."

[matthewmunari]

Originally Posted by snapshot

Just place a question mark at the end in place of the period.
I don't see how we've proven that.

And I still don't know exactly what you're talking about when you say "God"? It doesn't make logical sense to me, which is why I don't know. How can there be a creator of that which has always existed (a creator of infinite regression)? And how can something come out of nothing? How can something come out of nothing if something always existed and there never was nothing? If there is a creator of an infinite regression, then it's not really an infinite regression, since there is a starting point.

Would you say that the fact that I don't believe in that which you, or any other person who says they believe in God, makes me an atheist?

I feel like I'm being labeled an atheist by theists simply for not believing what they believe. If someone believes in something that I don't understand or that doesn't make sense, that doesn't mean I have faith; to me, it means there must be a contradiction somewhere, either in my thinking or theirs which is impossible to accept without some sort of irrational reasoning.

I don't consider myself an atheist, with regards to Sam Harris. I'm just trying to understand via reasoning. At its base, from what I've gotten so far, it seems like you're saying God is That Which Is, since I can't understand anything more than that because it all seems illogical:

So, from my point of view, these are logically bulletproof arguments against any sort of creator argument, since a creator, through logical consistency, also needs a creator; since infinity negates a starting or an endpoint; since something cannot come from nothing.

I'm not saying I know there is no God. I'm saying I don't have enough information to process, which would be able to lead me to begin to consider such a conclusion (that God doesn't exist). I am saying that logical contradictions cannot exist, and thusly any definition of God with a contradiction, I can safely say, cannot exist--nor, certainly, could one argue such a case. This is why I say that faith comes after thinking is ceased. If I believe there is a God, even after these considerations, I have to have ceased thinking about these considerations, because they are blocks which shield me from accepting the concept of God logically.

I'm not saying what you feel is wrong, or that your feelings are invalid, but I do think that, even though questioning may have led you to your belief, it is ultimately feeling, not thinking, which keeps people tuned into that belief.

we are human, our minds cannot wrap itself around the concept of God...sure we were created in his image, but our children were created in our image... if they were orphaned at 3 and 20 years down the road were told these are your real parents, you would have a tough time believing that...
Our brains are programmed to believe what we've been taught throughout the experiences in our lives, and have a hard time changing beliefs set in stone..something had to get the ball (humanity) rolling, and along the way people have picked and choosed which is the correct belief..THEY ARE ALL RIGHT (save the athiests), there is no possible way to know which religion is the right one to salvation....I think the J/W's 144,000 have long since been filled up, so where do the true believers go now?Every religion has an aspect of truth in it, so there is no wrong religion, except if your athiest, and you refuse to go with the angel guides upon immediate death, your soul will be trapped in-between.....not a good place to be, as I have witnessed souls trapped on this plane making ordinary household items defy Newtons laws of gravity...enjoy the time we have on earth, because for all intensive purposes, it is the only guarantees we have...

matthew

[snapshot]

You know this is too long and--I've said this before, somewhere--the faulty nature of debate is its negativity, whereby I only respond to that which I have some problem with. The positive side is that it considerable cuts down that which needs to be addressed.

Originally Posted by Jcp

If you agree that the true nature of the universe is not known, but based on the evidence you have seen you see no evidence for God, that's one thing. To me, it seems you believe that logic leads to the TRUTH that there is no God...which is silly since we do not know the truth (and, by the way, the reason we can discuss things about this and 'agree to disagree' with neither being wrong or right.).
If you are an atheist, that's fine. I personally find atheism ridiculous, but I also recognize that I personally hold beliefs you have every right to find equally as ridiculous.

It's not that I don't know whether there is a God or not. It's that I don't know what is it that I'm supposed to not know about. For contrast, I know that I don't know the physics behind a black hole, but I do have a logically consistent definition of it. I don't know how it works, but when I talk about it, I know what I'm talking about because the definition remains consistent. I don't have that luxury when discussing this God term.

To me, hearing you say the emboldened portion is like hearing someone say that logic will lead me to the truth that Hickadoola doesn't exist. I need to know first what Hickadoola means before I can make any sort of assertion. If you give me a definition of Hickadoola with contradictory terms, I have no choice but to say that it can't exist, otherwise our ability to communicate breaks down entirely since our discussion can no longer be contained by the nature of reality.

that God is the system of "a creator needs a creator" that is infinite and transcends creation itself.

