Theist, Atheist, and Agnostics have always been demonstrably wrong.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-12-2015, 07:17 AM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2015 07:42 AM by Philosopher8659.)
Theist, Atheist, and Agnostics have always been demonstrably wrong.
Actually, God can be proven, however, it is not the God of mythology.

Every word in the Subject Naming Convention is defined by the Predicate Naming Convention, which itself is not defined it is learned by perception. see biological fact and the works of Plato.

Metaphor works then just like a mathematical equation. You take a word, say God, and define it through its predicates, i.e. only what is knowable, or again causality.

When you can do that, you find out that the Metaphors of the Judeo-Christian Scripture define God and does it in a provable manner. God is not a person, an anthropomorphic entity, but the only power a mind has, Linguistic Functionality.

That is why it is written in that text, and in several places, that it is sealed to man's understanding until a particular time in human history, and that those seals can only be loosened by a very specific key. That key is a linguistic puzzle.

See; Revelations 5.
Self-promoting video removed.
One can search YouTube for the demo, or the Internet Archive for different media. It is a demonstration in linguistics.

If language is, and it is, the only power a mind has, then man is provably made in the image of God, but what that means must follow the principles of language, not proto-language of current human usage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2015, 07:31 AM
RE: Theist, Atheist, and Agnostics have always been demonstrably wrong.
Welcome to TTA.

This should be fun.

Popcorn

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like DLJ's post
01-12-2015, 07:45 AM
RE: Theist, Atheist, and Agnostics have always been demonstrably wrong.
@Philosopher8659

So, if I understand, God exist only if you define him in a very specific way, with very specific terms and very specific method that nobody beside you uses, respect and find useful to analyse the world. Do you want me to use your technique to prove the following axiom: "I am the one and only God."? Its very easy.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
01-12-2015, 07:45 AM
RE: Theist, Atheist, and Agnostics have always been demonstrably wrong.
(01-12-2015 07:17 AM)Philosopher8659 Wrote:  Actually, God can be proven, however, it is not the God of mythology.

Every word in the Subject Naming Convention is defined by the Predicate Naming Convention, which itself is not defined it is learned by perception. see biological fact and the works of Plato.

Metaphor works then just like a mathematical equation. You take a word, say God, and define it through its predicates, i.e. only what is knowable, or again causality.

When you can do that, you find out that the Metaphors of the Judeo-Christian Scripture define God and does it in a provable manner. God is not a person, an anthropomorphic entity, but the only power a mind has, Linguistic Functionality.

That is why it is written in that text, and in several places, that it is sealed to man's understanding until a particular time in human history, and that those seals can only be loosened by a very specific key. That key is a linguistic puzzle.

See; Revelations 5.

If language is, and it is, the only power a mind has, then man is provably made in the image of God, but what that means must follow the principles of language, not proto-language of current human usage.

Consider

mmmmm intriguing. You are close, just have it backwards.

All gods throughout time have commonalities of construct.

These constructs require a common creator.

Thus the creator of all gods is man. The anthropocentric concept of the Abrahamic-based Judaeo-Christian god is man....made in our image.

Now we can sit around the campfire and discuss philosophical, transcendental theories all night sprinkled with "wouldn't it be cool if..." scenarios...but in the end, they are just philosophical musings....basically the physical expression of smacking our lips together while forming words which demonstrate neurological flatulence. None of which provide evidence for any gods.

The "text" is demonstrably false. It is a compilation of pseudonymous works, allegorical stories, parables, interpolations, Fiction, Forgery, and Fantasy. None of which can be corroborated. For example, no one who EVER wrote of jesus knew him. Thus all references to him or what he did or said is creative fiction at its best based on stories...known as "tradition" within theological circles. People love to tell stories, in fact that WAS the entertainment of the era....the better the story, the more it got retold, and embellished...the more magic, the more exciting...

Who wrote revelations by the way? I will give you a clue, majority of evidence points to a date of 95-96 CE, and multiple authors. This is easily ascertained due to the wide differences in eschatology, language, and tone.

Welcome to the forum, I look forward to educating you on your faith...the belief in something without evidence.

The only difference between religion and mythology is time...

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
01-12-2015, 07:47 AM
RE: Theist, Atheist, and Agnostics have always been demonstrably wrong.
Hello! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2015, 08:05 AM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2015 08:10 AM by Philosopher8659.)
RE: Theist, Atheist, and Agnostics have always been demonstrably wrong.
A lot of people babbling here. View the text, and fault the arguments not your assumptions but by demonstrable facts of language. And if you don't understand the principles of language, there are other postings on the Archive such as A Universal Language, which will demonstrate them to you with thousands and examples.

Anyone can babble, but that is not language.

What can you name? Can you ever, ever, name a thing directly? Or must you always name an element of a thing and combine the elements? What are the principles of predication?

What is the demonstrable relationship between Logic, such as common grammars, and Analogics, standards of craft?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2015, 08:10 AM
RE: Theist, Atheist, and Agnostics have always been demonstrably wrong.
(01-12-2015 07:17 AM)Philosopher8659 Wrote:  Actually, God can be proven, however, it is not the God of mythology.

Okay. Prove it!

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2015, 08:14 AM
RE: Theist, Atheist, and Agnostics have always been demonstrably wrong.
(01-12-2015 08:10 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 07:17 AM)Philosopher8659 Wrote:  Actually, God can be proven, however, it is not the God of mythology.

Okay. Prove it!

I am not exactly sure, that once proof has been pointed to that DUH! is a valid counter argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2015, 08:15 AM
RE: Theist, Atheist, and Agnostics have always been demonstrably wrong.
*Raises hand*

So, a question?

Was there anything before language?

Also, which language might take 'precedent'? As in 'Is English the "better" language? Or is it Quenyar?" Unsure
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2015, 08:18 AM
RE: Theist, Atheist, and Agnostics have always been demonstrably wrong.
(01-12-2015 08:15 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  *Raises hand*

So, a question?

Was there anything before language?

Also, which language might take 'precedent'? As in 'Is English the "better" language? Or is it Quenyar?" Unsure

Again, if one is too lazy to view the actual argument pointed to then it is simply brute rudeness to babble asking questions which have already been answered in the argument.

People generally don't try so hard to look foolish.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: