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.
The supreme and ultimate reality is a bare assertion fallacy?
My argument is "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality". I want to make it clear that I have nothing to do with my argument. I am simply framing the debate, and pointing to the one who is making the case.
Dermot claims that "the supreme and ultimate reality" is an argument that commits a bare assertion fallacy
"In philosophical terms, your argument commits a “bare assertion fallacy” i.e. the argument is assumed to be true merely because it says it is true, and it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent in the original statement it purports to prove. After all, the same ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all."
To make this clear, Dermot is claiming that the supreme and ultimate reality.... Not me... Not anything I'm saying... but THE SUPREME AND ULTIMATE REALITY is a bare assertion fallacy.
Ah , you represent Jesus now I wonder how he feels about that ?
So you believe in demons also ? I guess they're part of the supreme and ultimate reality along with talking serpents and Baalam the famed biblical ass who was gifted with the power of ..... speech
You don't have to believe in the bible or Jesus, or any of that stuff. It's only right there along with what I'm saying because it is a witness. You don't have to believe in the bible to believe in God.
Yes , I know you keep saying it and it's yet another fallacious argument ..... let me educate you its called The argument from assertions and you keep using it , whys that ?
This is your seventh debate on the very same topic each one has been destroyed yet you persist , whys that ?
I list several of the informal fallacies you make in your deeply flawed arguments .
I note also you your attempt at totally misrepresenting my position to others I thank Amarel and Winston for stating the truth about what I actually said .
I see now you have also resorted to dishonesty and Ad Hominem against others who correct your nonsense .
First I shall list the several informal fallacies you're guilty off ....
Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.[17]
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.[18]
Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."[19]
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore;[20][21] sometimes confused with proof by assertion
Here is your very first statement regarding the whole essence of your argument ,
YOU SAID .......
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.
MY REPLY WAS .......
In philosophical terms, your argument commits a “bare assertion fallacy” i.e. the argument is assumed to be true merely because it says it is true, and it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent in the original statement it purports to prove. After all, the same ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all.
You need a new argument I've destroyed it so has Amarel , Winston and several others , proof by assertion is yet another fallacious argument you're guilty off count yourself defeated ...... yet again
Of course it can you insane little chipmunk. If I claim the supreme and ultimate reality is Donald Trump's scrotum then that is as much a fallacy as you claiming the supreme and ultimate reality is a bearded invisible sky fairy.
I honestly hope you're trolling with this shit, because otherwise you are madder than a scientology convention.
You think that is my position because you're an idiot, not because it is true.
I contributed to your original thread you lying lunatic twat. You linked the Merriam-Webster definition of God as, "the supreme and ultimate reality", and then spent the next three days arguing that it must be true because it says so in the dictionary. The very terminology you are using (i.e. supreme and ultimate reality) you have stolen from the Merriam-Webster definition of God.
Piss off you stupid lying idiot. Go and see a psychiatrist.
No, I'm saying that the God I believe in is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
Which is what you just denied and then called me an idiot for pointing out. You literally just can't stop contradicting yourself, can you?
The dictionary just so happens backs me up on this.
Wrong. This has also been explained to you several times. Merriam-Webster has an anomalous definition of God which is not matched by other dictionaries. It does not specify that the definition it provides is a religious definition.
You are going around in circles, ignoring when you are corrected, and lying about the things you have said. I would ask why you are continuing to reply to people but the answer is obvious: you're a moron.
Dermot is saying that the ultimate reality isn't the ultimate reality simply because the ultimate reality is the ultimate reality.
In other words, Dermot admits that he believes in the supreme and ultimate reality, but doesn't respect its authority as such.
Now clearly, if The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is what it says it is, there is no consensus that can overturn that. If The Supreme and Ultimate Reality isn't what it says it is, what is it? If that is what you think it is, how come you are not looking at The Supreme and Ultimate Reality?
There is no argument that can topple The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. To think it is even possible is foolish. It undermines itself!
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality by definition cannot be a fallacy. How can you say that reality is a fallacy? This of course makes no sense! How much more to say, "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is a fallacy."
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality speaks, The Word is among us In Truth.
Dermot does not deny the existence of Ultimate reality, he denies that god is an appropriate term for ultimate reality. Furthermore, biblical verses cannot be shown to be the word of ultimate reality anymore than satanic verses.
I could say that god is TzarPepe. Would you deny the existence of TzarPepe? Of course not, since you ARE TzarPepe. Anyone who denies that you are god does not consequently deny that you exist.
Another topic entirely is the question of whether or not TzarPepe wrote Beowulf. If Beowulf was written by a regular mortal man, then it has no bearing on whether TzarPepe is god, which has no bearing on whether TzarPepe exists.
To make the analogy perfectly clear. Whether the Bible was written by Ultimate Reality is a different matter than whether Ultimate Reality is god. The existence of Ultimate Reality is not synonymous with the existence of god if god is not the correct term for ultimate reality.
The naming of a thing known to exist as synonymous with a thing of questionable existence is not an argument of reason aimed at truth, but rather an argument of semantics aimed at rhetoric.
I see. We don’t have more to talk about because you have no argument beyond reality exists. All you can do is draw illogical conclusions from true premises while declaring all who acknowledge the truth of the premise must acknowledge the truth of the conclusion. If this isn’t a cheap rhetorical stunt, then it is you who needs the education.
Obviously you don’t like to argue. You would rather just make a statement and have it be accepted. All of these people who agree to the existence of ultimate reality, simultaneously deny the validity of your definition of God. And with good reason since you quote the Bible without any logical connection between biblical edicts and reality.
You’ve lost Tzar. The only way for you to recover is to argue for why ultimate reality should be called god (otherwise you have a bare assertion) and for what makes you believe reality authored the Bible (otherwise you have a non-sequitur). And if you persist in the claim that my position is ignorant and thus nullifies your intellectual responsibility to reply, then you are committing ad hominem. Keep talking and we will keep tally of the fallacies.
What is there to argue about? The Nature of your god. For example did you know that Ultimate Reality did not author the Bible? If you believe your definition of god, then you will deny the Bible. Why? Because that’s how I define authorship.
If you believe in god then you believe in my understanding of ultimate reality. If you don’t, then there is more to talk about.
I am not arguing about the nature of God. The qualities of God are self evident. What is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality? Contemplate that name, and everything else follows.
The bible is obviously written by God. If you understand the message of the bible, that's the only conclusion you can come to. Of course God wrote the bible.
Why do you have a problem with this?
I don't believe in your understanding of the ultimate reality. I don't even really believe in my understanding of the ultimate reality. I do know that there is ultimate reality.
I am not asking you to place your faith in anything other than the supreme and ultimate reality. It'd be better for you if you did.
I don't believe in your understanding of the ultimate reality
To say that you don’t believe in my understanding of Ultimate Reality, is to conceade the point to your detractors. That your statement that god is ultimate reality does not make believers in ultimate reality agree with your notions of god.
The bible is obviously written by God
The Bible is obviously not written by god. If you understand the message of the bible, that's the only conclusion you can come to. Likewise if you understand Even a glimmer of reality.
See how I can make counter-assertions to your assertions while providing exactly the same amount of evedence as you?
I don't even really believe in my understanding of the ultimate reality.
If this is true, then your understanding that god wrote the Bible indicates that you do not believe that god wrote the Bible. Only a person filled with such cognitive dissonance could conclude that the message of the Bible is a message from ultimate reality.
I am not asking you to place your faith in anything other than the supreme and ultimate reality. It'd be better for you if you did
If you truly understand that, then by your earlier statement, you don’t really believe it.
Once again, the dishonest atheist must speak to gods rather than God.
Fundamentally your problem is that you need an education. You already believe in God. Now get an education. That might change everything.
You don't believe me when I say you are superstitious? It's the truth. Get an education. Go on knowing that you do in fact believe in God. It'll help a lot to have that concept clarified.
I don't believe you understand the bible, so I'm not debating it with you. I believe it testifies of God.
You already admitted to believing in Supreme and Ultimate Reality. Why do you want to deny God so much? It's not you, it's a demon in you. It's telling you lies. It doesn't have to be there.
