CreateDebate


Debate Info

113
104
Ultimate Reality is God I don't believe there is god.
Debate Score:217
Arguments:245
Total Votes:264
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Ultimate Reality is God (101)
 
 I don't believe there is god. (96)

Debate Creator

TzarPepe(323) pic



Do you deny THIS God?

If you are unsure, "on the fence" or whatever you want to call it... You do not believe that there is god.

Ultimate Reality is God

Side Score: 113
VS.

I don't believe there is god.

Side Score: 104
2 points

The Ultimate Reality is The Ultimate Reality.

"I AM that I AM" is what God said.

Salvation can only be from God."

This is the God I believe in. Do you deny my God? Do you deny our Lord?

God, The Ultimate Reality, The Supreme Being, The Highest Truth, The Sanctifier, Our Shepherd, The One who is present, The Healer, The Righteousness, The Provider, The Peace, The Most High, The One who sees, The Almighty, The Everlasting, The Anointed One.

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
Dermot(3644) Disputed Banned
1 point

Do you deny these gods ? If so why ?

They are what they are .

Salvation can only come from them

Do you deny these gods ? Do you deny Allah , Zeus and the pagan Gods ? If so why ?

Allah is the one true God

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.

Say (O Muhammad) He is God the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not

begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone."

Zeus is the one true God

There is only one true god, and only one true religion.

Zeus. Jupiter. Dios Pater. Dyaus Pitar. Sky Father. Sun God. The God of Indo-European peoples.

His prophets are Homer and Aristotle, his acolytes are the rational philosophers, his ministers lawyers and judges, his clerics are the scientists and technologists, his disciples are the warriors and craftsmen, his laws The Natural Law for men, and Science for the universe.

Pagans have the one true God

"Sacred feminine": Pagan religions recognize "the female divine principle", identified as "the Goddess" (as opposed to individual goddesses) beside or in place of the male divine principle as expressed in the Abrahamic God.

Side: I don't believe there is god.
TzarPepe(323) Disputed
1 point

"The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life"

There is only One God. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
Mint_tea(2527) Clarified
1 point

This is the God I believe in. Do you deny my God? Do you deny our Lord?

Do you deny the Gods of the Romans? Do you deny Ahura Mazda or Buddah?

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
TzarPepe(323) Clarified
1 point

There is only One God, One Ultimate Reality, by definition.

Surely, there are many gods, and they are mortal. There is only One Eternal God. This One God has been recognized cross culturally, and has gone by many names. It isn't the pronunciation that is important, it is the spirit. Salvation is only in The One True God, whose Holy Name is forever blessed.

"The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life"

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
-1 points

This is the God I believe in. Do you deny my God? Do you deny our Lord?

Do you deny being mentally unwell?

Side: I don't believe there is god.
TzarPepe(323) Disputed
1 point

How am I supposed to know? I will not confirm or deny.

What about you? Do you deny being mentally unwell?

What kind of question is that?

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
Dermot(3644) Banned
2 points

What a bizzare statement as in "the ultimate reality is the ultimate reality OR God Is God .

You obviously deny the countless others gods that other believers believe in whys that ?

You use the word "deny " which again demonstrates you do not have a clue regards what Atheists think on the matter ........

Atheism is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in god

Regarding ultimate reality we may not be able to perceive Ultimate Reality, but we can observe and deduce the simpler reality that directly affects us: laws of nature such as the temperature of boiling water at sea level and the chemical composition of blood, the existence of such diverse phenomena as our own bodies, radio waves and distant planets.

Our understanding of that human reality continues to increase. It is coming closer to Ultimate Reality, but it will never reach where we Understand Everything. If we did Understand Everything, we would no longer be human. We would be Gods .

Let us for arguments sake assume that there is a God. If we can somehow prove God's existence, he is part of Human Reality. If he exists and we cannot prove his existence, he is part of Ultimate Reality.