Wouldn't this also mean that it transcends logic as well? Meaning that something that transcends logic can't be communicate logically; meaning that trying to come to any sort of conclusion about it logically, one would eventually have to give up logic? And how can one question without the tool of logic?

[JcP]

Originally Posted by snapshot

You know this is too long and--I've said this before, somewhere--the faulty nature of debate is its negativity, whereby I only respond to that which I have some problem with. The positive side is that it considerable cuts down that which needs to be addressed.It's not that I don't know whether there is a God or not. It's that I don't know what is it that I'm supposed to not know about. For contrast, I know that I don't know the physics behind a black hole, but I do have a logically consistent definition of it. I don't know how it works, but when I talk about it, I know what I'm talking about because the definition remains consistent. I don't have that luxury when discussing this God term.

I understand what you are saying snapshot. But your definition of what a black hole is is of your own making. You read about black holes, you even memorize what a black hole is according to what your professor says...but what you think of when you think "black hole" is completely singular to you. No one else understands black holes the way you do. Your logically consistent defintion is based on you, snapshot, reading about black holes, maybe looking at pictures, talking to scientists, whatever the case may be. You gathered information, chose what you see as factual and what you see as hypothesis and belief, and formed a definition for yourself of what constitutes "black hole." The black hole is unknowable in reality, as you are not the black hole (unless of course you believe the universe to be a singularity in which case you are literally the black hole). The black hole has infinite facets to it, of which you and anyone knows barely anything. So your definition that you see as consistent is a complete belief.
You seem to be hung up on the idea that the term GOD has to be unified in order for it to have merit or for you to understand it. If I say "I am God" and someone else says "God is an old man in the sky" why does it matter to you? How YOU understand the term "God" is all that is important when it comes to forming your own belief and/or faith about your existence.

Does this make sense? And before you go there, not everyone agrees on what a black hole is. Logically, it would be ILLOGICAL to say you know what a black hole is. Logically, it would be logical to say "I think a black hole is X because..."

Originally Posted by snapshot

To me, hearing you say the emboldened portion is like hearing someone say that logic will lead me to the truth that Hickadoola doesn't exist. I need to know first what Hickadoola means before I can make any sort of assertion.

so define hickadoola! Or, in this case, listen to his definition and then come to your own conclusion whether or not it does.

You believe that to be true. Your mind says that in order for you to accept or make an assertion about whether Hickadoola does or does not exist, you need a definition of what Hickadoola means. I find this strange. Why do you need external definitions of things for you to make an assertion? IF you believe Hickadoola to mean broccoli, then it means broccoli. And when discussing things with other people (should you choose to do so), your answer to "what is hickadoola?" is "broccoli." My answer to "what is God" is no different, and neither is right or wrong.

I provided you with a definition of what I think God to be. It is logical and clear. If you discuss God with me, that is what I mean when I say God. Do you believe in God according to my definition of what God is?

The word "God" is not owned. God does not mean old man in the sky to everyone. The things in space you call stars are not stars to everyone. When speaking to a native american, you might need to call it by its God-name to have a discussion (or vice versa), etc etc etc.

Follow?

Originally Posted by snapshot

If you give me a definition of Hickadoola with contradictory terms, I have no choice but to say that it can't exist, otherwise our ability to communicate breaks down entirely since our discussion can no longer be contained by the nature of reality.

You have a choice. You choose to think that contradictions in terms means that it can't exist. Believing that only rational logic is true is a belief system. A belief system that is just as right and just as wrong as any other one you can come up with.

Our ability to communicate didn't break down. I'm still fully capable of communicating! YOUR ability to communicate has ceased because your belief system about what constitutes "the nature of reality" has stopped you. You do not see any value or ability to continue a discussion, and see no way for there to be progress. WHICH IS FINE. But that is your choice based on what you believe to constitute truth. Which is not universal .

