Controversial Delete this thread

[Etzel Andergast]

''Only one religion can be true'' is the same logic as '''only one language can be true''

Mormon can't be true

 

[Zenos7]

Doesn't make them more valid than others.

they arent more valid than others. but i see little point in talking about other religions barely anyone believes in.

and i kinda talk the most about islam despite thinking its the least valid one.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

But is the current conception

Recency bias

such as creation myths, what supernatural realms (bhavachakra holds more supernatural realms than abrahamic religions) there are, views about the universe,explanations of phenomena that people didnt understand when the religion was created (such as lightning or earthquakes), etc etc etc.

Mutually exclusive myths exist within the same cosmology eg different creation stories and different imaginations of the afterlife
[automerge]1724067707[/automerge]

but i see little point in talking about other religions barely anyone believes in.

There's no point in continuing this conversation then. 😂 so much willful ignorance

 

[Etzel Andergast]

Recency bias

More than 1 millenium is still recent?

 

[Zenos7]

Would you describe Catholicism and Orthodoxy as monotheistic? The presence of saint worship doesn't differ from polytheistic worship. The only difference is that the word god is not used for the saints but they effectively occupy the same roles as pre Christian gods. The same development can be observed in mire recently converted overseas Catholic communities.

yes i would, because "saint worship" doesnt really apply. catholics all the time tell other people that they dont worship the saints or mary in the same sense as they do with god. this is a problem of terminology, but they are monotheists.

christians as a whole, because of the trinity, arent considered as monotheists by most adherents of islam though.

 

[Okamakama]

This dude been cooking in this thread.

Bro is enlightened.

Peace to you, brother. I appreciate you.

 

[Zenos7]

Mutually exclusive myths exist within the same cosmology eg different creation stories and different imaginations of the afterlife

yes, that isnt a point against what im saying though, just shows that some religions are inherently contradictory.

There's no point in continuing this conversation then. 😂 so much willful ignorance

what willful ignorance?

me thinking its more relevant to talk about major religions because the sheer number of their adherents is not willful ignorance about other religions.

if other religions make positive claims about the world and beyond, they can be compared just the same. and i doubt you will find multiple religions where there arent conflicting claims about the world and beyond. so they are still mutually exclusive, unless you want to reduce religions to their rough and vague outlines.

then i agree, no point in this conversation
[automerge]1724069293[/automerge]

Mormon can't be true

why

 

[Logiko]

This was never a good argument

Well, looking at the number of pages added, I'd say it's quite a good question



So.. Who created god ?

 

[Zenos7]

So.. Who created god ?

still no one, god is uncreated and eternal

 

[Etzel Andergast]

Well, looking at the number of pages added, I'd say it's quite a good question



So.. Who created god ?

The others pages were about other topics, not this one. And its really not a good argument

 

[Zenos7]

The others pages were about other topics, not this one. And its really not a good argument

its more of a question than an argument, but it still exposes the special pleading for god

 

[Logiko]

eternal

And how can there be eternity rather than no eternity and nothing ?

 

[Zenos7]

And how can there be eternity rather than no eternity and nothing ?

i'd also like to know

 

[Etzel Andergast]

And how can there be eternity rather than no eternity and nothing ?

Absolute nothing is impossible. Because is the absolute ausence of any possibility. Nothing will never be a option to consider

 

[Logiko]

Absolute nothing is impossible. Because is the absolute ausence of any possibility

Can you repeat that with other words ? I missed the meaning of your second sentence.

 

[Zenos7]

Absolute nothing is impossible. Because is the absolute ausence of any possibility. Nothing will never be a option to consider

so the objection of theists to a godless universe would be obsolete then?

because they claim that without a god, everything had to come from nothing, which they posit is impossible.
[automerge]1724070583[/automerge]

Can you repeat that with other words ? I missed the meaning of your second sentence.

if there is an absolute nothing, there cant be any potential for anything. is what i got from that post

 

[Etzel Andergast]

Can you repeat that with other words ? I missed the meaning of your second sentence.

We need to conceive nothing as the absolute absense of being. The absense of being implies the non existence of any possibility. The absolute absense of possibilities imply logically to the concept of impossibility. Nothing has no possibility, then it's logically impossible.
[automerge]1724071441[/automerge]

if there is an absolute nothing, there cant be any potential for anything. is what i got from that post

Yeah thats the idea. But if there is not a single possibility then its simply impossible. So obviously something necessarily has to exist

 

[Logiko]

We need to conceive nothing as the absolute ausence of being. The ausence of being implies the non existence of any possibility. The absolute ausence of possibilities imply logically to the concept of impossibility. Nothing has no possibility, then it's logically impossible.

Do you mean "absence" when you write ausence ? Because I really don't understand the word lol

 

[Etzel Andergast]

Do you mean "absence" when you write ausence ? Because I really don't understand the word lol

Yes

 

[Haoshoku]

i just dont believe in shit that has no evidence supporting it

This is a self-defeating argument though when we take it to its zenith. What do you mean by evidence? And what constitutes that your standards for evidence are sound to begin with?