But if God is part of Ultimate Reality - an Ultimate Reality that humans will never be able to detect or interact with - he is the Deist God that is irrelevant to human lives. And if he is irrelevant to human lives, he is not God, because God is only meaningful in human terms when he is part of our lives.

You have three positions regarding the question ,

i. God exists and and some people's perception of him is accurate;

    some believers are right, some believers are wrong and all atheists are wrong

OR

ii. God exists and nobody's perception of him is accurate;

    all believers and all atheists are wrong

OR

iii. God does not exist.

    all atheists are right and all believers are wrong

If you wish to engage in Ad Hominems in reply you may anticipate a backlash

Side: I don't believe there is god.
TzarPepe(323) Disputed
1 point

There is a difference between understanding ultimate reality, and believing that it exists.

Believing the existence of ultimate reality is not a "belief system" either.

You take any two rocks off the ground. You have one rock in one hand, and another rock in the other hand. One rock plus one rock equals two rocks, right? Well if you look closely at the two rocks, no matter how similar, they will be different. The one rock is not the same as the other rock. So does one rock plus one rock equal two rocks? How can that be if the two rocks are not the same?

This was a problem that was noticed a long time ago, and scientists made the attempt at breaking matter down to its most fundamental level. They broke everything down into atoms.. Then after close observation, noticed that two atoms that were supposed to be the same were actually slightly different. Isotopes followed, then even moreso, subatomic particles, etc. Truthfully, you can break it down forever, it never ends.

Why is this the case? Because when we are dealing with our observations, we are dealing with representations of reality rather than reality itself. How can one rock equal another rock if they are actually different? We deal with representations. The representations themselves being an abstraction of what characteristics appear to be important relative to whatever it is being done.

An abstraction by nature is the taking away of some information in order to make bold what it is that is considered essential. To one person, there might be two rocks. To someone who is building something, the size of the rocks might be important. They would see a big rock and a small rock, two distinct and separate objects. To another, the details of what constitutes the rock is what is important. To many, none of these details are important. It is just a rock. The point being, the observer has a great deal to do with what is being observed.

All of our sensory input comes from abstraction. Certain information from the environment is captured while certain other information is ignored in order that we are able to see things. Likewise, certain information from the environment is captured while certain other information is ignored in order that we are able to hear things. How different hearing and seeing are as senses! They are practically alien to each other in terms of how it is they perceive the world around them. All senses are fundamentally build on abstraction.

Belief in God comes from an understanding of human reality. If you realize how the reality we perceive is so fundamentally built on this process of abstraction, you see that yes, indeed, the idea that anyone's understanding or perception of "ultimate reality" can not actually be "ultimate reality". To say "The ultimate reality is the ultimate reality" is not as bizarre of a statement as you think, it is a concession to the incomparable distinctness of such an entity. Yet the ultimate reality is that source that all of our experience originates. All of our experience is constructed from abstractions of the ultimate reality. In so, all of creation testifies to the glory of God. The ultimate reality itself is transcendent of abstraction. It is free of abstraction.

The problem in communicating such an entity should be obvious. We are using abstractions in the form of words in order to describe that which is totally beyond abstraction. It might be easy to discount this entity as being too far removed from our experience, but it is essential for there to even be experience at all.

Belief in God has very little to do with whether or not anyone has an accurate perception of God. All believers and atheists are wrong, you can be sure of this. That said, some are more accurate than others.

My position is very simple. I only say one thing. It is the most essential thing. It isn't religion, it is an acknowledgement of that which gives all of us being. The Supreme Being. Without the supreme being, there could be no being. There is clearly a reality that we all share. Even if you take people as islands, realities unto themselves, there would still have to by necessity be a greater reality that provides a foundation for that reality and any other realities that may exist.

The existence of God is a given. You can be sure of that. If you cannot have that level of certainty about God, I would argue that you couldn't be grasping what it is the concept actually means. We are talking about the ultimate reality.

