How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

@Jasper10,

The Universe needs not any correction. It unfolds as it unfolds and it does so perfectly. The perfect super ecosystem!

@Albuquerque,

God doesn’t need any correction,I am sure you are right and his perfection will include for everyone’s choice of the acceptance or non acceptance of his free gift I’m also sure.

0 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque, I'll use an old Buddhist method, "What is the meaning of a flower." If it indeed it has meaning in and of it self, explain to me how that came about. The entire physical world as object, is of the same import.

1 Reply

@popeye1945,

I can give you Buddhism if you want some...what is a "flower"?
Back to western tradition:
...you see the meaning is in the phenomena which itself is a noumena where subject and object fuse together in a meta object. Experiencing has no subjects inditing meaning out of their own free will. Experiencing is itself an object of reality and meaning, whatever "IT" has, is attached to it as it NECESSARILY unfolds through spacetime.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

The Universe needs not any correction. It unfolds as it unfolds and it does so perfectly. The perfect super ecosystem!

the second law of thermodynamics.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

Check Penrose on that topic in his CCC, Conformal Cyclic Cosmology.
...oh and check others to from distinct Theoretical backgrounds.
You will be amazed how Entropy is being debated right now.

0 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque, There is no necessity to the meaning of object but biology.

1 Reply

@popeye1945,

You as an entangled phenomena are an object nonetheless, your meaning is an object, the redness of your perceived sight of a rose is an object, abstract attributes and qualities are objects, and even the Universal wave function is an object. Some of these can be qualified as Meta objects as they manifest themselves in a non linear way. You have as much free will as a rock does and even the rock processes information when the sun light heats it up.

2 Replies

@Albuquerque,

You Hope

0 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque, And all of that knowledge is cognitively based, biologically based.

1 Reply

@popeye1945,

Hey no so fast popeye the fast sailor...what "biological" entails is transcendent since you have no access to a final subtract. Nonetheless thinking does not think itself into existence. It is, therefore, an a priori object!!! A property in Reality that if you place it out of Time can be even deemed abstract. And this is why the world is intelligible, not because a "Gheist" made itself own properties before it existed so to have any properties at all. Either the properties in abstract were there or they weren't. If they were there for a Gheist than we can bypass the Gheist and stick with Reality as a whole alone!
Every time you want to stop "thinging" something you just thing it again when you deny it. And this is why people are things rather than free volitional proper subjects!

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Reasoning, If a belief system claims to know something it is quite impossiable to know, then it is a fraud. Certainly, all the desert religions are in this catagory, Judaism, Islam, Christianity. "Reason is the enemy of faith." Martin Luther.

2 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque, I am not sure you're not just blowing smoke here, I'll work on it a bit. By the way, what is the final subtract, meaning no one knows what happens after death, if so, that really is grasping for straws.

1 Reply

@popeye1945,

Make no mistake I speak as I think on the spot and I am very proud of it. I deduce and induce in my mind way before I get to Youtube or Wikipedia or anywhere else. I get to the same conclusions many others do way before I knew others thought alike. None of that does invalidate my arguments, quite on the contrary it makes them more valuable and honest.
That out of the way if you have a counter please deliver!
I am well aware that this argument, MY argument, is a head shot into Idealism.
That's how good it is and I am no fool to not be aware of the quality of my reasoning when it is there. Such that it takes more then some old folk with a PHD to put me down. I have wreck havoc in many debates at University and I would gladly face any so called expert on television or social media to let well clear in direct discourse who knows what!
So again, for you and others if you have counters please sum them up in plain English and bring it on!

0 Replies

A succinct Argument against God, against Agency and against Creativity:

...lets grant "god" for a second.
...lets grant "creation" for another second.
...lets think on the origin of properties to see if they have one.

The argument goes as follows:

God is the creator of all things but himself.
God did not create his own properties as God did not had an origin.
All things except God that have properties had an origin. (implicit already)
The properties of all things that exist existed or will exist are not extraneous to God. (Implicit already)

Thus all properties in the world "created" by God do not have an Origin in God as God did not choose what God himself was/is to be nor what properties are part of his own being. God must be what God must be!
The properties of God and of the world through God did not had an origin!
God is not a free agent!
God did not invent anything!

From all of these it is a real quick step to Spinoza's God and Naturalism!

0 Replies

@popeye1945,

popeye1945 wrote:

Reasoning, If a belief system claims to know something it is quite impossiable to know, then it is a fraud. Certainly, all the desert religions are in this catagory, Judaism, Islam, Christianity. "Reason is the enemy of faith." Martin Luther.

It is not a fraud if Someone Who knows all things informs it of the Truth.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

Quote:

if Someone Who knows

Who might this 'someone' be? Can you provide evidence of 'its' existence?

0 Replies

If there are people here arguing that there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god...

...then they are essentially arguing from the same standpoint as those arguing that there is at least one god...or that it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are no gods.

All of those things are nothing but blind guess...and NOT the result of reason or logic or anything else. And some (most) of the so-called logic used is so defective, it is laughable.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

How about arguing what a valid concept of God is in comparison to a Demi-God?

How about arguing the usefulness of a total transcendent God?

How about arguing what concept of God you plea for ignorance and the internal consistency of such God? Why don't you clarify that for a minute?

When you point to an X and say we don't know if X does or does not exist without clarifying what X is supposed to mean how informative is your plea for ignorance?

These are some question that nobody has had yet the patience to confront you with, but I took five minutes to confront you, so what is it?

I can lend you a hand and state we know that a squared circle God does not exist!

2 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

How about arguing what a valid concept of God is in comparison to a Demi-God?

How about arguing the usefulness of a total transcendent God?

How about arguing what concept of God you plea for ignorance and the internal consistency of such God? Why don't you clarify that for a minute?

When you point to an X and say we don't know if X does or does not exist without clarifying what X is supposed to mean how informative is your plea for ignorance?

These are some question that nobody has had yet the patience to confront you with, but I took five minutes to confront you, so what is it?

I can lend you a hand and state we know that a squared circle God does not exist!

Stop patting yourself on the back, Al...you are liable to hurt yourself.

LOTS of people have asked me for my definition of "god" in these kinds of discussions...and I have given it dozens upon dozens of times.

For the purposes of my comment above...assume I mean: A being or entity responsible for the creation of what we humans call "the physical universe"...IF SUCH A BEING OR ENTITY DOES EXIST.

So...using that "definition" you seem to find so essential, I repeat:

If there are people here arguing that there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god...

...then they are essentially arguing from the same standpoint as those arguing that there is at least one god...or that it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are no gods.

All of those things are nothing but blind guess...and NOT the result of reason or logic or anything else. And some (most) of the so-called logic used is so defective, it is laughable.

1 Reply

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know