I want to talk with a militant atheist on God exists or not.
- Thread starter yrger
- Start date
Faithoverbelief
Well-known member
Welcome to Hinduism?
I say that this is pantheism, and it is incompatible with your other claim that God is the cause of man, the universe, and all transient things. The whole cannot be the cause of its own constituent parts.
Faithoverbelief
Well-known member
God or tao, I'm not sure a name or title is important but there seems to be a way to the all of existence.
I use a thought experiment. Maybe you could play along?
Think of an infinite circle. What do you see?
You know what, you and I should just work together to concur on things.
You and I we concur that we exist.
We are transient beings, i.e. we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death, we also concur on that.
About me thinking of an infinite circle, yes, I concur with you that we can think of an infinite circle in our mind.
This thread from yours truly is about the issue God exists or not.
As we proceed from concurrence to concurrence, we will come to the concurred on finding for us both: that God exists, or God does not exist.
Faithoverbelief
Well-known member
What do you see when you think of an infinite circle?
I will tell the correct answer. Nothing.
Our finite minds cannot see infinite. God or tao or a source would have to be infinite ot it would not be that IMO.
Nothing doesn't exist so it can't be seen. However, here's another question which you probably already know: Where is the center of an infinite circle? Ans: Everywhere.
Faithoverbelief
Well-known member
This is why I personally value faith over belief and why it makes no sense to me to try to prove God tao the source to anyone.
Yes everywhere is correct.
I think exercising one's faith requires that one follow wherever the spirit leads them, and when referring to the source of existence, it necessarily follows that the origin or source of existence cannot logically exist without creating an infinite regression. It is logically inconsistent and incoherent to assume the existence of the origin of existence
Therefore, no proofs are necessary.
Likewise, when we look at the fact of existence, it should be obvious that this is a self evident fact. Moreover, existence can have no beginning or end. The beginning and end of everything is existence, but existence cannot begin or end without contradiction; e.g. existence doesn't exist, or nothing exists, etc.
Existence is the medium by which everything comes into, and ceases to exist. There can be nothing more immediate. Paul refers to this as the mediator. John refers to it as the word.
I am the author of this thread on:
“I want to talk with a militant atheist on God exists or not.”
Let us all work as to concur on things needed to resolve the issue God exists or not.
No need to seek my credentials, just see if you everyone writing here, can we all concur on matters that will resolve the issue God exists or not.
First item for us all to concur on is the name God, what does it stand for?
Now, if you anyone seek to convince everyone else that the name God is as funny as the name, orbiting teapot in space (Bertrand Russell) or flying spaghetti monster (Russell's fans), then I would suggest that you go and start your own thread, instead of writing here.
I have thought about the meaning of the name, God, and today my concept of God is as follows:
“God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (22 words)
You notice that in my concept of God, He did and is still doing it, namely, everything that scientists are trying to explain, and also more than scientists are trying to explain, namely, things that scientists don't care to explain at all like the question where does a dead person go upon death.
So, please, as the name God is already very well-known and I for one maintain that my concept of God is generally the common one that English literate people understand to be God, let us concur at least on the name, even though you everyone might want to add to or detract from what God has done and is still doing.
There, what do you say, guys writing here, do we concur on the use of the name God, in re the resolution of the issue, God exists or not?
Someone thinking himself very smart will right away inform everyone that with the concept of God, there is already the circular reasoning on the existence of God.
I tell you, please concur with me, that we will go forth into the universe that is studied by scientists, to seek for evidence that points to the existence of God, starting with the nose on our face, which nose is an example of something that has existence.
So, there is no circular reasoning here.
My concept of God has to do with what I call God from reason, now others here want to talk about their God from religion: well, that is all right with me, except that your God from religion is not worth any attention from mankind unless He has achieved everything that scientists are studying and even more, like continuing the existence of dead people who are supposed to have souls as per the common teaching of people with their God from religion.
Now, dear readers and fellow posters here, see how and what reactions we will read from posters here who have been active in this thread.
--------------------------------------
My writing here is reminiscent of my writing elsewhere in the internet.
“I want to talk with a militant atheist on God exists or not.”
Let us all work as to concur on things needed to resolve the issue God exists or not.
No need to seek my credentials, just see if you everyone writing here, can we all concur on matters that will resolve the issue God exists or not.
First item for us all to concur on is the name God, what does it stand for?
Now, if you anyone seek to convince everyone else that the name God is as funny as the name, orbiting teapot in space (Bertrand Russell) or flying spaghetti monster (Russell's fans), then I would suggest that you go and start your own thread, instead of writing here.
I have thought about the meaning of the name, God, and today my concept of God is as follows:
“God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (22 words)
You notice that in my concept of God, He did and is still doing it, namely, everything that scientists are trying to explain, and also more than scientists are trying to explain, namely, things that scientists don't care to explain at all like the question where does a dead person go upon death.
So, please, as the name God is already very well-known and I for one maintain that my concept of God is generally the common one that English literate people understand to be God, let us concur at least on the name, even though you everyone might want to add to or detract from what God has done and is still doing.
There, what do you say, guys writing here, do we concur on the use of the name God, in re the resolution of the issue, God exists or not?
Someone thinking himself very smart will right away inform everyone that with the concept of God, there is already the circular reasoning on the existence of God.
I tell you, please concur with me, that we will go forth into the universe that is studied by scientists, to seek for evidence that points to the existence of God, starting with the nose on our face, which nose is an example of something that has existence.
So, there is no circular reasoning here.
My concept of God has to do with what I call God from reason, now others here want to talk about their God from religion: well, that is all right with me, except that your God from religion is not worth any attention from mankind unless He has achieved everything that scientists are studying and even more, like continuing the existence of dead people who are supposed to have souls as per the common teaching of people with their God from religion.
Now, dear readers and fellow posters here, see how and what reactions we will read from posters here who have been active in this thread.
--------------------------------------
My writing here is reminiscent of my writing elsewhere in the internet.
Algor
Well-known member
....Still boring irrelevant and disingenuous......
Addendeum
98 99 100
Replies 2K Views 21K
2 minutes ago
yrger
- Thread watched
98 99 100
Replies 2K Views 21K
2 minutes ago
yrger
SteveB
Well-known member
It could be that you're the one who keeps ignoring everything that is said to you.
But it's not, as you can see by reading the thread.
Yrger has been ignoring responses for a hundred pages now. It's kind of what he does.
SteveB
Well-known member
Just because you responded to comments made doesn't mean that you're paying attention.
If you have a specific example to bring up then do so.
Otherwise read the thread for yourself and see how Yrger has been persistently ignoring everything said to him for 100 pages now.
SteveB
Well-known member
I stopped reading weeks ago because you and several others just kept giving excuses and I grew weary of it.
For all your supposed intellectual honesty, I've never seen a people who don't want to know by any other way than their own ways, and work assiduously to dismiss, disregard, discredit, discount, and reject all the ways that YHVH says he'd make himself knowable to us.
So, stop. You really are just embarrassing yourself.