CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Does ultimate reality exist?
Merriam-Webster defines "God" as "The supreme and/or ultimate reality".
When someone makes the claim that there is no "God", they are literally saying, "There is no ultimate reality".
Ultimately, behind all the deception, this is what the God debate is truly about. People may claim all sorts of things about ultimate reality, and there are many different faiths that say different things about the ultimate reality. However, this is not a debate about doctrine. This is not a debate about whether or not this is an acceptable definition of the word "God". It is simply a debate about whether or not there is in fact an ultimate reality, knowable or not.
This is the God that I believe in. This is the God that I acknowledge. Whether or not you consider this God, do you or do you not believe in the existence of ultimate reality or not? Why?
Not only does "ultimate reality" exist by definition, but to deny the existence of "ultimate reality" instantly renders any assertion, experience, theory, reasoning, etc. as invalid as any other. This of course is preposterous, because it is IMPOSSIBLE for there not to be an ultimate reality.
In other words, it is patently meaningless to say "There is no ultimate reality", as such a declaration instantly undermines itself.
Only a fool says in their heart, "There is no God". The scriptures do not say this in vain! It is the evident truth!
The God denier refuses to acknowledge this as the proper definition of God, but doesn't their denial of God predict this behavior? I believe it does.
I believe that everyone has already performed the necessary scientific experiment to prove conclusively that there is ultimate reality. The fact that you are experiencing anything at all is proof that there is some form of existence. Existence itself is proof that there is reality. If there is reality, there must be ultimate reality. Even if there are many different realities, there must be an ultimate reality that ties them all together.
The ultimate reality is by definition one. The ultimate reality is by definition the "realest" reality. It is the supreme being. The existence of "false" realities does not undermine the fact that even "false" realities have existence that is dependent on there being an ultimate reality.
If you are so foolish as to believe that the reality you experience is the only reality, you would be believing that your reality is the ultimate reality. To believe that there is reality is to believe that there is ultimate reality.
If you say that "There is no reality", you are saying "It is reality that there is no reality". It is self defeating.
In other words, there is really only one thing that you can be absolutely sure of from an epistemological standpoint. The existence of God. There is nothing else in science that has been proven so clearly beyond a shadow of a doubt. Anyone who says that God is impossible to prove scientifically is mistaken. Anyone who says that science has disproved God is absolutely mistaken. There is nothing surer. All of creation testifies of God, the evidence is OVERWHELMING.
The existence of God is surer than evolution, the sun being a big fiery ball in the sky, that the earth is round, that people have two arms, that plants grow out of the ground. You can be surer of God's existence than literally anything else you can know.
The only thing that science has also proven conclusively about God is that it is impossible to fully know God. This has been proven very thoroughly, especially in the last century of physics. That all said, nothing about this revelation is contradicted by biblical scripture. Quite the contrary, this has always been the biblical position.
So to all those God deniers, and would be God deniers... Understand the truth... The position you are taking is intellectually indefensible and utterly bankrupt. The position you are adopting is unreasonable, unsound, and downright crazy.
I am personally not speaking of "god" or "gods", I am speaking about "God". There is only one "God". This topic isn't about the word "God", it is about the definition of the word "God" independent of the word "God" itself. I'm talking about the God that isn't man made. That should be obvious from everything I have written so far. In fact, this topic isn't really even about the definition of anything, it is about the existence of ultimate reality.
"God" with a capital "G" means something different than "god" with a little "g", and unlike many people, I am using language correctly.
I am talking about The Ultimate Reality. If I were to define this any further, I would likely only be cheapening the very essence of what this means.
This topic is for those who have a problem with the word "God". Now instead of getting hung up because of their superstitious aversions, those who adamantly deny "God" can debate the existence of "ultimate reality" instead. That is what this topic is about. This topic isn't about whether or not you feel comfortable with the word "God". We are talking about the spirit of the word "God".
The purpose of this is to actually get to the nitty gritty of what "God" means instead of being political about the use of words. I'm half heartedly trying to accommodate theophobics.. Or more accurately, half heartedly trying to get some of them to realize that their position is the one of a clown.
