The basic logical truths being evidence of an all knowing being
 

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

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.

Thread is 3/10

So Goedel’s incompleteness theorems?

Let's not do this.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Have you seen evidence that God does not exist?

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

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

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

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

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?

No

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

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.

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

Déjà vu

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?

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

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?

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

Every. fucking. thread.

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.

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

so yall are doing this again eh?

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

Fascinating.

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

No, dude, not once

Veritas, can you answer my original question?

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?

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?