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

[yrger]

Dear posters here, thanks for your posts, of course I cannot be replying to you posts.

Just keep to honest intelligent productive thinking and writing.

When I notice that you are going into what I see to be not honest and not intelligent and not productive thinking and writing, I have to take the option to not reply to your post of concern.

 

[Nouveau]

It's like this:

(a) Entities with a beginning did not exist prior to their beginning.
(b) So logically an entity already existing brought them into existence.
(c) This antecedent entity could be (c1) a self-existing one or (c2) another with also a beginning.
(d) If it be (c2) and then another (c2) and then still another (2)...
(e) This regressing series will end up with (c1) the self-existing last antecedent entity.
(f) And thus we call (c1) God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

Point (b) assumes that everything with a beginning had to be brought into existence. Why assume that?

Point (e) assumes that the regressing series cannot be past-infinite. Why assume that?

 

[yrger]

To make it simple and easy and direct and quick, let everyone who holds that there was once absolutely nothing not even any kind of existence whatsoever, post your message to that effect, then explain how come you and I are now in existence.

From my part, I hold that there has always been existence, that is why we are now existing, and the explanation is because if there had not always been existence, then we would not be at all here discussing the topic of this thread:
"I want to talk with a militant atheist on God exists or not."

 

[Nouveau]

To make it simple and easy and direct and quick, let everyone who holds that there was once absolutely nothing not even any kind of existence whatsoever, post your message to that effect, then explain how come you and I are now in existence.

I don't think anyone believes that.

 

[yrger]

yrger said:
Here is my proof for the existence of God:

1. There are entities in existence that have a beginning.
2. The existence of entities with a beginning demands an entity without beginning to come into existence.
3. Therefore God exists, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe aned everyting with a beginning.

===================


1. I can agree with.
2. May, or may not be true. The Eiffel Tower had a beginning, but that does not make Gustave Eiffel eternal. A cause can be non-eternal as well as eternal.
3. Therefore the multiverse or any other concept of a causing entity existed at the time the material universe started. Properties like life, anger, love etc. are not required. Instead of an eternal being, we may perhaps have an eternal regress of non-eternal causes. You are omitting a great many possible options here.

I see that you are into infinite regress of causes, yes?

No need to go further in your mind with a caused b and b caused c and c caused d and d caused... we are already here, so there was a cause which is the one that started everything that has a beginning.

 

[5wize]

To make it simple and easy and direct and quick, let everyone who holds that there was once absolutely nothing not even any kind of existence whatsoever, post your message to that effect, then explain how come you and I are now in existence.

From my part, I hold that there has always been existence, that is why we are now existing, and the explanation is because if there had not always been existence, then we would not be at all here discussing the topic of this thread:
"I want to talk with a militant atheist on God exists or not."

You can't start from there. That's cheating, unproductive and dishonest. You have been challenged to produce either your evidence or your logical reasoning for believing that nothing existed at one time. If you can't do that, then the discussion suffers from an unproductive and dishonest premise by you.

 

[yrger]

yrger said:
To make it simple and easy and direct and quick, let everyone who holds that there was once absolutely nothing not even any kind of existence whatsoever, post your message to that effect, then explain how come you and I are now in existence.
=============

I don't think anyone believes that.

I am still in page 2, but I hope no one will posit that theme.

So, everyone knows that there are things in existence and with a beginning, and thus the ultimate explanation for these things with a beginning, it is the existence of an entity that is self-existing.

Now, I am returning to page 2.

 

[yrger]

[QUOTE="Whatsisface, post: 19918, member:
yrger said:
You mean man has a concept of God that is based on man's honest intelligent productive thinking, and that is not any creation at all of God in our own image.
============

No, I do not mean that. I have noticed that people believe in a God that reflects their own personality. For example, former Arch Bishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams who is a civilised, educated and caring man does not believe in a God that sends people to suffer in torment for eternity. Whereas, right wing fundamentalist Christians who are quite judgemental do.
[/QUOTE]


Haven't I already said that I accept the God of reason, and that hell is for folks with the God of (their) religion. So I will not exchange thoughts with folks who advocate the God of their religion.

