The basic logical truths being evidence of an all knowing being

[DMS]

Pls explain this argument someone, cuz some guys keep saying this and I don’t get it:

[veritas]

Restate your question more clearly please

[DMS]

Restate your question more clearly please

Someone once argued, whilst debating if an omnipotent being existed, that for truth to exist there must be an all knowing being to be a standard. They did nothing to explain themselves so I’m a little confused.

[The Dead Poet]

Thread is 3/10

[veritas]

Someone once argued, whilst debating if an omnipotent being existed, that for truth to exist there must be an all knowing being to be a standard. They did nothing to explain themselves so I’m a little confused.

So Goedel’s incompleteness theorems?

[Witty]

Let's not do this.

[DMS]

So Goedel’s incompleteness theorems?

I think I was pretty clear in the fact idk about this. You tell me.

[Victor.]

Let's not do this.

[Twodrop]

God exists, period. I've had physical experiences that created a deep rooted faith I doubt will ever leave me. I've never read the bible, but I believe most of these universal questions... why are we here, who created us, what is our purpose...are not meant to be answered. Imagine a chicken living it's whole life knowing it's just going to end up decapitated, cooked, and sprinkled with salt and pepper to make it edible. I believe we are closer to that than we know.

People who try to interpret ancient text for grandiose answers to questions that aren't meant for answering is like a dog chasing it's tail.

[Destroyer]

God does exist
In the same way that Willy Wonka and Batman do

[veritas]

God does exist
In the same way that Willy Wonka and Batman do

Your atheism is a religion. Your belief in Darwinian evolution is faith.

[Destroyer]

Atheism is not a religion
if you can’t understand simple shit like that, it’s no surprise we continue to stay at an impasse

[veritas]

Atheism is not a religion
if you can’t understand simple shit like that, it’s no surprise we continue to stay at an impasse


You have beliefs. You believe there is no afterlife. You believe there is no God. That is a belief. You act in accordance with your beliefs. Sounds a lot like a religion.

Help me understand what I am missing here?

[Destroyer]

If someone came down from the sky and told me they were jesus and shit I’d probably believe them
The difference is one is the absence of a belief system and all of the others are belief systems
The absence of rain doesn’t mean it’s snowing, man. It just means it ain’t raining.

[Destroyer]

I don’t believe that there is no afterlife nor do I believe there is no god
I’ve never seen evidence compelling me to believe in either
My beliefs are open to change with compelling evidence to the contrary

[veritas]

Have you seen evidence that God does not exist?

[veritas]

Or stated otherwise, have you ever experienced something that you could not explain?

[Destroyer]

The first question shows your problem
Evidence of non-existence is a fallacy
You can’t prove the non-existence of anything
The onus is on you to prove existence

[veritas]

I knew you would say that and solid retort. Fair. My second post started me doing that. Please address it honestly sir.

[Destroyer]

Of course, I don’t know or understand everything, nor do I purport to

[veritas]

But you have never had one encounter of one experience in all of your years that showed even the slightest indication that there might be something more than this? Or that there might be a God?

Nothing at all?

[Destroyer]

No

[Destroyer]

Look, even if I had, man, “might” is not enough for me to just accept blindly

[Twodrop]

But you have never had one encounter of one experience in all of your years that showed even the slightest indication that there might be something more than this? Or that there might be a God?

Nothing at all?

You might of talked about it before, but did something happen that proved God's existence to you? Or is it just years of learning from people you trusted.

[Qualm]

I like how we're doing this even though witty specifically said "Let's not do this"

[Amen]

Déjà vu

[veritas]

Look, even if I had, man, “might” is not enough for me to just accept blindly

Just so I am clear, you went from a no, then thought about your whole life and now say, maybe.

But maybe is not enough.

Have I correctly articulated your mind so far Jude?

[DMS]

I knew you would say that and solid retort. Fair. My second post started me doing that. Please address it honestly sir.

So can you answer my original question instead of making rather illogical, not grounded arguments?

[Destroyer]

Just so I am clear, you went from a no, then thought about your whole life and now say, maybe.

But maybe is not enough.

Have I correctly articulated your mind so far Jude?