Of course, many devil worshipers know exactly what they are doing, so maybe the point of this topic is to edify those who may be watching and on the fence. Maybe someone who doesn't realize what their position means may change it.
Regardless of whether anyone admits it or not... If they believe in the existence of ultimate reality, they believe in the existence of God. It doesn't matter if they choose to call it "God" or not. I believe that is a fine place to start.
My problem is, I'm a little thick, maybe even very thick, so in this context may I ask you to please make allowances and be a little more definitive by describing your god as well as advising me to which specific, ( if any) religion this supreme god represents.
Of what denomination are the present worshipers, i.e., such as yourself, of this king of deities?
Should we refer to them as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Shintos, or what?
Insofar that the gods of the aforementioned religious groups are all perceived as different there has to be quite a few misguided people all worshiping false gods.
This is an intolerable state of affairs and the long arduous task of guiding them onto the path of the ultimate reality of the 'ONLY ONE TRUE GOD' must commence forthwith.
There's not a moment to lose, quickly, quickly, let's get going.
"And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you."
Our relationship with The Ultimate Reality(God the Father), is through The Most Perfect Image(The Son), with The Spirit of Truth(The Holy Spirit).
A main overarching theme throughout the entire New Testament is that "The letter of the law kills, but the spirit brings life."
Realization of God is the realization of salvation. The path of correction is sincerity of faith, and charity. God is the ultimate reality. It's about keeping it real. God is what is important.
I believe it is evident that God has been revealed to everyone, and though there are many cultural ways of representing this, God is not creation. We use creation to express God, but since we are fundamentally trying to express that which is uncreated through the medium of creation, it is inevitable that something gets lost in translation.
I will quote Paul's letters to Timothy to explain the simplicity of the Christian faith.
"....teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm."
"keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."
If we are going to decide to call 'the supreme or ultimate reality' God, okay. This choice to use the word 'God' is totally arbitrary and functions no better than if the word door, nail, or lamppost is used instead, which is no issue and fine for the purpose of the debate. What follows from this, however, is that any discussion of the religious or theological meaning that usually comes with using the word 'God' can't apply and has now become irrelevant to the discussion, so it really only complicates the situation. Why bring God into the discussion at all if this is really just about the existence of an ultimate reality?
Sidenote: the difference between using 'g' or 'G' is implying that we are debating something to do with the/a religious God and I thought that's clearly not what we're supposed to be discussing.
This is what "God" means in theology. This is the God of faith.
You might not think it looks like that, but it is truly the case.
People spend their entire lives studying scripture, how can I expect to make a full case for this? The case for this is the bible itself!
I am not asking that anyone believe the bible I am asking that they believe that God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
If you do believe in God, the bible will only prove God more to you.
The problem is, people are superstitious about these things, and we have a cartoon culture understanding of these spiritual forces. Why do you think one of the 10 commandments of Moses is
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."
The message of the bible is obscured by the massive amount of superstition surrounding God, the bible, and pretty much anything theological in nature. As such, people tend to have a pretty ridiculous idea of what the bible is for and/or about, and nonsensical ideas about God.
The bible acts as proof of God to those who accept it, and life experience really hammers it in that it is good witness. At least for me. I believe the bible because it is true, not because I would dare believe in anything simply because I read it and it was considered authoritative. Yet, when I say "believe the bible", that means something very different to me than what it means to the one who objects. They don't understand what the bible is, so they hold it up in a very idolatrous fashion and project that superstition onto believers. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of preachers who do the same thing, but ANYONE CAN BE A PREACHER. In America? All you gotta do is file the right paper work and you have a church. God bless the first amendment.
What does that mean? There is plenty of bad theology propagating itself.
Yet the bible also prophesies that this sort of thing is what happens.
In fact, just about every atheistic complaint against God is actually addressed in scripture if they took the time to understand it. Every complaint they have against the church? Scripture prophecies that the church is going to be like this. Superstition is the norm, both among believers and the unbelievers.
What do the believers and the unbelievers have in common? They are both wrong.
What do they have that is different?