I’m not an atheist. I just think you are ass backwards about God. I also think you don’t understand a couple of things about logic or reason. Which is why you pretend at reason while pushing faith, which is necessarily devoid of reason.
You consistently evade the fact that calling ultimate reality god, neither affects others’ beliefs concerning god, nor ultimate reality. You further evade the fact that your beliefs in the Bible are without merit, do not follow from reality, and are thus entirely faith based, just like any other know nothing Bible thumper. I can direct you to the Egyptian Book of the Dead using your same assertions from faith, and I will be just as wrong in the light of reality as you are. Ad hominems concerning ignorance are not an argument, merely an insult. Especially when you are incapable of explaining yourself. So fuck off.
I don't feel as if my arguments have been destroyed. I certainly don't feel riled up enough to be throwing a tantrum.
How could I be upset? If you knew how it looked to me when someone says, "There is no supreme or ultimate reality", or "I do not believe there is supreme or ultimate reality", you would not be thinking these things.
You sure do like to gloat though. About what? I've downvoted my post right along with ya'll and upvoted all these ones against me. I don't care about any of that stuff. You know why?
There is no argument or consensus that can stand against The Supreme or Ultimate Reality. If you all think there is, you are delusional.
The idea that The supreme and ultimate reality is any type of fallacy is so ridiculous, I am staving off pity.
I know you don't , but I know that already as you're delusional, well you did throw a major tantrum but hey .... I forgive you .
I'm not gloating I'm embarrassed for you actually and no you did not downvote your post and if you didn't care about that " stuff" why do you always mention it ?
You're staving off pity ? I think you're attempting to stave off full blown insanity
That's really what this argument is. You can consider me a bystanding heckler making fun of how crazy you are for having this battle.
You've really already lost, but if you stubbornly hold out till you die, just realize that The Supreme and Ultimate Reality was, is, and will forever be.
This is your seventh debate on the very same topic each one has been destroyed yet you persist , whys that ?
I list several of the informal fallacies you make in your deeply flawed arguments .
I note also you your attempt at totally misrepresenting my position to others I thank Amarel and Winston for stating the truth about what I actually said .
I see now you have also resorted to dishonesty and Ad Hominem against others who correct your nonsense .
First I shall list the several informal fallacies you're guilty off ....
Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.[17]
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.[18]
Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."[19]
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore;[20][21] sometimes confused with proof by assertion
Here is your very first statement regarding the whole essence of your argument ,
YOU SAID .......
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.
MY REPLY WAS .......
In philosophical terms, your argument commits a “bare assertion fallacy” i.e. the argument is assumed to be true merely because it says it is true, and it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent in the original statement it purports to prove. After all, the same ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all.
You need a new argument I've destroyed it so has Amarel , Winston and several others , proof by assertion is yet another fallacious argument you're guilty off count yourself defeated ...... yet again
This is your seventh debate on the very same topic each one has been destroyed yet you persist , whys that ?
I list several of the informal fallacies you make in your deeply flawed arguments .
I note also you your attempt at totally misrepresenting my position to others I thank Amarel and Winston for stating the truth about what I actually said .
I see now you have also resorted to dishonesty and Ad Hominem against others who correct your nonsense .
First I shall list the several informal fallacies you're guilty off ....
Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.[17]
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.[18]
Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."[19]
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore;[20][21] sometimes confused with proof by assertion
Here is your very first statement regarding the whole essence of your argument ,
YOU SAID .......
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.
MY REPLY WAS .......
In philosophical terms, your argument commits a “bare assertion fallacy” i.e. the argument is assumed to be true merely because it says it is true, and it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent in the original statement it purports to prove. After all, the same ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all.
You need a new argument I've destroyed it so has Amarel , Winston and several others , proof by assertion is yet another fallacious argument you're guilty off count yourself defeated ...... yet again
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is clearly not a fallacy.
This is your debate,
"Dermot v.s. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality".
You want to fight everything else except that. You are avoiding the real debate because even you know how dumb it looks, sounds, and actually is to debate the existence of ultimate reality.
It doesn't matter how clever your arguments are, at the foundation you are denying the supreme and ultimate reality.
That in itself is a fallacy.
You can't pin this on me. You are simply projecting.