There is no need to prove God. We can only prove created things, you are correct about that. However, God is intrinsically a part of everyone's life. Everything that happens is done according to the will of God. If it wasn't the will of God, it couldn't have happened. That is what defines God's will, what actually happens. This follows quite naturally from understanding that God means "The ultimate reality".

Meditating on God is very meaningful to human lives. It makes us saner and more rational people. It gives us greater self control. It helps us to maintain our sincerity. It brings wisdom. It is not important at all that we fully understand or know God. What is important is that we are conscientious of our relationship with God.

Belief in God is not a belief in people. Belief in God is not a belief in the traditions of men. Belief in God is not a belief in holy scriptures. Belief in God is not a belief the workings of men's hands. Belief in God is not belief in art. Belief in God is belief in the ultimate reality. Belief in the ultimate reality is not belief in what one thinks is the ultimate reality. None of this changes the fact that God Is.

By the way, saying "if you wish to engage in Ad Hominems in reply, you may anticipate a backlash" is in itself an ad hominem.

Consider that me turning the other cheek.

But to answer your question at the beginning... "Why do I deny these countless other gods that other believers believe?"

It's really simple, and I think it also explains why. I deny these other gods because they are false gods. I have faith in The One True God. I deny these gods because they are ultimately unreal. The God I believe in is The Ultimate Reality.

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
1 point

Believing the existence of ultimate reality is not a "belief system" either.

LOL. So what you are saying is that there is an invisible reality which is more real than the one we can see and touch, and that isn't a belief?

We can partially agree, in that it is more a mental illness.

Side: I don't believe there is god.
marcusmoon(244) Clarified
1 point

Tzar,

I only got partway through, and I had to stop and tell you that you rock! Pardon the pun.

So does one rock plus one rock equal two rocks? How can that be if the two rocks are not the same?

You are revisiting medieval arguments regarding Platonic form with the insertion of modern chemistry and physics. Awesome!

Sometimes differences are only relevant outside of certain tolerances (e.g., rock vice boulder, vice grain of sand.) If I want a truckload of rocks to mix with concrete to make a driveway, the fact that they are all different is irrelevant so long as they qualify for inclusion in relevant categories like size. As you point out, we do this with the concept of God.

What is interesting is that in Western and Islamic culture, we have narrowed the concept of God to a relatively narrow set of monotheistic tolerances. The abstraction no longer includes the likes of Zeus, Loki, or Quetzalcoatl. Moreover, at some point there came to be tacit assumption that despite the differences between different concepts of God, proof/disproof of one theoretically applies to the others, despite insistence that there is only one .

It is like deciding that only igneous mineral structures are rocks, but sedimentary and metamorphic ones are not. Moreover, it is like presupposing that differences between granite and basalt are just mental constructs, and are irrelevant to discussing whether a particular rock exists.

How odd.

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
Dermot(3644) Disputed Banned
0 points

You totally failed to answer what I asked , you skirt about the whole issue and announce the " existence of god is a given " which is countered by the equally childish statement " existence of god is not a given " you seem to think that saying something's a given makes it so .

You say " belief in god comes from understanding of human nature " which again can be countered by " a lack of belief in god comes from understanding human nature " , my statement is equally valid and I can use it for every god statement you come up with .

There is no need to prove god ? Well obviously to you and fellow believers as you take god as a given on zero proof , if you dispute this well then present your proof to the world at large so we can decide because there certainly is need to prove a god if you wish to convince others .

You keep saying what god is and is not and you know this how ?

Every single believer has a different way of describing what they cannot prove why should anyone accept your explanation .

Are you going to address what I actually stated as in if god exists and we cannot explain him he is then part of ultimate reality , an ultimate reality we will never be able to detect , makes him a Deist god that makes him irrelevant to human lives because a god is only meaningful in human terms when he is part of our lives .

Can you answer this ? You seem to always avoid answering any critiques of your assertions ?

The summary is below ......

Let us for arguments sake assume that there is a God. If we can somehow prove God's existence, he is part of Human Reality. If he exists and we cannot prove his existence, he is part of Ultimate Reality.

