Author Topic: Question to theists  (Read 4349 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1329
  • Darwins +154/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #116 on: June 21, 2013, 09:24:01 AM »
^^^Well, yes. but where's the fun in just saying it?  &)
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline nebula

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #117 on: June 21, 2013, 09:36:39 AM »
So...interconnectedness?  Is this just some kind of poetic, obfuscated, uninformative way of saying that everything is part of one reality?

No, indivisibility.   The universe is one thing in which every part is completely interdependent on every other part in one way or another; for example, "93% of the mass in our body is stardust. (Source: http://physicscentral.com/explore/poster-stardust.cfm)."   Intellectually we know this yet our experience is of separateness.   That's a paradox.   It's the nature of reality.     

Our experience is based on perception.   We can perceive things that are not objectively true, as in an optical illusion.   The self/other distinction is also an illusion but this one involves all of the senses, not just sight.         

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1526
  • Darwins +241/-5
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #118 on: June 21, 2013, 09:41:15 AM »
No, indivisibility.   The universe is one thing in which every part is completely interdependent on every other part in one way or another; for example, "93% of the mass in our body is stardust. (Source: http://physicscentral.com/explore/poster-stardust.cfm)."   Intellectually we know this yet our experience is of separateness.
So...interconnectedness?  Everything is a constituent of the totality of reality - yes I can agree to that.
Quote
That's a paradox.   It's the nature of reality.
I see no paradox.
Quote
Our experience is based on perception.   We can perceive things that are not objectively true, as in an optical illusion.   The self/other distinction is also an illusion but this one involves all of the senses, not just sight.       
Out of curiosity how would define 'objective'?

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1526
  • Darwins +241/-5
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #119 on: June 21, 2013, 09:44:00 AM »
^^^Well, yes. but where's the fun in just saying it?  &)
I'm waiting for some of the things that nebula is saying to show up here:
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

nebula,
Do you find some kind of 'deeper' truth when you wrap ideas around ethereal language?

Offline nebula

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #120 on: June 21, 2013, 10:10:08 AM »

So...interconnectedness?  Everything is a constituent of the totality of reality - yes I can agree to that.

Bold mind.

Don't you see that the idea of 'things' is merely a mental construct based on a limited perspective?   Where do you end and where does the rest of the universe begin?   Is not your body entirely dependent on oxygen, pressure, gravity, sensory stimuli etc. from your surroundings?   The ingredients of an identity are genetics and environmental conditioning.   But because of a skewed perspective we consider the cells that make up our bodies "us" and everything else "not us."   However, we are a little more than just 'connected' to our surroundings.   They are an integral part of us and ultimately there is no distinction.               

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2105
  • Darwins +69/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #121 on: June 21, 2013, 10:51:49 AM »
  But because of a skewed perspective we consider the cells that make up our bodies "us" and everything else "not us."   However, we are a little more than just 'connected' to our surroundings.   They are an integral part of us

I, for one, might be able to be swayed to this POV, given limited parameters.

Quote
and ultimately there is no distinction.               

This one? Not so much. How is there not a distinction? And further, how does this view you hold shape your reality? Your day to day existence?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline nebula

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #122 on: June 21, 2013, 11:48:36 AM »
This one? Not so much. How is there not a distinction? And further, how does this view you hold shape your reality? Your day to day existence?

There is no distinction in absolute terms.   In relative terms there is.   I am more me than that rock over there.   But in absolute terms there is only one energy that was released in the big bang in various forms of complexity.     

Thinking in absolutes helps me in two ways:

1.   Contentment: It is impossible for an individual to ever have completeness, wholeness or absolute contentment.   Many atheists allude to this when they talk about how heaven would eventually get boring even if you could have anything you could ever want.   After a while we reckon too much of a good thing turns into a bad thing.   

Others feel that wholeness is possible and strive for it.   The feel incomplete and search for things they believe will bring them absolute contentment.   When they achieve their goals they still do not feel complete, though they don't know what they lack.