Originally Posted by snapshot

Wouldn't this also mean that it transcends logic as well? Meaning that something that transcends logic can't be communicate logically; meaning that trying to come to any sort of conclusion about it logically, one would eventually have to give up logic? And how can one question without the tool of logic

nope, it wouldn't mean that. If anything, it would have meant "logic transcends itself."

If God is the system of "a creator needs a creation" then God is the system of "logic" as well. In this way of looking at God, God is the infinite which allows creation, logic, and the universe. Since the system (God) is the system, God IS logic and God IS "a creator needs a creation."

Perhaps transcend is the wrong word for you. I was trying to express that the system (God) would be the empty space that allows logic and creation to exist within it.

In essence, logic is logical because logic is determined by logic.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by JcP

I understand what you are saying snapshot. ...
You seem to be hung up on the idea that the term GOD has to be unified in order for it to have merit or for you to understand it. If I say "I am God" and someone else says "God is an old man in the sky" why does it matter to you? How YOU understand the term "God" is all that is important when it comes to forming your own belief and/or faith about your existence.

We don't know what a black hole is, but we don't know what the words mean that are used to describe it. A superdense mass of a collapsed star that has created a gravity well. On some level, you have to admit that there is agreement on what these terms mean, otherwise, communication is impossible. If I don't have to accept anything you say, even if I say I'll accept logic, and you don't have to accept anything I say, even if you say you will accept certain logical progressions, then we're not just being inconsistent with reality but with our own philosophy as well. A lack of a necessity for consistency in terms means there's no consistency at all between us, meaning communication is literally impossible, or at least futile. Philosophically, we have to agree as to what the boundaries of our perceptions are, and we can do this; we can do this by experimenting with reality and testing our own biases. I believe you'll tell me there is no point at which we have to see the same reality, while I'll tell you that we can certainly find a starting point, even if it's just the time it takes a ball to fall 1 foot. We can find an objective reference point.

Why do I feel I have to convince you to meet me somewhere in the middle every time I talk to you?

Does this make sense? And before you go there, not everyone agrees on what a black hole is. Logically, it would be ILLOGICAL to say you know what a black hole is. Logically, it would be logical to say "I think a black hole is X because..."

I'm not saying I know what it "is." I simply say our definition (how we put what we observe into words) has to be logically consistent. To make your point even further, the word is not the thing, but that's not what I'm talking about, since we're not dealing with the thing directly, we're dealing with ways to communicate about the thing.

so define hickadoola! Or, in this case, listen to his definition and then come to your own conclusion whether or not it does.

It doesn't matter what the word is.

You believe that to be true. Your mind says that in order for you to accept or make an assertion about whether Hickadoola does or does not exist, you need a definition of what Hickadoola means. I find this strange. Why do you need external definitions of things for you to make an assertion? IF you believe Hickadoola to mean broccoli, then it means broccoli. And when discussing things with other people (should you choose to do so), your answer to "what is hickadoola?" is "broccoli." My answer to "what is God" is no different, and neither is right or wrong.

But there you're defining a word "hickadoola" which at first had no concept linking it to reality, but when you say "broccoli" suddenly you do. If when you said "God" you really meant "broccoli" then why not just say "broccoli"? I don't care about the word. I know the connotation of the word, which is why I'm curious about it, but what I really want is the denotation, that definition which is able to point to something in reality, like "broccoli" does for "hickadoola."

I provided you with a definition of what I think God to be. It is logical and clear. If you discuss God with me, that is what I mean when I say God. Do you believe in God according to my definition of what God is?

You gave me multiple definitions, if I'm not mistaken, and you didn't claim to believe either one of them, and the definitions of both we're completely different, so I don't know whether you believe in one, the other, or that a potentiality exists.

"A creator needs a creator" is something that you believe to be true based on the facts you currently have. People who believe God to be the dude with the white beard would argue that while what we know now does not provide any proof for their beliefs, they see a logic in believing that something has to have started things, otherwise how is there anything? In essence, they remove infinity from the universe and put it outside of it in a personified Infinte consciousness they call God.

the second option is logically consistent, but is still just as "unproveable" as the 'illogical' option above...that God is the system of "a creator needs a creator" that is infinite and transcends creation itself. God is the universe itself and everything in it and that our consciousness is not only a product of "God" but God him/her/itself. There is no need for a personified "outside" God, because God is everything.