Those who believe in God are justified by their faith, as they stand on a solid foundation. Those who don't believe in God stand on nothing, and might as well be sorcerers and wizards because they know damn well it is a lie that God doesn't exist. Anyone who says, "There is no Supreme and Ultimate Reality" is clearly a madman who can't be trusted with anything pertaining to the truth. If they don't believe in God, they can't have any standards. They have embraced arbitrariness. They will of course say otherwise, and even pretend to have standards. Their standards are based on a whim, because that is all it can be based on if they don't believe in God.
Yet the atheist's behavior is predicted by the bible, because even the bible says that the pagans recognize God, but refuse to call what they recognize God. This is why they have been cursed with strong delusion, because they have no love for truth.
These type of people can be very convincing to those who don't realize what exactly their argument really is. If they deny God, that is literally the only thing you need to address in order to discredit everything they say. There is no argument that can topple The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and to think so is ludicrous. The deceiver is liberal when it comes to standards, but is quick to exploit the fact that others do in fact have standards. The deceiver will say anything, because the deceiver cares about being convincing, not about the truth. What better deception than to convince people that the supreme and ultimate reality doesn't exist?
Prove to me that it is true that there is truth!
The existence of God shouldn't even be up for debate. The problem is not God, the problem is people don't want to recognize God as God. Why? Because they worship created things, and have no love for the truth. Their hearts are caked in idolatry. It's mental illness. There is no other way around it. Demon possession.
It's The Truth that liberates, sets free, redeems, and saves. Salvation is only with God, The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. That is what the name "Jesus" means.
The good news is that all isn't lost. Repent and believe, I say!
But how we understand things is not what is important.
The Ultimate Reality clearly exists, and whether or not you believe it or choose to call it that, this is what is meant by "God".
"If you do believe in God, the bible will only prove God more to you."
Something either exists or doesn't exist. If it's true that something exists then it can't be proven to be more existing than it already is.
"The bible acts as proof of God to those who accept it, and life experience really hammers it in that it is good witness."
This is the equivalent of saying that the Star Wars movies prove the existence and accuracy of what happened in them as reality so long as I decide to believe them first. This is nonsense. Life experience can really hammer in anything depending on how someone wants to interpret what's happening to them. For example if I decided there was a sun spirit and then used the sun coming up everyday as proof that the sun spirit existed, I would be considered insane and wouldn't be taken seriously at all, but this is exactly what you appear to be claiming Christians do.
"God bless the first amendment."
Amen.
"There is no argument that can topple The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and to think so is ludicrous."
I'm assuming you mean God by supreme and ultimate reality. I'm also assuming by no argument that can topple you mean there's no argument that can disprove the existence of God. Assuming this, that is correct. It is also impossible to prove that God exists as well. The best either side can hope to do is convince the other side of the implausibility of the other side and support the likelihood of their own.
"The deceiver will say anything, because the deceiver cares about being convincing, not about the truth. What better deception than to convince people that the supreme and ultimate reality doesn't exist?"
The deceiver is at least just as apparent on either side of the debate. What better deception than to convince people that God (by the way it's much easier and faster to type than the supreme and ultimate reality) does exist.
"Because they worship created things, and have no love for the truth. Their hearts are caked in idolatry. It's mental illness. There is no other way around it."
I don't worship anything. The only thing I really value is truth which is precisely why I don't decide to believe a bible and then after doing so, try to prove to myself that I'm correct. Christianity is idolatry by it's own definition, simply without a toy or statue to hold while they do it.
"The Ultimate Reality clearly exists, and whether or not you believe it or choose to call it that, this is what is meant by "God"."
This isn't an argument. It's a VERY large claim. And, again, if this is what you want to call 'God' that's fine but it means you can't bring the theological and religious meaning into the debate as well. This is what you can choose to mean by 'God' for the purpose of this debate. I am not going to repeat this again. Here I'll provide you with a counter argument that is exactly equally as good: The ultimate reality clearly doesn't exist.
While you bring up some good points, you are clearly wrong in regard to the one thing that I consider to be very essential to what I'm saying.
To say, "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality exists" is not equally as valid as "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality does not exist".
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, if non-existent, fails to meet the criteria of the definition. Therefore, whatever it is you are calling "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" cannot be The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
So for you to say, "There is no ultimate reality" makes little sense. It is a very superstitious statement.
