I want to talk with a militant atheist on God exists or not.

Algor

Well-known member
I guess it stinks to be you then.
It isn’t clear why you think your lack of discursive capacity disturbs my happiness.
The question i have for you is why are you so bothered by my statement to another person?
Why do you think I am “so bothered”? It is a simple internet discussion, Steve.
Just because you responded to comments made doesn't mean that you're paying attention.
True, but not necessarily germane. You aren’t very good at this....
 

5wize

Well-known member
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.
This is why Paul and John are doomed to be off-base from the moment they begin to think about it... it can have no referent.
 
Last edited:

5wize

Well-known member
NB my writing here is reminiscent of my writing elsewhere in the internet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear readers and posters here, take notice that the God-deniers here are into evading from the issue God exists or not.

In regard to Latin, I read Latin and can translate Latin texts to English.

So, let you and me, dear readers and posters here who are not God-deniers, again continue to take to my task of seeking concurrence with God-deniers in the resolution of the issue God exists or not.

Okay, dear God-deniers, do you concur with me that my definition or concept of God is the following:
"God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (21 words)

You see, dear readers and posters here, if God-deniers do not concur with me that the above is my concept of God, then they are not into the issue of God exists or not, but into something else - which we will with bated breath await to read about.

Exhibit
yrger - "God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (21 words)"

Yes I agree with your definition of God. It took you about 100 pages to get the message that the origin of everything cannot be a "being" and does not "create". Very well done yrger. Better late than never.
 
Last edited:

5wize

Well-known member
NB My writing here is reminiscent of my writing elsewhere in the internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Each atom by your definition is a god? And responsible for man? -Neutron

I never say that.


Now I just realized that there is no need to get fellow humans to concur together on that there exists God - Who is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Because for myself I am certain that God exists, as defined above, and He is not just in my mind, but in the object world outside and independent of my mind, and still I can say He is as He is everywhere and present all the time, then it is also correct to say that He is in my mind - of course Neutron will again twist my words in order to ask me whether I am of the conviction that my mind is also God.

No, my mind is not God, but it is made by God, and it can and will cease to exist when He stops i.e. extinguish me.

Addendum

Yes, I know that some guys here really hate my guts.

And yes, I still enjoy talking about my expedition and investigation of God, by examining existence.
yrger - "there exists God - Who is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.", also - "and He is not just in my mind", and finally - " but it is made by God"

ooops... you're back-tracking now. You referred to God as a "Who" and not a "What", and a "He" and not an "It", from which things are "made" as opposed to "caused". Remove the references to human referent and agency and you'll be back on track. I totally agreed with this definition you gave:

"God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (21 words)

No anthropomorphic references in there. It's the best definition of God I've heard.
 
Last edited:

SteveB

Well-known member
It isn’t clear why you think your lack of discursive capacity disturbs my happiness.

Why do you think I am “so bothered”? It is a simple internet discussion, Steve.
And yet my "simple internet discussion" disturbs your happiness. Why is that?
True, but not necessarily germane. You aren’t very good at this....
Not very good on your terms. But, since, as you say, it's just a simple internet discussion, what makes you think your terms are germane?
Remember--- you're the one who insinuated yourself into a part of the discussion which had nothing to do with you. So, as that is the case, it's quite clear to me that what you think is germane is immaterial, and your terms are immaterial. Therefore, it strikes me that it's you who really suck at "simple internet discussions."
 

Algor

Well-known member
And yet my "simple internet discussion" disturbs your happiness. Why is that?
Because it doesn't.
Not very good on your terms. But, since, as you say, it's just a simple internet discussion, what makes you think your terms are germane?

Remember--- you're the one who insinuated yourself into a part of the discussion which had nothing to do with you. So, as that is the case, it's quite clear to me that what you think is germane is immaterial, and your terms are immaterial. Therefore, it strikes me that it's you who really suck at "simple internet discussions."

Steve, if you make an observation that is trivially true (i.e."Just because you are reading doesn't mean you are paying attention") then the observation is not necessarily relevant and informative to the topic being addressed. In your observation you contrasted two terms (in this case the gerunds "reading" and "paying attention") that denote different things, and said that they are not the same, when it is already commonly understood that the two verbs are not synonymous. So what you are saying is a trivial truth. Now, that truth might be relevant and informative, but it might not be. So it may be germane, but it is not necessarily germane. In order to demonstrate that it is relevant and informative you have to supply an example that shows that the person was reading and was not paying attention. That's what 'necessarily germane" means, which is why I used that phrase.