Here's where you gave me "options." I also don't understand how infinity must contain God and not God. That is a contradiction. To broaden that perspective even more (or, likely, to narrow it in yours) it would be like saying infinity must contain something and nothing, which is also a contradiction, since if you have something, you can't have nothing. If this is your definition of infinity, infinity is logically impossible and therefore cannot exist, as least within any definition you give.

The word "God" is not owned. God does not mean old man in the sky to everyone. The things in space you call stars are not stars to everyone. When speaking to a native american, you might need to call it by its God-name to have a discussion (or vice versa), etc etc etc.

Follow?

I certainly follow this part, which is why I'm more concerned with the definition than the word. I only know that God has a strong connotation.

You have a choice. You choose to think that contradictions in terms means that it can't exist. Believing that only rational logic is true is a belief system. A belief system that is just as right and just as wrong as any other one you can come up with.

OK, so you don't accept logic since logic dictates that contradictions are impossible. That's perfectly alright, but it seems pretty unfair to say that you're using logic when you also accept contradictions as possible. For the integrity of the term, why not come up with a different word to describe your system for communicating ideas.

Like if I said, "In my scientific method, people just have to imagine the truth, and then it's scientifically true," I would be completely going against the scientific method, yet I still continue to call it science. That's what I feel you're doing when you say "You can choose to think that contradictions in terms means that it can't exist," because yes, I do I think that, but that's because I accept logic. If I did accept contradictions in logic, then I wouldn't be accepting logic, since that in itself would be a contradiction. See, even there I couldn't do it because it would be a contradiction.

Our ability to communicate didn't break down. I'm still fully capable of communicating! YOUR ability to communicate has ceased because your belief system about what constitutes "the nature of reality" has stopped you. You do not see any value or ability to continue a discussion, and see no way for there to be progress. WHICH IS FINE. But that is your choice based on what you believe to constitute truth. Which is not universal .

The emboldened statement does not apply to me because it is not universal.

nope, it wouldn't mean that. If anything, it would have meant "logic transcends itself."

I really feel like you're just trying to confuse me here. Instead I'm going to say, this doesn't make any sense.

If God is the system of "a creator needs a creation" then God is the system of "logic" as well. In this way of looking at God, God is the infinite which allows creation, logic, and the universe. Since the system (God) is the system, God IS logic and God IS "a creator needs a creation."

Neither does this.

Perhaps transcend is the wrong word for you. I was trying to express that the system (God) would be the empty space that allows logic and creation to exist within it.

See, if I were to say I believe in God, I would simply define it as "that which exists." I don't know everything that exists, but I do know that that which does not exist does not exist, and therefore anything that is non-existent cannot be a part of God. And such a definition would include anything that may escape my knowing. Since you gave the option of the Universe existing eternally as being a possibility for how we define God, then such a definition would encompass that as well. What the definition would not encompass would be anything outside the Universe which did not also include the Universe since there is no empirical data to suggest that such a definition points to anything at all.

In essence, logic is logical because logic is determined by logic.

Logic is a tool to communicate that which we see in reality and is determined as such.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by snapshot

On some level, you have to admit that there is agreement on what these terms mean, otherwise, communication is impossible.

communication and complete agreement on what something is or is not are two completely different things. You and I are communicating, and yet your belief structure of what a black hole is and what I believe a black hole is are not the same.

Originally Posted by snapshot

If I don't have to accept anything you say, even if I say I'll accept logic, and you don't have to accept anything I say, even if you say you will accept certain logical progressions, then we're not just being inconsistent with reality but with our own philosophy as well.

bullshit. We are being COMPLETELY consistent with reality because we are being true to what each of our realities are. You think there is some universal reality. And while there might be, you cannot understand it, being that you are not objective about ANYTHING. Everything you think, feel, believe, is filtered through YOU, snapshot, and is therefore no longer objective.

Originally Posted by snapshot

A lack of a necessity for consistency in terms means there's no consistency at all between us, meaning communication is literally impossible, or at least futile.

bullshit #2, lol. If you say "the sky is blue" and it makes me think of my dead grandmother, communication has still occured just not as you intended it to. Just because you are unable to communicate exactly as you would want does not mean communication does not take place. You cannot control my thoughts.