But if God is part of Ultimate Reality - an Ultimate Reality that humans will never be able to detect or interact with - he is the Deist God that is irrelevant to human lives. And if he is irrelevant to human lives, he is not God, because God is only meaningful in human terms when he is part of our lives.

Again why did you fail to tell which category you fit into as in below ?

You have three positions regarding the question ,

i. God exists and and some people's perception of him is accurate;

some believers are right, some believers are wrong and all atheists are wrong

OR

ii. God exists and nobody's perception of him is accurate;

all believers and all atheists are wrong

OR

iii. God does not exist.

all atheists are right and all believers are wrong

If you were indeed " turning the other cheek '" you wouldn't have seen to fit to include a comment which is the opposite of turning the cheek ; to say my comment is an " Ad Hominem " is also incorrect as it's not a personal attack but merely a statement of fact as in if you resort to insult expect to be met with kind .

My rule on C D has always been if you engage fairly I will also , I always let someone throw the first snide remark or insult but rest assured it's always paid back with interest

Side: I don't believe there is god.
Dermot(3644) Disputed Banned
0 points

You say ... Believing the existence of ultimate reality is not a " belief system " either , in your debate heading you state ... Ultimate reality is God ....

So a belief in God is not a ...... belief system ?????????????

You totally failed to answer what I asked , you skirt about the whole issue and announce the " existence of god is a given " which is countered by the equally childish statement " existence of god is not a given " you seem to think that saying something's a given makes it so .

You say " belief in god comes from understanding of human nature " which again can be countered by " a lack of belief in god comes from understanding human nature " , my statement is equally valid and I can use it for every god statement you come up with .

There is no need to prove god ? Well obviously to you and fellow believers as you take god as a given on zero proof , if you dispute this well then present your proof to the world at large so we can decide because there certainly is need to prove a god if you wish to convince others .

You keep saying what god is and is not and you know this how ?

Every single believer has a different way of describing what they cannot prove why should anyone accept your explanation .

Are you going to address what I actually stated as in if god exists and we cannot explain him he is then part of ultimate reality , an ultimate reality we will never be able to detect , makes him a Deist god that makes him irrelevant to human lives because a god is only meaningful in human terms when he is part of our lives .

Can you answer this ? You seem to always avoid answering any critiques of your assertions ?

The summary is below ......

Let us for arguments sake assume that there is a God. If we can somehow prove God's existence, he is part of Human Reality. If he exists and we cannot prove his existence, he is part of Ultimate Reality.

But if God is part of Ultimate Reality - an Ultimate Reality that humans will never be able to detect or interact with - he is the Deist God that is irrelevant to human lives. And if he is irrelevant to human lives, he is not God, because God is only meaningful in human terms when he is part of our lives.

Again why did you fail to tell which category you fit into as in below ?

You have three positions regarding the question ,

i. God exists and and some people's perception of him is accurate;

some believers are right, some believers are wrong and all atheists are wrong

OR

ii. God exists and nobody's perception of him is accurate;

all believers and all atheists are wrong

OR

iii. God does not exist.

all atheists are right and all believers are wrong

If you were indeed " turning the other cheek '" you wouldn't have seen to fit to include a comment which is the opposite of turning the cheek ; to say my comment is an " Ad Hominem " is also incorrect as it's not a personal attack but merely a statement of fact as in if you resort to insult expect to be met with kind .

My rule on C D has always been if you engage fairly I will also , I always let someone throw the first snide remark or insult but rest assured it's always paid back with interest

Side: I don't believe there is god.
1 point

Howdy Dermot.

Again, I appreciate the thoughtfulness and logical order of your response.

Moreover, thank you for not actually specifying your position in the Theism/Atheism debate. It gives us more to say than "Exists!" and "Does not!"

What a bizzare statement as in "the ultimate reality is the ultimate reality OR God Is God .