There are scads of similarly true, but not necessarily relevant or informative observations that one can make about any exchange: "Just because you are talking doesn't mean you are making sense" , "Just because you are using a word doesn't mean you are using it correctly" "Just because you are typing doesn't mean you can fly to the moon" etc etc etc. In order to be necessarily germane, a trivially true observation needs to be more specific and useful. For example "Just because you are reading doesn't mean you are paying attention: here is an example of what you missed" would be germane, or ""Just because you are typing doesn't mean you can fly to the moon: you said that typing alone enabled moon flight here (quotation) and it does not."

It doesn't have to do with what my particular terms are: its just the structure of normal discussion. So when you make an observation that is trivially true, in order for it to be necessarily relevant and informative, one needs to supply evidence that it is.

If you need help following this, just say so. I assure you, it does not cause me unhappiness. I had a very good English teacher in Grade 8 and I am always happy to pass her guidance on to those who need it.
 
Last edited:

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Because it doesn't.


Steve, if you make an observation that is trivially true (i.e."Just because you are reading doesn't mean you are paying attention") then the observation is not necessarily relevant and informative to the topic being addressed. In your observation you contrasted two terms (in this case the gerunds "reading" and "paying attention") that denote different things, and said that they are not the same, when it is already commonly understood that the two verbs are not synonymous. So what you are saying is a trivial truth. Now, that truth might be relevant and informative, but it might not be. So it may be germane, but it is not necessarily germane. In order to demonstrate that it is relevant and informative you have to supply an example that shows that the person was reading and was not paying attention. That's what 'necessarily germane" means, which is why I used that phrase.

There are scads of similarly true, but not necessarily relevant or informative observations that one can make about any exchange: "Just because you are talking doesn't mean you are making sense" , "Just because you are using a word doesn't mean you are using it correctly" "Just because you are typing doesn't mean you can fly to the moon" etc etc etc. In order to be necessarily germane, a trivially true observation needs to be more specific and useful. For example "Just because you are reading doesn't mean you are paying attention: here is an example of what you missed" would be germane, or ""Just because you are typing doesn't mean you can fly to the moon: you said that typing alone enabled moon flight here (quotation) and it does not."

It doesn't have to do with what my particular terms are: its just the structure of normal discussion. So when you make an observation that is trivially true, in order for it to be necessarily relevant and informative, one needs to supply evidence that it is.

If you need help following this, just say so. I assure you, it does not cause me unhappiness. I had a very good English teacher in Grade 8 and I am always happy to pass her guidance on to those who need it.
Good post, but good luck.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Because it doesn't.


Steve, if you make an observation that is trivially true (i.e."Just because you are reading doesn't mean you are paying attention") then the observation is not necessarily relevant and informative to the topic being addressed. In your observation you contrasted two terms (in this case the gerunds "reading" and "paying attention") that denote different things, and said that they are not the same, when it is already commonly understood that the two verbs are not synonymous. So what you are saying is a trivial truth. Now, that truth might be relevant and informative, but it might not be. So it may be germane, but it is not necessarily germane. In order to demonstrate that it is relevant and informative you have to supply an example that shows that the person was reading and was not paying attention. That's what 'necessarily germane" means, which is why I used that phrase.

There are scads of similarly true, but not necessarily relevant or informative observations that one can make about any exchange: "Just because you are talking doesn't mean you are making sense" , "Just because you are using a word doesn't mean you are using it correctly" "Just because you are typing doesn't mean you can fly to the moon" etc etc etc. In order to be necessarily germane, a trivially true observation needs to be more specific and useful. For example "Just because you are reading doesn't mean you are paying attention: here is an example of what you missed" would be germane, or ""Just because you are typing doesn't mean you can fly to the moon: you said that typing alone enabled moon flight here (quotation) and it does not."

It doesn't have to do with what my particular terms are: its just the structure of normal discussion. So when you make an observation that is trivially true, in order for it to be necessarily relevant and informative, one needs to supply evidence that it is.

If you need help following this, just say so. I assure you, it does not cause me unhappiness. I had a very good English teacher in Grade 8 and I am always happy to pass her guidance on to those who need it.
8th grade english teacher.
Ok. You should keep her in your back pocket.
I have a college english professor who said he liked the way I wrote, because it was sufficiently detailed to help understand my points.
And ironically, I got A's in both my college level english courses. So, you go right ahead and hold on to your 8th english teacher.