However, it is also wise to not lean on one's own understanding, but the word of God itself. The reason for this is that we, as fallible human beings, are wrong about things. Sometimes very wrong.
If you love the truth, the best focus is God. Truth is what matters here. The God I speak of is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
"To say, "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality exists" is not equally as valid as "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality does not exist"."
To no understand how they are exactly contradictory is to not understand how logic works. They are both sides of the same coin. Also neither are actually arguments and therefore cannot be valid or invalid, just true or false.
"The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, if non-existent, fails to meet the criteria of the definition. Therefore, whatever it is you are calling "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" cannot be The Supreme and Ultimate Reality."
I'm not entirely sure this is coherent. What definition does the non-existence of a 'supreme and ultimate reality' not meet. I'm considering the 'supreme and ultimate reality' to be an irreducible base reality of existence which I believe is what you called it in another comment you've made in this debate.
"So for you to say, "There is no ultimate reality" makes little sense. It is a very superstitious statement."
Unless I've missed it, you've made a claim that 'saying 'there is no ultimate reality' makes little sense' but you haven't given any reason why this is a true claim. Also the definition, according to the OED, of superstition is 'Excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.'. A claim that God exists is a supernatural claim and therefore a superstitious one. I make no such claim therefore someone who claims that God exists is the superstitious one.
"However, it is also wise to not lean on one's own understanding, but the word of God itself. The reason for this is that we, as fallible human beings, are wrong about things. Sometimes very wrong."
Again you make a claim without any reasons why it's wise not to lean on one's own understating. Also If you claim this statement is true then you must allow for the possibility that we as fallible human beings could be wrong, or even very wrong, in believing that the Christian God exists.
"If you love the truth, the best focus is God. Truth is what matters here."
If you use God's word or a belief in him to determine what's true then you believe that deciding what you want to be true and then trying to prove your decision correct is more important than trying to discover what is actually true.
"The God I speak of is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality."
Here you're presupposing as true what we're supposed to be debating and then making an additional separate claim operating on the controversial assumption.
"The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" must exist, otherwise you aren't talking about reality. If you aren't talking about reality, you aren't going by the definition.
I don't think you yet understand, but I hope you will if you don't, but existing is literally a defining characteristic of "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality". It would be nonsensical and fallacious to say that the supreme and ultimate reality does not exist.
There really isn't a question about it. It's a sure thing. You can debate religion, scripture, doctrine, churches, whatever all you want, but it isn't the same thing. There can be no doubt about God.
When I say God, I mean "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality". Everything else follows simply from accepting this. I'm not the kind of person who simply reads something and believes it. I believe the message of the bible only after years of kicking and screaming. I didn't know any better before.
You know, I used to be a lot like some of the people on this here website. Eventually, something clicked and made sense though. I have a lot more sympathy for people who think they are atheists than they might think.
See, when I was an atheist, I had a genuine love for the truth. That is why I can't say I am an atheist any more. I do believe in One God. I believe in The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. What else makes sense?
I agree with you that a supreme and ultimate irreducible reality exists, although I can't explain why. My system 1 seems to think so though (see Josh Green or Fiery Cushman on this body of research). I do not, however, think that 'God' and 'supreme and ultimate reality' are the same thing because I tend to think that God doesn't exist while also tending to think that a supreme and ultimate irreducible reality has to exist. These are 2 separate concepts unless you assume God exists first of all and then go on from there, which isn't what this debate is about according to you.
"See, when I was an atheist, I had a genuine love for the truth. That is why I can't say I am an atheist any more. I do believe in One God. I believe in The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. What else makes sense?"
So you admit that you don't have a genuine love for truth anymore.
"There really isn't a question about it. It's a sure thing. You can debate religion, scripture, doctrine, churches, whatever all you want, but it isn't the same thing. There can be no doubt about God."
There is a question about it and doubt about it as evidenced by this debate's existence. There can be much doubt about God if one's main focus is truth before a decision to believe something.
"When I say God, I mean "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality". Everything else follows simply from accepting this. I'm not the kind of person who simply reads something and believes it. I believe the message of the bible only after years of kicking and screaming. I didn't know any better before."
When you say God and mean 'the supreme and ultimate reality', you are no longer discussing the topic of this debate and again presupposing a conclusion to it, while moving on to a different topic of discussion. Of course everything else follows from accepting this simply because if you accept this then you have to accept everything the Bible says and therefore everything it says follows from that. Deciding to believe something after years of kicking and screaming does not imply that you've arrived at the truth. I recommend, as a fellow human, remaining determined and continuing the search for truth even though it's much easier to just accept the Bible and God as true.
Clearly my God is written on your heart, and I agree with scripture when it also testifies that,"when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
Yet another debater attempts to point out the various fallacies you're guilty off but yet like a child you persist ; your argument from assertion is pitiful at this stage , it is also well known as rhetoric, because an assertion itself isn't really a proof of anything, or even a real argument - assertion only demonstrates that the person making the statement believes in it. An inability to provide anything other than an argument by assertion may be the result of brainwashing, basing ones belief on blind faith or ignorance as to what forms a proper argument. Those who argue by assertion often do think that they're making a real argument. They might simply not realise where they haven't provided a full argument. The point of constructive debate or discourse is to draw attention to this sort of thing, and for people to further develop and evolve their arguments in response. A truly fallacious argument by assertion is when someone continues to assert without advancing their argument, even after it has been pointed out.
How crazy do you have to be in order to call "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" a fallacy?
It is literally by definition not a fallacy.
My assertion speaks for itself. My argument doesn't need to evolve, its perfect. I think it makes things really clear. The reaction it gets is priceless.
This may be the 4th comment in a row that remains argument free. An assertion, by definition, is not an argument. You thinking that it makes things really clear, does not and will not ever convince anyone. You no longer have an argument to evolve.
I can call my friends and family right now and inform them all of my newfound belief that I am a glass of lemonade and that I truly believe it therefore it must be true. I'm not a glass of lemonade simply because I decide to think that I am and priceless reactions don't in any way show truth of a claim as I'm sure my friends and family would have to this statement.
Do you understand that you're not debating right now? On top of this showing every sign of indoctrination and brainwashing. This is okay. I grew up with the same false sense of how to view the world, and a large set of false assumptions to go on. I truly want to help you understand this.
There is nothing to argue to me. It seems pretty clear cut. Truth stands clear apart from error.
You are being arbitrary because you take "The supreme and ultimate reality" as being a meaningless pronouncement of syllables rather than something with meaning.
Believe it or not, the same thing happens when scripture gets translated. Instead of meanings and words, we get names. The letter kills, the spirit brings life!
You can call what I'm saying indoctrination and brainwashing all you want, but if you deny My God, The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, you are the one who is delusional, not me.
If you can't even admit that the supreme and ultimate reality exists, what are you really up to?
See, I don't say these things because I think you are really up to something. You may be, I don't know. I say these things because I don't believe you truly grasp the implications of there being no supreme and ultimate reality. It's not possible.
What is your kink? What is your fetish? If you deny God, it stands to reason that you are bowing down to some idol.
I am a glass of lemonade and for you to deny that you are delusional, not me. If you deny my being a glass of lemonade, it stands to reason that you are bowing down to some idol.
See it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't stand to reason anything, it just means I don't think God exists. I'm not being arbitrary and I tend to agree that an ultimate base reality does exist. I just disagree with your claim that it somehow by existing, is the same thing as God which I don't think exists.
The fact that you use "The supreme and ultimate reality" interchangeably with "a glass of lemonade" can be proof that my claims of your arbitrariness are substantiated.
What I did is called an analogy. It actually helps to elucidate meaning between 2 relatable cases. Both me claiming I am a glass of lemonade and you claiming that 'the supreme and ultimate reality' is God are equally unsupported claims, that's what I'm trying to show you. They're equivalent claim only insofar as they both completely lack evidence or arguments to support.
No, you're talking nonsense. It's a terrible analogy that utterly fails to take into account what "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" actually means.
You aren't being logical because you can't tell when there are exceptions. The reason why God makes such an exception is because this sort of thing is intrinsic to The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
We are not talking about knowledge here. We are not talking about creation. We are talking about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
It is important to realize that this defining of God does not in any way limit God. This defining by nature is one that tears down these limits.