I am not sure that redundancy is bizarre, nor is stating the obvious. We do it all the time, sometimes sensibly. ("I am here." "It is hot/cold today." etc., ad nauseum.)

Regarding Our understanding of that human reality continues to increase. It is coming closer to Ultimate Reality, but it will never reach where we Understand Everything.

There is a 1980s Peter O'Toole movie called Creator where O'Toole plays a scientist. The character says some things that relate to the relationship between science and ultimate reality (whatever that might mean.)

An approximation of one such statement is, "Someday we may reach the summit of the mountain of science, and find religion was there all along."

If we did Understand Everything, we would no longer be human. We would be Gods.

Another statement from Creator is more or less, "Someday a scientist will be looking into an electron microscope to find the eye of God staring back at him, and the first one to blink will lose his testicles."

As this statement implies, it does not seem reasonable to assume that understanding Everything implies ALL of what is generally comprehended in the concept of Deity.

Side: I don't believe there is god.
Dermot(3644) Banned
1 point

Hi Marcus , the opening statement to me is ridiculous as in god is god and unfortunately it's not the first time I've heard it ; it's usually used to bully people into agreeing as it shuts the door on rational discourse as it demonstrates a closed mind unwilling to debate the matter fairly .

I'm familiar with the movie regards the quote the summit of science and religion being there all along , how probable do you think that is ?

The second quote from the movie one could just as easily state the eye of a giant octopus may peer back at us and the statement would be equally valid .

The belief in a god is based on faith as there is more evidence to support a belief in vampires than there is in a god

Side: I don't believe there is god.
marcusmoon(244) Clarified
1 point

But if God is part of Ultimate Reality - an Ultimate Reality that humans will never be able to detect or interact with - he is the Deist God that is irrelevant to human lives. And if he is irrelevant to human lives, he is not God, because God is only meaningful in human terms when he is part of our lives.

I don't think the anthropocentric definition of God is as logically supportable as you imply, especially in the context you describe. Your argument seems to include the following assumptions and conclusions:

--1-- God exists.

--2-- Existence in Human reality and existence in Ultimate reality are mutually exclusive. -- -- 2 a -- -- Human reality is not a subset of Ultimate reality

-- -- 2 b -- -- God's existence in Ultimate reality precludes God's participation in Human reality.

--3-- Human inability to prove God exists automatically implies that God has does not interact/interfere with creation (Implied in the term "Deist God".)

--4-- Human existence does not extend into Ultimate reality.

--5-- That human ability to detect and interact with God is a necessary condition to God's meaning/relevance to humans.

--6-- God is only God if he/she/it is meaningful in human terms and part of our lives.

--Conclusion 1-- God does not exist in both Ultimate and Human reality, and possibly does not exist in either

There are some problems with your argument. (If I misinterpreted your any aspect of argument, I apologize.)

--A-- You use 6 to equivocate about 1.

--B-- Important aspects regarding 2 are unexplained at best, and unsupported at worst.

--C-- You include in 3 an implicit assumption that inability to prove God exists is not based on human limitations, but only on God not existing in Human reality. This is neither provable nor disprovable.

--D-- The combination of 2b and 3 essentially define the argument, which is that God cannot/does not participate in human life, and therefore "is not God". However, both 2b and 3 are unsupported .

--D-- There is no support for 4.

Moreover, 4 discounts the concepts of afterlife and "supernatural" experience, which concepts are main reasons for interest in the question of whether God exists.

--E-- There is no support that 5 is true, especially considering uncertainty regarding 4.

--F-- An anthropocentic universe is implicit in 5, which makes the nature of God's existence in a universe that is possibly 14 billion years old dependent on a few million years of human history. What if human ability to detect God differs from the canine or porcine ability to detect God?

-

So how badly did I misunderstand your argument?

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
Dermot(3644) Clarified Banned
1 point

Marcus I'm an atheist i do not believe a god exists ,no offence this debate is starting to meander off on a different path which is not my intention I've asked several questions of th O P which he refuses to answer .