You still haven't provided anything that's germane to this discussion.
 

Algor

Well-known member
8th grade english teacher.
Ok. You should keep her in your back pocket.
She's dead, dude. Her word is eternal, though.

I have a college english professor who said he liked the way I wrote, because it was sufficiently detailed to help understand my points.
And ironically, I got A's in both my college level english courses. So, you go right ahead and hold on to your 8th english teacher.
An A in TWO college English courses? And one of your profs liked the way you wrote? My goodness, a veritable prodigy! I am now deeply impressed. I guess this means that if you assert things without a shred of evidence and then fail to provide evidence or examples when asked, we can always just call up your old college prof if we have questions. You wouldn't happen to have his email address or anything, would you?

You still haven't provided anything that's germane to this discussion.

And yet you keep engaging. If nothing I say is germane, why do you keep treating it as though it is?
 

SteveB

Well-known member
She's dead, dude. Her word is eternal, though.
Ah. Well, we all do go the way of all the earth....

Well, my college professors trump 8th grade English teachers, so I'm good.
An A in TWO college English courses? And one of your profs liked the way you wrote? My goodness, a veritable prodigy! I am now deeply impressed.
Actually, I figured it just makes you the jerk.

I guess this means that if you assert things without a shred of evidence and then fail to provide evidence or examples when asked, we can always just call up your old college prof if we have questions. You wouldn't happen to have his email address or anything, would you?
Actually, that part we learned in physics, math, computer programming.
We further learned that it's not the professor's job to prove what he teaches. It's our job as their students to prove it, by following the instructions provided to us.
It's a pity you never learned that part.

And yet you keep engaging. If nothing I say is germane, why do you keep treating it as though it is?
I'm not the one who keeps claiming he doesn't have to prove what he doesn't want to know.
 

Algor

Well-known member
Ah. Well, we all do go the way of all the earth....

Well, my college professors trump 8th grade English teachers, so I'm good.

Why, is your college teacher in conflict with the Gospel of Mrs Cameron?
Actually, I figured it just makes you the jerk.
Your lamentable tendency for abuse is noted, but how do your very impressive college grades in English make me a jerk?
Actually, that part we learned in physics, math, computer programming.
Well, you can do it in English too! And in fact you DO do it in English!
If you asserted things without a shred of evidence in college physics, math, and computer programming and failed to present it when asked, I suppose that is consistent with your current behavior. Perhaps you meant something else, though.
We further learned that it's not the professor's job to prove what he teaches. It's our job as their students to prove it, by following the instructions provided to us.
I suppose that's one style. Doesn't work for every field, and every lecture, in my experience, but fine with me.

It's a pity you never learned that part.
How would you know?
I'm not the one who keeps claiming he doesn't have to prove what he doesn't want to know.
You aren't many things, but you are also many other things. It isn't clear how any of these observations add information.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Why, is your college teacher in conflict with the Gospel of Mrs Cameron?
I never said he was--- you however just did.
I simply stated that because he taught college English, I trust his opinion more.
Your lamentable tendency for abuse is noted, but how do your very impressive college grades in English make me a jerk?
I'm not the one who's spent several posts demanding that I justify what you say is my claim that I'm a jerk, but can't actually provide a source point from which it originates.

Well, you can do it in English too! And in fact you DO do it in English!
Yep. I am indeed reading posts which have been written using the English language.
And I am indeed typing my posts in the English language, using English words, some with, some without properly organized grammar, punctuation, etc...


If you asserted things without a shred of evidence in college physics, math, and computer programming and failed to present it when asked, I suppose that is consistent with your current behavior. Perhaps you meant something else, though.
You again demonstrate a lack of reading comprehension.
Why do you do this to yourself? Is this something designed to trap others, while only embarrassing yourself?
The students had to prove the professor's claims, following the instructions/procedures/practices/methods taught in the classes.
The professor taught, from a textbook, or more texts, and we had to follow along, and then proof what they taught, by doing what they said.

So..... come on Al. Follow along here.


I suppose that's one style. Doesn't work for every field, and every lecture, in my experience, but fine with me.
Well, I wouldn't want to use what I use in physics, math, programming, chemistry, engineering, and a number of other courses in a poetry, language, or other courses which are non-scientific in nature. Even Biology has a different form for learning.