Well, my belief is the reason we can never find absolute satisfaction in life is because of this self idea.   It's only a very limited perspective, useful for our survival (i.e. "I need food") but when applied to psychological issues such as contentment it creates problems.   Psychologically, if there is no me there is nothing that can lack anything, hence no feeling that I am somehow incomplete.   There is no need to pursue happiness because there is no me to do the seeking or find the happiness.   It's already right here relatively (compared to when I firmly believed in my individuality as an absolute reality).

2.   The small details of life:  Negative emotions are easier to detail with.   In absolute terms when someone cuts me off in traffic it is a certain form of complexity in the universe, nothing more.  This leads to less anger.  With no individual there is no free will.   So any past mistakes I've made were unavoidable.   This leads to less regret.  With no self there is nothing to lose therefore nothing to fear, etc.       

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2105
  • Darwins +69/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #123 on: June 21, 2013, 12:41:59 PM »
But in absolute terms there is only one energy that was released in the big bang in various forms of complexity.   

And how does that fit in with your god belief? Why is a god necessary for this worldview? And, is your god belief biblegod?[1]
 1. apologies if I've missed the answer before
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline nebula

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #124 on: June 21, 2013, 01:59:23 PM »
And how does that fit in with your god belief? Why is a god necessary for this worldview? And, is your god belief biblegod?[1]
 1. apologies if I've missed the answer before

-It fits in by being an example of the contradiction between what our sense perceptions tell us about reality and what we know intellectually about the overall oneness of the universe.  The sense of self causes us to have a limited perspective in which "oneness" doesn't make sense.   But oneness does make sense if you ignore your sense of self and sense perceptions and conceive of the universe in terms of one energy, the single energy of the singularity.   I was just pointing that out to jdawg70 who suggested "31ism" in response to "oneness."   

-A god is not necessary when the oneness of the universe is viewed as the absolute reality, which incidentally is not my belief but just an example of oneness that we are all familiar with.

-No.  I subscribe to the basic, nondualist definition of God which is simply "not two."   Meaning is an illusion therefore any words used to describe God, even the words "not two" are illusions.   So that is as far as that goes.   "Not two," with the implication of "one."   That is as close as we can get to describing the ultimate nature of reality.   
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 02:04:10 PM by nebula »

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2105
  • Darwins +69/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #125 on: June 21, 2013, 02:08:31 PM »
-No.  I subscribe to the basic, nondualist definition of God which is simply "not two."   Meaning is an illusion therefore any words used to describe God, even the words "not two" are illusions.   So that is as far as that goes.   "Not two," with the implication of "one."   That is as far as we can get to describing the ultimate nature of reality.   

Wow, now I'm even more confused. But you do have a worldview I've always found to be interesting.

So, you do believe in a god, and for sake of discussion, we'll call it "one". Now, is this "one" seperate from the universe, or is it the universe? Is this "one" sentient?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1526
  • Darwins +241/-5
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #126 on: June 21, 2013, 06:15:22 PM »
-It fits in by being an example of the contradiction between what our sense perceptions tell us about reality and what we know intellectually about the overall oneness of the universe.  The sense of self causes us to have a limited perspective in which "oneness" doesn't make sense.   But oneness does make sense if you ignore your sense of self and sense perceptions and conceive of the universe in terms of one energy, the single energy of the singularity.   I was just pointing that out to jdawg70 who suggested "31ism" in response to "oneness."   

-A god is not necessary when the oneness of the universe is viewed as the absolute reality, which incidentally is not my belief but just an example of oneness that we are all familiar with.

-No.  I subscribe to the basic, nondualist definition of God which is simply "not two."   Meaning is an illusion therefore any words used to describe God, even the words "not two" are illusions.   So that is as far as that goes.   "Not two," with the implication of "one."   That is as close as we can get to describing the ultimate nature of reality.   
I'm sorry, but you just don't seem to be talking about a coherent concept.  It's simply infathomable.  That's why I did the snide jab with "31ism" or whatever I typed...you could apply any random jumble of words and you would have conveyed exactly as much information.