No. Here’s the deal. A great claim, such as “the Christian god exists,” requires some pretty good evidence for me to accept it as truth. I have to believe in magical powers, resurrection, and a host of other supernatural claims. As far as what evidence there is, you’ve got your Bible, and you have historical record. Those aren’t bad. But, you have the same stuff existing around Greek gods, stories of their exploits and existence, stories of them interacting with humans of the time. I don’t believe Zeus existed anymore than Yahweh. The evidence is pretty much the same.
As far as the no vs the maybe, i lean heavily towards the no. But, I don’t know, and can’t know, so I have to concede that it stays at maybe. I’ll give you the maybe. But, following the maybe, I have to say that I’ve never seen anything personally that would lead me to believe that it was yes, and were I to see that, I would believe it, I’m not closed off to belief following what I would consider to be substantive proof.
Does that make sense to you?

[PancakeBrah]

If you say whilst unironically you're part of the problem.

[Smod of War]

Every. fucking. thread.

[veritas]

That was an excellent post. Yes it made sense. I suppose my only issue is that you have never experienced even the first instance of “Yahweh” speaking to you in either sign or vision or coincidence or synchronicity?

None?

I thought you told me that you grew up in church? Or did I just invent that lol.

[Destroyer]

You didn’t. I did. And no, I’ve never felt anything speak to me inside or outside of a church

[uh-oh]

so yall are doing this again eh?

[DMS]

so yall are doing this again eh?

And I didn’t get my question answered in the end too

[veritas]

You didn’t. I did. And no, I’ve never felt anything speak to me inside or outside of a church

Fascinating.

So never one sign? God has never talked to you or shown you something or used someone to communicate to you?

[Destroyer]

No, dude, not once

[DMS]

Fascinating.

So never one sign? God has never talked to you or shown you something or used someone to communicate to you?

Veritas, can you answer my original question?

[uh-oh]

Fascinating.

So never one sign? God has never talked to you or shown you something or used someone to communicate to you?

do you think that because you have knowledge of a god figure, you've found signs where someone without knowledge of a god wouldn't find them?

[veritas]

No, dude, not once

At the risk of sounding presumptuous is it entirely outside the realm of possibility, like completely impossible, that all these talks for almost the last decade we have had That God was not using me to speak to you and give you signs?

[veritas]

do you think that because you have knowledge of a god figure, you've found signs where someone without knowledge of a god wouldn't find them?

I spoke about this in my book. Would you like me to Elab? If so I will when I get done with jitsu.

[veritas]

Veritas, can you answer my original question?

Yes. I will do my best to do so if you re state it in a way that I understand what you want me to answer sir

[Destroyer]

I’m gonna go with no on that one, V

[DMS]

Yes. I will do my best to do so if you re state it in a way that I understand what you want me to answer sir

Whilst watching two people debate whether god was real, someone said all basic logical truths, like 2+2=4, require an omnipotent being to set a standard. They didn’t elaborate so I can’t either. So basically he’s making the claim that, for truth to exist, which it must, god needs to exists, and there for god exists.

Can you confirm or deny if this has any logic behind it.

[Destroyer]

Why do those truths require an omnipotent being to set a standard?
Surely all you need is two people who agree on a standard as in your 2+2=4 example
We agree that 2+2=4, but it doesn’t mean 2+2=4 on some universal omnipotent scale

[Destroyer]

2 and 4 are just abstracts that we’ve given a value to, they’re not tangible. Like, it’s 4 to us because we have a number system that identifies that many of what we identify as objects as 4 of them.
An omnipotent being may look at all objects as 1, I mean who the fuck knows?
I fail to see the logic in this

[veritas]

Whilst watching two people debate whether god was real, someone said all basic logical truths, like 2+2=4, require an omnipotent being to set a standard. They didn’t elaborate so I can’t either. So basically he’s making the claim that, for truth to exist, which it must, god needs to exists, and there for god exists.

Can you confirm or deny if this has any logic behind it.

Goedel incompleteness theorems

[veritas]

I’m gonna go with no on that one, V

I have to log this in our records, sir.

[Qualm]

all these talks for almost the last decade we have had That God was not using me to speak to you and give you signs?

Irrespective of whether or not God exists, the level of egotism it would take to believe this is on a level that's borderline psychotic

[veritas]

Why?

[Qualm]

Why?

For starters, you just admitted that you've been failing at the purpose that you claim God has intended for you for almost 10 years. Seems pretty insulting to God's will that God couldn't have managed a more efficient way to get through to Destro, since you clearly don't have the capability to.

[veritas]

Ezekiel chapter 2

5 And they, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, (for they are a rebellious house,) yet shall know that there hath been a prophet among them.

6 And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns be with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house.

7 And thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear: for they are most rebellious.

King James Version (KJV)

[veritas]

who is Qualm an alias for?

[Destroyer]

I don’t know but he’s funny