How would you know?
Well, you can't even follow along with a "simple internet discussion."

You aren't many things, but you are also many other things. It isn't clear how any of these observations add information.
And.....?
I'm fine with not being a lot of things. I am however a human being. I am a human being who has come to the realization that I am in need of a savior. I am a human being who realizes that just because you're educated, doesn't make you wise.
I am also a human being who decided that I want to be both smart and wise, so I can learn the truth regarding the Savior whom God has provided.
 

Algor

Well-known member
I never said he was--- you however just did.

You said that your College prof "trumped" Mrs Cameron. That sounds like you MIGHT be saying they are in conflict, hence the question.
Questions are often used to gather information and clarify ambiguities, and that's how I just used one. If you are ever in doubt as to whether or not you have been asked a question, questions are often followed by a question mark ("?") at the end of the sentence. Look for the question mark and that may give you a hint.

Anyway, it wasn't clear what you meant by your college professor trumping the Sainted Mrs Cameron. "Trumping" usually means that you have two sources of opinion which disagree or conflict, and one is given a higher value than the other. Asking the question doesn't mean I had concluded one way or the other: a question is used to gather information so that I can FORM a conclusion.

I simply stated that because he taught college English, I trust his opinion more.
That's fine with me, but what do you think Mrs Cameron's opinion was?
I'm not the one who's spent several posts demanding that I justify what you say is my claim that I'm a jerk
I've never asked you to justify it, that I recall. You call yourself a jerk, I'll believe you at least for the purposes of discussion. I did ask whether or not following Jesus was part of you calling yourself a jerk, but then you went and said that maybe you weren't really a jerk, which I'll also take at face value, but that implies that one of the two things you said about yourself was a falsehood, which raises other questions. I don't recall doubting that you were a jerk very much, because the opinion in specific wasn't so much interesting as what that opinion means to you.

, but can't actually provide a source point from which it originates.
Nope. I already did that. Twice.
Yep. I am indeed reading posts which have been written using the English language.
And I am indeed typing my posts in the English language, using English words, some with, some without properly organized grammar, punctuation, etc...
yes
You again demonstrate a lack of reading comprehension.
Well, of your writing sometimes, yes.
Why do you do this to yourself? Is this something designed to trap others, while only embarrassing yourself?
No, it is because (pace worthy college English professors) you sometimes don't write very clearly. I can provide you with examples if you like. No big deal.
The students had to prove the professor's claims, following the instructions/procedures/practices/methods taught in the classes.
The professor taught, from a textbook, or more texts, and we had to follow along, and then proof what they taught, by doing what they said.
Sounds like school!
So..... come on Al. Follow along here.
With ya 100% here. Getting kind of bored though.
Well, I wouldn't want to use what I use in physics, math, programming, chemistry, engineering, and a number of other courses in a poetry, language, or other courses which are non-scientific in nature. Even Biology has a different form for learning.
We agree! Still pretty boring.
Well, you can't even follow along with a "simple internet discussion."
Alas. even more boring...
And.....?
I'm fine with not being a lot of things. I am however a human being. I am a human being who has come to the realization that I am in need of a savior. I am a human being who realizes that just because you're educated, doesn't make you wise.
I'm glad you wrote that last sentence, because there is no way your college professor was as wise as my 8th grade teacher. That aside, we are rapidly headed off to the land of Nod.....

I am also a human being who decided that I want to be both smart and wise, so I can learn the truth regarding the Savior whom God has provided.
Ah! I am happy for you. What does this have to do with you not being the one who keeps claiming he doesn't have to prove what he doesn't want to know?
 

yrger

Member
My writing here is reminiscent of my writing elsewhere in the internet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Preliminaries
Okay, dear readers and posters here, we must first start with working together to concur on definitions of God, evidence, and also an exposition on how evidence can prove God exists or does not exist.

Here, I will start first.