This is your seventh debate on the very same topic each one has been destroyed yet you persist , whys that ?
I list several of the informal fallacies you make in your deeply flawed arguments .
I note also you your attempt at totally misrepresenting my position to others I thank Amarel and Winston for stating the truth about what I actually said .
I see now you have also resorted to dishonesty and Ad Hominem against others who correct your nonsense .
First I shall list the several informal fallacies you're guilty off ....
Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.[17]
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.[18]
Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."[19]
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore;[20][21] sometimes confused with proof by assertion
Here is your very first statement regarding the whole essence of your argument ,
YOU SAID .......
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.
MY REPLY WAS .......
In philosophical terms, your argument commits a “bare assertion fallacy” i.e. the argument is assumed to be true merely because it says it is true, and it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent in the original statement it purports to prove. After all, the same ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all.
You need a new argument I've destroyed it so has Amarel , Winston and several others , proof by assertion is yet another fallacious argument you're guilty off count yourself defeated ...... yet again
This is your seventh debate on the very same topic each one has been destroyed yet you persist , whys that ?
I list several of the informal fallacies you make in your deeply flawed arguments .
I note also you your attempt at totally misrepresenting my position to others I thank Amarel and Winston for stating the truth about what I actually said .
I see now you have also resorted to dishonesty and Ad Hominem against others who correct your nonsense .
First I shall list the several informal fallacies you're guilty off ....
Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.[17]
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.[18]
Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."[19]
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore;[20][21] sometimes confused with proof by assertion
Here is your very first statement regarding the whole essence of your argument ,
YOU SAID .......
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.
MY REPLY WAS .......
In philosophical terms, your argument commits a “bare assertion fallacy” i.e. the argument is assumed to be true merely because it says it is true, and it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent in the original statement it purports to prove. After all, the same ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all.
You need a new argument I've destroyed it so has Amarel , Winston and several others , proof by assertion is yet another fallacious argument you're guilty off count yourself defeated ...... yet again
Obviously there is an "ultimate reality", however this reality we inhabit could be the "ultimate reality". Since you don't believe that this reality is the ultimate reality but you do believe that an ultimate reality exists, stating that a higher, ultimate reality must exist is a baseless assertion.
Just stop right there. The rest of what you say ceases to make any sense after you realize that I'm talking about that. You aren't looking at the right thing.
What I think, believe, say, etc. is not what I'm talking about.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
I am not important.
I must become less, so that The Word becomes more.
There are many who would beat, scourge, and crucify The Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, the ones calling for execution were the scholars and priests yelling "blasphemy!"
That is why sincere faith alone isn't enough. Charity must go with sincere faith.
There are a lot of mysteries. The fall occurred when we took ourselves as being the rightful judges of good and evil. The Ultimate Reality is what truly decides good and evil.
The Ultimate Reality is what truly decides good and evil
This is factually incorrect.
Stating that God is reality is meaningless. It says nothing of the substance of god or of reality. It does not mean, as you suppose, that anyone shares your beliefs at all.
If my cats name is Felix, but you insist it’s name is Fred. The fact that the cat is there, does not mean it’s name is Fred. And regardless of its name, your baseless proclamation says nothing about the nature of my cat.
Which is why your proclamation the god is reality says nothing about the nature of reality, especially since all of your consequent statements are unrelated to your premises.
The Ultimate Reality is the decider of everything.
All little realities are creation. They come and go. They are not eternal.
The Ultimate Reality is Eternal, Always Existing.
Yet, you still embrace delusion.
You recognize God in your heart in order that the scripture be fulfilled...
"the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because 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."
The only thing the Bible has to do with God, is that it’s human authors invoked the name. By accepting the Bible, you embrace delusion. My evidence for this is just as valid as yours.
Why don't you just grow a fucking brain cell or two, saying that God is the supreme ultimate reality does not prove that he is the supreme ultimate reality, no one is denying that there is an ultimate reality just that your stupid superstitious beliefs that you have no evidence for other than repeating the words "supreme ultimate reality" can explain the ultimate reality.
Ok, so you admit that you believe that there is supreme and ultimate reality.
That means that you recognize God.
So that the scripture may be fulfilled...
"the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because 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."