I have no problems addressing any issues you may perceive in my answer but I would prefer to get valid answers on the questions I posed before continuing along another path .

I find it rather annoying and totally unfair that the O P is claiming I'm " attacking " him now and refusing to address my questions

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
2 points

If you define God as "the ultimate reality" then does this mean that even if there isn't a creator entity, there is still a reality and therefore your "God" exists?

Side: I don't believe there is god.
Amarel(2372) Clarified
2 points

If there is no creator entity, then the universe has always existed or is in some way self created. These are both common explanations for God when faced with the origin regress problem.

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
WinstonC(862) Clarified
1 point

It just seems like the OP is saying "whatever exists is God", which would appear to dilute the concept of God.

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
1 point

If you define God as "the ultimate reality" then does this mean that even if there isn't a creator entity, there is still a reality and therefore your "God" exists?

That could work.

Consider also, that often part of the definition of God includes "creator of the universe."

By that definition, the Laws of Physics are God.

Side: I don't believe there is god.
2 points

By that definition, the Laws of Physics are God.

No, they are the laws of physics. They don't love us, they don't have a beard, and they weren't crucified by the Romans.

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
TzarPepe(323) Disputed
1 point

The "laws of physics" are contingent on "ultimate reality", therefore the "laws of physics" cannot be God.

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
TzarPepe(323) Disputed
1 point

Without "Ultimate Reality", there could not be "reality".

Therefore, you can say, and not be incorrect, that "reality" was created by "Ultimate Reality". You can say, and not be incorrect, that God created the universe and everything in it.

Or as the scriptures say, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
marcusmoon(244) Disputed
1 point

Tsar,

Therefore, you can say, and not be incorrect, that "reality" was created by "Ultimate Reality". You can say, and not be incorrect, that God created the universe and everything in it.

Or as the scriptures say, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

I still do not see why you think there is necessarily a distinction between Ultimate Reality and reality.

I get that it is based on your belief in, and personal interpretation of some Biblical texts. However, given the your implied belief in the creation of Jesus as an/the avatar (Deity in human/physical form), and that physicality of God for Jesus lifetime, that distinction is not necessary. The simultaneous deity and mundane physicality of Jesus is a clear indication that reality is not intrinsically separate from Ultimate Reality.

As much to the point, the concept of sin is based on physical actions having spiritual results. That means there is a pretty clear connection between reality and Ultimate Reality that includes mundane reality shaping Ultimate Reality. It is not just Ultimate Reality shaping reality. The feedback between the two is a clear, as I think is the Biblical assertion that the two are not completely separate.

There are also statements that show that Ultimate Reality and reality are connected, or possibly indistinguishable:

"The Kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21)

"At that day you shall know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you." (John 14:20)

Side: I don't believe there is god.
WinstonC(862) Disputed
1 point

On your other debate you said:

"When someone makes the claim that there is no "God", they are literally saying, "There is no ultimate reality"."

Now, it's perfectly possible that this level of reality is the ultimate reality. As such, your argument appears to be that because reality exists God exists.

Side: I don't believe there is god.
2 points

When you talk about the definition of God as being the ultimate reality, you omit the beginning of that definition, which is as follows: (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions). When people refer to God they usually are talking about the sort of God described in the bible or by other related religions. It is possible to believe in an ultimate reality that is not the version of ultimate reality described by such religions, known as God.

In short, God is one of many proposed ultimate realities.

Ultimate = being the best or most extreme example of its kind.

Reality = the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

The ultimate reality is the best or most extreme state of things as they exist. As far as I can tell, there is only one reality, which would therefore be the best/most extreme reality. (I don't know what you'd be measuring these standards against though, so maybe this is not a good analysis (how do you determine what the best reality is?)) Accepting for now that this proves there is (an) ultimate reality, this still doesn't mean it is the ultimate reality described by Christianity, that is, God.