There is no argument that can or ever will put a dent on the authority of The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
It is obviously the case that this entity exists. It is the very nature of The Supreme Being to exist.
So you've given up and admit that you have no further arguments? It's as good of an analogy as it can be. They're both claims (lemonade and supreme...), and we've both supposed them completely without any supporting argument or evidence.
"There is no argument that can or ever will put a dent on the authority of The Supreme and Ultimate Reality."
To say this is to resign oneself to being completely ignorant of truth and admitting that you will never change mind simply because you don't want to admit defeat.
Unless you have an actual argument in your next comment I probably won't respond again. My time is being wasted on you now when I could be trying to find the truth actually debating someone.
In fact all you're doing now is responding to what I'm saying with the equivalent of "NO! YOU'RE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT!!" "OH AND BY THE WAY I CAN'T EVER BE WRONG BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE!!
Calling what we're debating the existence of, yours, does not help anymore to convince nor give any additional weight to your initial claim that he does exist. You are yet again presupposing a conclusion to the debate topic at hand and arguing a totally different claim.
"If you deny my God, you are a fool."
Not only is this not an argument or convincing in any imaginable way, you're resorting to name calling. This is what grade schoolers get put in timeout for doing. If you don't want to actually debate any longer, why are you still responding.
"Clearly my God is written on your heart, and I agree with scripture when it also testifies that,"when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."
This yet yet again is not an argument but simply a repeated claim and I'm really growing really quite tired of how petty it is. Scripture is written text and cannot testify as it is not a being with a brain and mouth. Who is 'they' and what did 'they' become vain in 'their' imagining?
I think that everything I'm saying makes perfect sense and is justified the moment you realize that I'm talking about the ultimate reality, and that this is what you and others are arguing against.
Clearly anyone who is trying to overturn reality by argument is not well.
The scripture is talking about people who recognize The Ultimate Reality, but refuse to glorify this as being God. As a result, they naturally become pagans(worshipers of creation) which manifests itself in all manner of arbitrariness.
Because as another scripture says, "Those who receive not the love of the truth are cursed with strong delusion."
Trying to make sense of trees both existing and not existing simultaneously cause cognitive dissonance, so yes it probably causes headaches. This could be done with any hypothetical contradiction example and doesn't prove either side. Also I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say by "Then you could also say that trees don't really exist, but the atoms that make up the trees." Could you clarify?
You've devolved now into total nonsense and incoherence. What you're saying now isn't even recognizable as a claim and littered with inconsistencies and contradictions.
For you, maybe not. But, I'm happy with the one we have..
Look.. Here's a reality mind bender... I have a concrete counter top.. It FEELS hard. It FEELS impenetrable. I can push on it and it won't give.. I can hit hard with a hammer, and it won't give. My reality tells me it's HARD as a rock.
But, in FACT the atoms that make up my concrete counter top are spaced WAYYYY apart, and there's LOTS and LOTS of empty space between them. That's another reality altogether..
Such is reality, but it by definition cannot be the "ultimate" reality unless it is "arrived at as the last result" is "Basic, fundamental", or "incapable of further analysis, division, or separation"
That is what distinguishes reality from "ultimate" reality.
There are many realities, but there can only be, by definition, ONE supreme and/or ultimate reality.
If this debate is truly a discussion independent of God and instead, simply of whether or not some sort of 'ultimate reality' exists or not, why include Merriam's definition of God or mention him at all in the debate description? Is this a 'God' debate or an 'ultimate reality' debate?
Incorrect you idiot , ultimate reality according to you is God so what you're saying is ' to say there is no god is to say there is no god ' which shows how totally confused you are
Well ultimate reality is God according to him as he keeps banging on about it , and his dictionary definition is in some way in his confused mind meant to be the final say on it
His argument is a definitional one. If you don't like the definition he is using, you could challenge it by pointing out the Webster definitional expansion on the definition he is using, which is the broadest definition Webster offers. But you cannot deny that God is by definition the ultimate reality when an authoritative and respected source for definitions states exactly that.
His argument is ridiculous as he's claiming there is an ultimate reality that is termed god which is merely a claim and nothing else , therefore to deny ultimate reality is to deny god , he also claims atheists are Theophobes which again is nonsense as how can one hate something they do not believe in ?