I'm going to cut your fingers off if I have to see the words "supreme ultimate reality" again, just by saying that you aren't proving shit and you know it.
You say .... You don't understand why I use bible verse... I know considering you've little understanding of the bible , you don't understand why you use them do you ?
But you want to engage in a proxy battle about the bible. It's easy for you to confound with so called "knowledge" concerning all these created things.
What you can't do is make a good argument against The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. You know to do such a thing is inherently self defeating and clearly insane.
Yet there is every bit of reason to believe. Why? For what The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is. That is enough of a reason to believe.
So why continue this game of muddying the waters? Deep down you know that you aren't going fool me concerning whether or not The Supreme and Ultimate Reality exists. You already know damn well that existence of The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is not even up for debate.
Look, even all these so called atheists and agnostics posting here have admitted that they believe in The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. Some of them have expressed doubts that you even dispute the supreme and ultimate reality.
I don't think it is too much of a stretch to imagine that the reason there is so much confusion going on is because deep down everyone knows that it is stupid to question the existence of the supreme and ultimate reality.
You say ......Look, even all these so called atheists and agnostics posting here have admitted that they believe in The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. Some of them have expressed doubts that you even dispute the supreme and ultimate reality.......
No they don't you lying toad
This is your seventh debate on the very same topic each one has been destroyed yet you persist , whys that ?
I list several of the informal fallacies you make in your deeply flawed arguments .
I note also you your attempt at totally misrepresenting my position to others I thank Amarel and Winston for stating the truth about what I actually said .
I see now you have also resorted to dishonesty and Ad Hominem against others who correct your nonsense .
First I shall list the several informal fallacies you're guilty off ....
Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.[17]
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.[18]
Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."[19]
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore;[20][21] sometimes confused with proof by assertion
Here is your very first statement regarding the whole essence of your argument ,
YOU SAID .......
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.
MY REPLY WAS .......
In philosophical terms, your argument commits a “bare assertion fallacy” i.e. the argument is assumed to be true merely because it says it is true, and it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent in the original statement it purports to prove. After all, the same ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all.
You need a new argument I've destroyed it so has Amarel , Winston and several others , proof by assertion is yet another fallacious argument you're guilty off count yourself defeated ...... yet again
You were disingenuous from the get go because you weren't really listening to MY argument despite the fact that I've corrected you a baker's dozen or so times.
You can't address my argument because you know it makes you wrong. You always want to divert to something else. You want to talk about everything really except the big G.
You already know deep down, probably not even that deep down that denying The Supreme and Ultimate Reality makes you an idiot.
You still are doing it. You are still talking about me.
I'm not making my argument. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is the argument. It isn't my argument. It stands alone.
You are too weak to topple The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. You know you can't win that battle.
You seem to be under the false impression that you have an argument. You don't have an argument. Pretending that God and reality are the same word with the same definition therefore God is real is not an argument. It's a false conclusion founded on an equally false premise.
Ah so that's the game , because I stated you're disengenous and a compulsive liar and I proved it you turn my charge back on me ; you never corrected me you merely said because you say something is true well then it must be true ; your argument from assertion is yet another failure to add to the 6 that I mentioned already .
Your argument and attempt at using Indian mysticism and in particular your thinking on reality is something you possibly read on the back of a cereal box because like the bible you only have a fleeting knowledge of what you proclaim to know ; no doubt you're possibly a big fan of the equall nutty Deepak Chopra who comes out with the self same horseshit
You think that throwing out as much disinformation as you can that you can just somehow override reality or something?
Why are you even talking to me as if I'm the one you are debating. I'm not debating you. You're clearly a fool. You're debating The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
Ah so that's the game , because I stated you're disengenous and a compulsive liar and I proved it you turn my charge back on me ; you never corrected me you merely said because you say something is true well then it must be true ; your argument from assertion is yet another failure to add to the 6 that I mentioned already .
Your argument and attempt at using Indian mysticism and in particular your thinking on reality is something you possibly read on the back of a cereal box because like the bible you only have a fleeting knowledge of what you proclaim to know ; no doubt you're possibly a big fan of the equall nutty Deepak Chopra who comes out with the self same horseshit