My concept of God:
"God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (21 words)

My concept of evidence:
"Evidence is anything in existence leading man to know another thing in existence, owing to their connection, for example, the nose is evidence to lungs." (25 words)

And here is my exposition on evidence that God exists:
"We are transient beings, i.e. we have a beginning and an ending, and therefore that is the evidence for God's existence in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (42 words)


My investigation of existence leads me to the following irrefutable statements:

  1. Existence is ultimately composed of permanent uncaused existence and transient existence.
  2. Transient existence is caused to come into reality by permanent uncaused existence.
  3. In the object world outside and independent of the concept world in man’s mind, my investigation of existence yields irrefutable evidence to the existence of God, the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
In the object world outside and independent of the concept world in man’s mind, my investigation of existence yields irrefutable evidence to the existence of God, the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.
Are you sure about that? Maybe you should first concur with me on the meaning of evidence.
 

yrger

Member
My writing here is reminiscent of my writing elsewhere in the internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I just drop in to tell atheists or God-deniers that their use of Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy is a case of Russell's deficiency in honest intelligent thinking, as the man was also not honest in his sex morality.

In unpublished manuscript, 'Is There a God', (5 Mar 1952) written for the magazine, Illustrated. Collected in Bertrand Russell, John G. Slater (ed.) and Peter Köllner (ed.) The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell: Volume II: Last Philosophical Testament: 1943-68 (1997), 547-548.

Vide, http://personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/isThereGod.htm
Full text of the unpublished article.

::


Is There a God?
by Bertrand Russell
(commissioned by, but never published in, Illustrated Magazine, in 1952)


[ . . . ]


Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

[ . . . ]

Practically all the beliefs of savages are absurd. In early civilizations there may be as much as one percent for which there is something to be said. In our own day.... But at this point I must be careful. We all know that there are absurd beliefs in Soviet Russia. If we are Protestants, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Catholics. If we are Catholics, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Protestants.

::

In unpublished manuscript, 'Is There a God', (5 Mar 1952) written for the magazine, Illustrated. Collected in Bertrand Russell, John G. Slater (ed.) and Peter Köllner (ed.) The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell: Volume II: Last Philosophical Testament: 1943-68 (1997), 547-548.

Vide, http://personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/isThereGod.htm
Full text of the unpublished article.


Atheists or God-deniers wax ecstatic insisting that Russell was not dishonest, but was just informing folks that with absurd ideas the burden of proof is on their claimants, not on parties denying them.

This is what I keep on and on and on asking atheists and God-deniers, when are you ever going to tell us why the idea of God is absurd?

Here is my concept of God:
"God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending."

Of course you can deny the existence of teapot in space or flying spaghetti monster, etc.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Atheists or God-deniers wax ecstatic insisting that Russell was not dishonest, but was just informing folks that with absurd ideas the burden of proof is on their claimants, not on parties denying them.
The principle does not apply only to absurd ideas.
 

yrger

Member
My writing here is reminiscent of my writing elsewhere in the internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I read these three texts where Bertrand Russell talks about no God exists:
Why I Am Not a Christian (1927)
By Bertrand Russell

Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell:
The Famous 1948 BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God

Is There a God?
by Bertrand Russell
(commissioned by, but never published in, Illustrated Magazine, in 1952)


Do you remember, guys here, that I keep expounding on the distinction between the object world and the concept world?


My impression with Russell's thinking on no God exists, is that he is all the time inside the concept world of his brain/mind, never coming out into the object world that is outside and independent of his brain/mind.

Thus all he does is to engage in all manners and kinds of semantic trickery, never ever setting forth his concept of God, except to talk about teapot in space, from which his fans today take up with flying spaghetti monster, etc.

From my part, I have the concept of God in my mind, and I go forth into the world outside my mind to investigate existence and God, in the object world that is outside and independent of my mind, investigate, and mind you, that is what I do, instead of manipulating concepts and words as Russell does, and fool simple folks with the message that there is no God because God is like the teapot in space.

And that is what atheists and God-deniers do all the time, in essence evading the issue God exists or not, by semantic trickery of all manners and kinds inside their brain/mind.

But they eschew altogether from getting out into the object world outside and independent of their brain/mind, to investigate the evidence of God's presence in the object world, starting with investigating existence itself.

Exhibit
Re: God, from concept to existence, an experiment in critical...
Post by yrreg » Mon May 17, 2021 6:39 pm

[ . . . ]

Here are my definitions of God and evidence and my exposition of proof from evidence that God exists.


My concept of God:
"God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (21 words)

My concept of evidence:
"Evidence is anything in existence leading man to know another thing in existence, owing to their connection, for example, the nose is evidence to lungs." (25 words)

And here is my exposition on evidence that God exists:
"We are transient beings, i.e. we have a beginning and an ending, therefore that is the evidence for God's existence in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (42 words)

[ . . . ]
 
Top