So far as I can tell there is no difference between the statements you are making and random words picked from a hat.  I realize this may sound offensive, but please try not to take it that way.  But the words you're typing, as you yourself have pointed out, are nonsense.

Offline nebula

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #127 on: June 21, 2013, 07:37:25 PM »
So, you do believe in a god, and for sake of discussion, we'll call it "one". Now, is this "one" seperate from the universe, or is it the universe? Is this "one" sentient?

For the first question, God is one with the universe which paradoxically is not the same as being the universe.   Keep in mind that there are limits to communication in any life form.   Discussing God is a bit like two minnows in a pond discussing the ecosystem of the earth through body language.

In nondualism, the universe is thought of in various ways.   One is that it is a changing, temporal manifestation of a deeper unchanging, eternal reality and the analogy used for this is that the universe is like waves on the surface of a deep lake.   In this case the universe is real.

But the kind of nondualism I'm into says that it is an utter illusion with no reality at all and the metaphor is that it is like a dream.   In this case the universe is a 'dream of separation' that only seems to takes place.

As for the second question, no we cannot say that God is sentient because aware/unaware is a duality and God is nondual.   For that matter existence/nonexistence is a duality so we can't even say that God is.   The only words that even get close to working are "not two" without the "God is" in front.   But even "not two" is based in duality because two/not two is a duality.  This is just a limitation of thought and language, both of which are inherently dualistic.   There is no way around it.                 
       

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +183/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #128 on: June 21, 2013, 09:00:02 PM »
So, you do believe in a god, and for sake of discussion, we'll call it "one". Now, is this "one" seperate from the universe, or is it the universe? Is this "one" sentient?

For the first question, God is one with the universe which paradoxically is not the same as being the universe.   Keep in mind that there are limits to communication in any life form.   Discussing God is a bit like two minnows in a pond discussing the ecosystem of the earth through body language.

In nondualism, the universe is thought of in various ways.   One is that it is a changing, temporal manifestation of a deeper unchanging, eternal reality and the analogy used for this is that the universe is like waves on the surface of a deep lake.   In this case the universe is real.

But the kind of nondualism I'm into says that it is an utter illusion with no reality at all and the metaphor is that it is like a dream.   In this case the universe is a 'dream of separation' that only seems to takes place.

As for the second question, no we cannot say that God is sentient because aware/unaware is a duality and God is nondual.   For that matter existence/nonexistence is a duality so we can't even say that God is.   The only words that even get close to working are "not two" without the "God is" in front.   But even "not two" is based in duality because two/not two is a duality.  This is just a limitation of thought and language, both of which are inherently dualistic.   There is no way around it.                 
       

I think I speak for a good many of us here when I say... Uhhh, what?
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11426
  • Darwins +272/-77
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #129 on: June 21, 2013, 09:09:15 PM »
Uh, what?[1]

-Nam
 1. oh, my bad

Offline nebula

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #130 on: June 21, 2013, 10:25:46 PM »
I think I speak for a good many of us here when I say... Uhhh, what?

The answer to this question is that there is no answer.   

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1562
  • Darwins +158/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Belief is not a choice.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #131 on: June 21, 2013, 11:21:27 PM »

-It fits in by being an example of the contradiction between what our sense perceptions tell us about reality and what we know intellectually about the overall oneness of the universe.  The sense of self causes us to have a limited perspective in which "oneness" doesn't make sense.   But oneness does make sense if you ignore your sense of self and sense perceptions and conceive of the universe in terms of one energy, the single energy of the singularity.   I was just pointing that out to jdawg70 who suggested "31ism" in response to "oneness."   

-A god is not necessary when the oneness of the universe is viewed as the absolute reality, which incidentally is not my belief but just an example of oneness that we are all familiar with.

-No.  I subscribe to the basic, nondualist definition of God which is simply "not two."   Meaning is an illusion therefore any words used to describe God, even the words "not two" are illusions.   So that is as far as that goes.   "Not two," with the implication of "one."   That is as close as we can get to describing the ultimate nature of reality.   