In addition I am directing my attention to militant atheists, and most certainly they are not at all interested in talking about hell, usuallly they are talking about unicorn and spaghetti monster, which they don't believe in.

 

[yrger]

yrger said:
Just present your number 1 point, okay? Only one and sharp point, please.
====================

You want me to write it again?

Maybe you need a summary thought. You have no legitimate reason to believe there was ever nothing.

You mean I have no legitimate reason to believe there was ever nothing... You mean that I oppose there was once nothing-ness, but I have no legitimate reason to oppose the idea that there was once nothing-ness?

Please, dear 5wize, clarify.

I want to the contrary to tell everyone that it is my common sense contention that there was never ever nothing-ness, in other words, there has always been existence, that is why we are today existing - we will cease existing upon death, but existence will never ever go into non-existence.

 

[5wize]

You mean I have no legitimate reason to believe there was ever nothing... You mean that I oppose there was once nothing-ness, but I have no legitimate reason to oppose the idea that there was once nothing-ness?

Please, dear 5wize, clarify.

I want to the contrary to tell everyone that it is my common sense contention that there was never ever nothing-ness, in other words, there has always been existence, that is why we are today existing - we will cease existing upon death, but existence will never ever go into non-existence.

I'm totally misunderstanding you. Let me re-read and re-group.

 

[yrger]

yrger said:

It's like this:

(a) Entities with a beginning did not exist prior to their beginning.
(b) So logically an entity already existing brought them into existence.
(c) This antecedent entity could be (c1) a self-existing one or (c2) another with also a beginning.
(d) If it be (c2) and then another (c2) and then still another (2)...
(e) This regressing series will end up with (c1) the self-existing last antecedent entity.
(f) And thus we call (c1) God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.
================

Point (b) assumes that everything with a beginning had to be brought into existence. Why assume that?

Point (e) assumes that the regressing series cannot be past-infinite. Why assume that?

Point (b) is not an assumption but an implication from logical thinking.

With point (e) you want to propose it can go on and on with a caused b and b caused c and c caused d... that is all in your brain, when you die you will stop repeating the series.

But even before you came into existence there exists already a cause which is the last cause of the repeated in your brain of non-self-existing causes, and that cause is the start of everything with a beginning.

By a crude analogy, just because you can repeat inside your brain that a baker learned from an earlier baker and this one learned from still an earlier another baker and on and on and on, that does not at all affect the reality of a first baker who knows about baking without learning it from an earlier baker, and that is why we are now eating baked bread, instead of waiting on and on and on with still another baker to have learned from an earlier baker, all inside your sorry brain.

 

[Nouveau]

Point (b) is not an assumption but an implication from logical thinking.

By all means, please explain why you think anything with a beginning must have been brought into existence.

With point (e) you want to propose it can go on and on with a caused b and b caused c and c caused d... that is all in your brain, when you die you will stop repeating the series.

But even before you came into existence there exists already a cause which is the last cause of the repeated in your brain of non-self-existing causes, and that cause is the start of everything with a beginning.

By a crude analogy, just because you can repeat inside your brain that a baker learned from an earlier baker and this one learned from still an earlier another baker and on and on and on, that does not at all affect the reality of a first baker who knows about baking without learning it from an earlier baker, and that is why we are now eating baked bread, instead of waiting on and on and on with still another baker to have learned from an earlier baker, all inside your sorry brain.

Can you please explain why you think an infinite causal regress can only exist in one's brain and not in reality?

 

[yrger]

yrger said:
To make it simple and easy and direct and quick, let everyone who holds that there was once absolutely nothing not even any kind of existence whatsoever, post your message to that effect, then explain how come you and I are now in existence.

From my part, I hold that there has always been existence, that is why we are now existing, and the explanation is because if there had not always been existence, then we would not be at all here discussing the topic of this thread:
"I want to talk with a militant atheist on God exists or not."
=====================


You can't start from there. That's cheating, unproductive and dishonest. You have been challenged to produce either your evidence or your logical reasoning for believing that nothing existed at one time. If you can't do that, then the discussion suffers from an unproductive and dishonest premise by you.