Side: I don't believe there is god.
TzarPepe(323) Disputed
1 point

No, God quite literally means "The Ultimate Reality".

The first I ever heard this way of referring to God was through studying the Vedanta, which is actually Hindu, not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I have since found that it is in fact a universal concept.

There is no proposed ultimate reality, there simply is ultimate reality. That is what "God" with a capital "G" means.

If there is any baggage attached to "ultimate reality", it should be the type of baggage that happens to innately come with what those words mean when they are strung together. That is where you get all the qualities of God.

The name of "God" is "The Ultimate Reality". Not the syllables, but the spirit behind that name. It is The Holiest Name, the essence of The Ultimate Reality.

If you attach any other baggage to the concept of God, here is another applicable word courtesy of Merriam-Webster...

Definition of superstition

1 a :a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation

b :an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

2 :a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
1 point

The only ultimate reality is that America is very religious.

Side: I don't believe there is god.
TzarPepe(323) Disputed
1 point

You could make the case for this being a reality, but it could not be "ultimate reality" as we are dealing with something that is very temporal. The Ultimate Reality cannot be a temporal reality.

That all said, from my own observation, I think America looks more religious from a distance than it really is.

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
marcusmoon(244) Clarified
1 point

That all said, from my own observation, I think America looks more religious from a distance than it really is.

That is how it looks to me, and I have lived in Texas and three of the four corners of the country.

Religion is definitely not a big deal in California or Western Washington. Atheism and agnosticism are prevalent on the West Coast. Even people with spiritual/supernatural beliefs tend not to take part in religious organizations, or believe in any doctrines.

Texas is very religious, but the main religion in Texas is football. Christianity is common in Texas, but a significant percentage of the people who are involved in Christian churches are involved socially, without necessarily believing the doctrine.

It is common in the South, but not as much as you might think. Like Texans, lots of Southerners engage in religion as a social exercise.

More often than not, anywhere in the country:

-- Bless you just means "I hope you are not getting sick."

-- God bless America just means "I love my country."

-- I will pray for you just means "I want things to be better for you, but I won't give you any money or help you in any material way."

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
marcusmoon(244) Clarified
1 point

How religious the US is depends in part on with whom you compare us.

-- Compared to Britain we are religious

-- Compared to Latin America or the Middle East, we are a hotbed of atheism and apostasy.

It also depends on what you mean by religious.

-- If you mean claim a religious belief or have membership in organized religious groups, then sure, the US is pretty religious.

-- If you mean actively devote oneself to living according to the tenets of an organized/codified religion, then no, the US is not very religious at all.

Side: Ultimate Reality is God
1 point

I would just like to pose a very basic question that has always haunted me. Everyone is so against the Big Bang, because your argument is, "what was before the big bang?" My question is along the same line, if God created everything, how did this very God come into existence? If the logic of, "everything has a beginning" applies, then it must apply to God, because imagining him existing forever, just doesn't make sense.

And also, to add a paradox to this. Can God create an object that he cannot move? If he can create such an object, then he cannot move that object, hence he is not omnipotent, and if he cannot create such an object, then he is not omnipotent.

Side: I don't believe there is god.
TzarPepe(323) Disputed
1 point

The Ultimate Reality cannot have a beginning or end, otherwise it would not be The Ultimate Reality.

Everything in CREATION has a beginning and end. God is not creation. God is the uncreated. Creation is contingent on relativistic existence. Though this is the case, the only way to express God is through creation. We use the medium of creation to express that which is uncreated. This is the purpose of the trinity. The trinity is an acknowledgement of this, not a statement of God being split into three parts, or worse yet, that there are three Gods.

"Omnipotent" quite literally means, "All Influence"("Omni" meaning "All" and "potent" meaning "effect" or "influnece").

So when it is said, "God is Omnipotent", it is really being said that "God is what makes everything move and work."

The "can god create an object so heavy that he cannot even lift it" comes from a bad understanding of what "omnipotent" means.

Side: Ultimate Reality is God