Can you not see how you are utterly contradicting yourself in these statements?
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1562
  • Darwins +158/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Belief is not a choice.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #132 on: June 21, 2013, 11:29:10 PM »

The answer to this question is that there is no answer.

Then stop pretending to know it.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +183/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #133 on: June 22, 2013, 06:39:54 AM »
I think I speak for a good many of us here when I say... Uhhh, what?

The answer to this question is that there is no answer.
But isn't 'there is no answer' an answer?

I just blew your mind...
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline nebula

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #134 on: June 22, 2013, 07:46:25 AM »
Then stop pretending to know it.

Only in unknowing can we know.   Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1562
  • Darwins +158/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Belief is not a choice.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #135 on: June 22, 2013, 10:35:26 AM »
Then stop pretending to know it.

Only in unknowing can we know.   Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing

Did you even attempt to use your brain before making this statement?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_non-contradiction

Just because you can open your mouth and have words come out doesn't mean those words will make any sense. So too, regarding "all is illusion", saying it is so doesn't make it so. I already refuted this idea entirely in a previous post, and since you are still maintaining and unwilling to admit when you are in error I can reasonably conclude that you are intellectually dishonest.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2105
  • Darwins +69/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #136 on: June 22, 2013, 10:47:58 AM »
So, you do believe in a god, and for sake of discussion, we'll call it "one". Now, is this "one" seperate from the universe, or is it the universe? Is this "one" sentient?

For the first question, God is one with the universe which paradoxically is not the same as being the universe.   Keep in mind that there are limits to communication in any life form.   Discussing God is a bit like two minnows in a pond discussing the ecosystem of the earth through body language.

Being one with the 'verse, while not being the 'verse, seems a tad dualistic. Amiright?

Quote
In nondualism, the universe is thought of in various ways.   One is that it is a changing, temporal manifestation of a deeper unchanging, eternal reality and the analogy used for this is that the universe is like waves on the surface of a deep lake.   In this case the universe is real.

Sure, I can go with that. But I still see no reason to ponder a god. I mean, what you're saying is a hypothetical to which many scientists, as well as atheists, give thought. It's entirely plausible that the 'verse is cyclical, unending, and quite possibly eternal. And the present iteration, our present reality, is a mere blip, or wave if you like, in the unending cycle.

Quote
But the kind of nondualism I'm into says that it is an utter illusion with no reality at all and the metaphor is that it is like a dream.   In this case the universe is a 'dream of separation' that only seems to takes place.

Now this? This I don't get. Reality IS. How can it not? It's not an illusion, in as much as an illusion is something that isn't real. This reality is real. You are not being decieved. It's possible we're not in agreement on the definitions here though. It's possible you're attempting to use poetic license to make your case, in which case I get it. If not, if you're using the words as defined in most english dictionaries, well then, I'd have to say you're probably wrong. And, if you disagree and tell me you're right, then you're going to have to present some evidence that this is all illusion. Because I can prove, to you, that I indeed am "real".

Quote
As for the second question, no we cannot say that God is sentient because aware/unaware is a duality and God is nondual.   For that matter existence/nonexistence is a duality so we can't even say that God is.   The only words that even get close to working are "not two" without the "God is" in front.   But even "not two" is based in duality because two/not two is a duality.  This is just a limitation of thought and language, both of which are inherently dualistic.   There is no way around it.             
 

So, in a non-dualistic worldview, things do/do not exist? At the same time? That's just silly, my friend. Again, reality IS. It's every day. Go stub your toe on your coffee table, and then tell me it's an illusion. Double dog dare ya.

Reality cares not for your feelings, nor for your beliefs.

And as far as your god being/not being sentient, well, I'm still as confused as ever. You basically attempt to say things in incoherent ways, incomplete thoughts, and try to pass them off as "mystical". Sorry Charlie, but you're just espousing bullshit, as far as I can tell. Sure, our language has limitations, but the ability to pass on information, to share thoughts and concepts, has been refined for hundereds of thousands of years. Talking in riddles is for children.

Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline nebula

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #137 on: June 22, 2013, 10:56:19 AM »
Did you even attempt to use your brain before making this statement?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_non-contradiction

Just because you can open your mouth and have words come out doesn't mean those words will make any sense. So too, regarding "all is illusion", saying it is so doesn't make it so. I already refuted this idea entirely in a previous post, and since you are still maintaining and unwilling to admit when you are in error I can reasonably conclude that you are intellectually dishonest.

OK, I'm in error.   You win.   I already said my position is illogical and contradictory.   I will add incoherent to that.   What else do you want?

From my perspective, it is impossible for "refutation" to mean anything because duality, such as truth/falsehood is an illusion.   All viewpoints are only relatively wrong or right.   No thought can be absolutely wrong or right because absolute reality is nondual.   

Offline nebula

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #138 on: June 22, 2013, 11:13:51 AM »
Being one with the 'verse, while not being the 'verse, seems a tad dualistic. Amiright?

It's completely dualistic as is all thought.   

Offline nebula

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #139 on: June 22, 2013, 11:45:47 AM »
And, if you disagree and tell me you're right, then you're going to have to present some evidence that this is all illusion.

Bold mine. 

My belief is that I'm relatively right.   For this I'm into Brian Whitworth's articles on the subject.

http://brianwhitworth.com/VRConjecture.pdf

http://brianwhitworth.com/VRTQuestions.pdf

http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf

http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT2.pdf

http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT3.pdf

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1562
  • Darwins +158/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Belief is not a choice.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #140 on: June 22, 2013, 09:47:27 PM »

OK, I'm in error.   You win.   I already said my position is illogical and contradictory.   I will add incoherent to that.   What else do you want?

From my perspective, it is impossible for "refutation" to mean anything because duality, such as truth/falsehood is an illusion.   All viewpoints are only relatively wrong or right.   No thought can be absolutely wrong or right because absolute reality is nondual.

I'm appreciative that you are willing to admit that you position is illogical, but (sorry to say) it doesn't seem very genuine. Why would you hold a belief that you know is irrational?

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you just contradicted yourself again. You said:

Quote
No thought can be absolutely wrong or right

Is this thought absolutely right?


Like the Christians on here, you seem to be hung up on this idea of absolute certainly - that if we can't have absolute certainty of anything then every view is just as valid as another. Sorry, that's purely absurd (and btw, therefore should be rejected!). What you've done is abandon the one thing that connects you to this world and allows you to separate fact from fiction (your rational mind). If you don't think that's true then I have some land to sell you at a great price.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2628
  • Darwins +167/-71
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #141 on: June 22, 2013, 11:43:20 PM »
the one thing that connects you to this world and allows you to separate fact from fiction (your rational mind).

How do you know your mind is rational?
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1362
  • Darwins +48/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #142 on: June 23, 2013, 03:34:48 AM »
the one thing that connects you to this world and allows you to separate fact from fiction (your rational mind).

How do you know your mind is rational?
Possibly the fact that you wont accept BS, as a good reason for reality.
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline nebula

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #143 on: June 23, 2013, 03:59:27 AM »
Quote
No thought can be absolutely wrong or right

Is this thought absolutely right?

No thought, including the one I'm expressing in the sentence I'm writing right now, is absolutely right because 'absolutely right' is an illusion.   Is the following absolutely right?

This statement is false. (A)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar%27s_Paradox
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 04:16:20 AM by nebula »

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question to theists
« Reply #144 on: June 23, 2013, 08:34:18 AM »
Quote
No thought can be absolutely wrong or right

Is this thought absolutely right?

No thought, including the one I'm expressing in the sentence I'm writing right now, is absolutely right because 'absolutely right' is an illusion.   Is the following absolutely right?

This statement is false. (A)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar%27s_Paradox

Nebs, theists try to do this all the time because their beliefs make no sense, but you are not going to be able to confuse us by stacking incoherent statements on top of each other instead of answering questions. You may as well abandon that tactic. Ask yourself why it is so important that you hold on to your beliefs even though theyre wrong. Really ask yourself that.