Originally Posted by snapshot

Philosophically, we have to agree as to what the boundaries of our perceptions are, and we can do this; we can do this by experimenting with reality and testing our own biases. I believe you'll tell me there is no point at which we have to see the same reality, while I'll tell you that we can certainly find a starting point, even if it's just the time it takes a ball to fall 1 foot. We can find an objective reference point.

This argument forces me to take a position I don't hold personally. I agree with you about the time it takes a ball to fall 1 foot. THE POINT is that it still requires a BELIEF that what we see is TRUTH. I could just as easily hold the belief that the ball didn't fall 1 foot in, say, 1 second. And while this would be completely ridiculous to YOUR REALITY, it does not make it any less true to me, as my reality is just as true as yours.

Originally Posted by snapshot

Why do I feel I have to convince you to meet me somewhere in the middle every time I talk to you?

because that's where discussion happens.

Originally Posted by snapshot

I'm not saying I know what it "is." I simply say our definition (how we put what we observe into words) has to be logically consistent. To make your point even further, the word is not the thing, but that's not what I'm talking about, since we're not dealing with the thing directly, we're dealing with ways to communicate about the thing.

OUR definition is not up to you. Neither is what is or is not logically consistent. I truly do not know how else to say this.

Originally Posted by snapshot

But there you're defining a word "hickadoola" which at first had no concept linking it to reality, but when you say "broccoli" suddenly you do.
If when you said "God" you really meant "broccoli" then why not just say "broccoli"?

no. When attempting to explain to you what hickadoola is, I call it broccoli. To me, hickadoola is not just a definition. Think of ice cream. Is ice cream a definition to you? Or is ice cream an image of a truck when you were 5, your tongue salivating, and the feeling of the ice cream cone in your hand?

Originally Posted by snapshot

I don't care about the word. I know the connotation of the word, which is why I'm curious about it, but what I really want is the denotation, that definition which is able to point to something in reality, like "broccoli" does for "hickadoola."

I've given you my definition. So stop asking for one?

Originally Posted by snapshot

You gave me multiple definitions, if I'm not mistaken, and you didn't claim to believe either one of them, and the definitions of both we're completely different, so I don't know whether you believe in one, the other, or that a potentiality exists.

I gave you a single definition of what I believe God to be. The other examples were to explain other possibilities of what God could be. My definition is quite clear on the last page of this thread.

Originally Posted by snapshot

Here's where you gave me "options." I also don't understand how infinity must contain God and not God. That is a contradiction.

that contradiction must exist in infinity, or it is infinity without that contradiction. Infinity is not limited and is limited at the same time. Or in Christian terminology, why Jesus is God AND man. Not that I believe in the story of Jesus, but the philosophy holds water.

Originally Posted by snapshot

To broaden that perspective even more (or, likely, to narrow it in yours) it would be like saying infinity must contain something and nothing, which is also a contradiction, since if you have something, you can't have nothing. If this is your definition of infinity, infinity is logically impossible and therefore cannot exist, as least within any definition you give.

YES! Infinity is something and nothing. And it is a contradiction! Infinity is not something that has or has not. It IS. NOTHING (if you choose to label it) is something. It is nothing. Which means it IS.

Originally Posted by snapshot

OK, so you don't accept logic since logic dictates that contradictions are impossible. That's perfectly alright, but it seems pretty unfair to say that you're using logic when you also accept contradictions as possible.

then you don't understand logic, as paradoxes have existed since the birth of logic.

Originally Posted by snapshot

For the integrity of the term, why not come up with a different word to describe your system for communicating ideas.

because the integrity of the term has nothing to do with how you choose to use it, snapshot. Why don't you come up with a different word to describe your system of communicating ideas?


I'm done. I had no interest in getting into another copy/paste discussion with you. We did however prove my original reason of getting into this thread: that asking questions and faith are not incompatible and that questions are often the very basis for someone's faith, such as my own. So for that we should be happy :-)

[snapshot]

THE POINT is that it still requires a BELIEF that what we see is TRUTH

What you see, is. Empiricism is how you eliminate your biases. Truth is how you describe it.

You didn't prove anything.

May we live to debate another day.