God by some definitions and certainly his is seen as the ultimate reality hardly an earth shattering proof is it ?
Here's his definition in full which he never posted up .....
1 capitalized :the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a :the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science :the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit :infinite Mind
2 :a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically :one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality Greek gods of love and war
3 :a person or thing of supreme value had photos of baseball's gods pinned to his bedroom wall
4 :a powerful ruler Hollywood gods that control our movies' fates
The Definition of God being used could be said to be secular (by one definition of the term) as it is non-religious. The definition then provides religious examples following the "such as" portion of the definition. You can say that God mean ultimate reality, that does not mean that all who believe in ultimate reality will call it God.
he's claiming there is an ultimate reality that is termed god which is merely a claim and nothing else
Ultimate reality IS termed God as illustrated in the Webster Dictionary. This is not merely a claim, its printed in an acceptable and authoritative source. That doesn't mean you have to use that word.
I could claim that things existing in fact and not merely as a possibility is termed "actual". This is definitionally true. You can use a different word if you like, but "actual" is a valid word to use.
The fact that you can not say, "I believe there is no ultimate reality" proves to me that you do in fact believe in God, whether or not you are willing to admit it.
No, I'm saying that if you deny God, it makes sense that everything you say can be discounted as a lie.
Also, it isn't according to me, it's according to the most well respected dictionary in American English. I happen to agree with the definition because I am theologically educated.
You don't know what you are talking about. Or maybe you do, and you are just a liar. Really, there are only two options here.
But hey, if you like the devil to ram you in the pooper, that's your business, fag.
Theologically educated 😂😂😂 there's no end to your bullshit is there ?
Actually the liar is you as I proved earlier with your denial and then apology when caught in your lies , interesting that your true colours show at the end and it's rather amusing that you also believe in a devil and your obsession with gay sex and peadophilia was obvious from yesterday when you said you were a '" fisher of men and boys " ......
If you do not believe that there is ultimate reality, that means that your sincerity is being compromised due to the fact that you have a fetish.
According to the Oxford, a "fetish" is...
"An excessive and irrational devotion or commitment to a particular thing."
Now interestingly enough, according to Encyclopeadia Britannica Fascist comes from "Fasces", which was "the insignia of official authority in ancient Rome. The name derives from the plural form of the Latin fascis (“bundle”).
The fascist flag as adopted by the fascists in Italy even has a bundle of sticks on it.
If you deny ultimate reality, you're bowing down to some fetish. You are worshiping destruction. You've become a fascist. A bundle of sticks. Kindlin for the fire. A faggot.
Now I mean, maybe you aren't a faggot. But if you can't admit that there is ultimate reality, seems pretty faggot to me.
Isn't ultimate reality obvious? The evidence is overwhelming. There is nothing else that can be surer. Surely you don't deny ultimate reality? That is pretty fascist.
Can you actually even say, "I deny that there is ultimate reality!"?
I dare you to say it. I bet you can't. You must know how stupid it sounds.
But according to experts you're insane as you're a peadophile,
pedophile
A person who suffers from Pedophilia; that is, an adult who is sexually attracted to children.
Pedophilia is a mental disorder, not a sexual orientation or lifestyle choice. Specifically, it is a Paraphilia. The Paraphilias are characterized by recurrent, intense, sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors that involve unusual objects, activities, or situations. Other examples of Paraphilias are Exhibitionism, Fetishism, Sexual Masochism, and Sexual Sadism.
Terms like "pedosexual" are misnomers and nothing more than political activism on the part of organized groups of pedophiles attempting to legitimize and legalize their abuse and predation of children.
Bob is is a pedophile because he is sexually attracted to little girls.
Let's see how your insanity affects you personally ...... you believe in a supernatural entity called god who came down to earth to impregnate a Palestinian virgin , so that he could be born , so that he could die on a wooden cross for our sins before we committed them ......you're fucking insane
The fact that you can not say, "I believe there is no ultimate reality" proves to me that you do in fact believe in God, whether or not you are willing to admit it.
The word "god" with a little "g" does not mean "ultimate reality". God with a big "G" means "ultimate reality". You neither say "God" or "ultimate reality".