That's where you are wrong, with alleging that I am into the "logical reasoning for believing that nothing existed at one time."

I never ever said that I believe from my logical reasoning that there was at one time that nothing-ness existed at some kind of nothing status.

That is totally contrary to my irrefutable position that "existence is the default status or reality."

Or "reality is the default status of existence."

 

[yrger]

yrger said:
Point (b) is not an assumption but an implication from logical thinking.

By all means, please explain why you think anything with a beginning must have been brought into existence.

yrger said:
With point (e) you want to propose it can go on and on with a caused b and b caused c and c caused d... that is all in your brain, when you die you will stop repeating the series.

But even before you came into existence there exists already a cause which is the last cause of the repeated in your brain of non-self-existing causes, and that cause is the start of everything with a beginning.

By a crude analogy, just because you can repeat inside your brain that a baker learned from an earlier baker and this one learned from still an earlier another baker and on and on and on, that does not at all affect the reality of a first baker who knows about baking without learning it from an earlier baker, and that is why we are now eating baked bread, instead of waiting on and on and on with still another baker to have learned from an earlier baker, all inside your sorry brain.

Can you please explain why you think an infinite causal regress can only exist in one's brain and not in reality?

(Pardon the formatting, if it does not turn out all right.)

We have to first concur on the concept of beginning and the concept of infinite regress, and the validity of the concurred on concepts of beginning as also for the validity of the concept of infinite regress.

But first, we have to assure ourselves that there are fictions a lot of in our brain, and just because you can verbalize fictions we must take them seriously as to spend volumes and volumes of words to them?

So, let me also at this point ask you whether you at all know the meaning of the word, beginning, and whether you believe that there is such a thing as an infinite regress, before I invest time and effort to work with you to concur on what is beginning and what is infinite regress.

Is that all right with you, namely, that you want to for us work as to concur on what is beginning, and what is infinite regress?

 

[Nouveau]

We have to first concur on the concept of beginning and the concept of infinite regress, and the validity of the concurred on concepts of beginning as also for the validity of the concept of infinite regress.

But first, we have to assure ourselves that there are fictions a lot of in our brain, and just because you can verbalize fictions we must take them seriously as to spend volumes and volumes of words to them?

So, let me also at this point ask you whether you at all know the meaning of the word, beginning, and whether you believe that there is such a thing as an infinite regress, before I invest time and effort to work with you to concur on what is beginning and what is infinite regress.

Is that all right with you, namely, that you want to for us work as to concur on what is beginning, and what is infinite regress?

I should think that be both know what a beginning is, and what an ICR (infinite causal regress) is, but okay.

There is a beginning to some object or condition p iff there is some time t where p holds, and no time prior to t where p holds.

An infinite causal regress is where every event is an effect caused by some prior cause, such that there is no beginning to the sequence.

Can you now explain why you think everything with a beginning must have been brought into existence?

And why you think an infinite causal regress can only exist in one's mind, and not in reality?

 

[yrger]

Dear Nouveau:

Thanks for your reply:

I should think that be both know what a beginning is, and what an ICR (infinite causal regress) is, but okay.

There is a beginning to some object or condition p iff there is some time t where p holds, and no time prior to t where p holds.

An infinite causal regress is where every event is an effect caused by some prior cause, such that there is no beginning to the sequence.

Can you now explain why you think everything with a beginning must have been brought into existence?

And why you think an infinite causal regress can only exist in one's mind, and not in reality?

Okay, here I go, and let us see whether we can get along to work on concurring on words and concepts and realities.

First, do you concur with me that there is existence?

 

[Nouveau]

Okay, here I go, and let us see whether we can get along to work on concurring on words and concepts and realities.

First, do you concur with me that there is existence?

Of course. But you said we had to "first concur on the concept of beginning and the concept of infinite regress".

I just gave you a definition for each concept. Can you please tell me whether you concur on those definitions before we continue?

 

[yrger]

yrger said:
Okay, here I go, and let us see whether we can get along to work on concurring on words and concepts and realities.

First, do you concur with me that there is existence?
============

Of course. But you said we had to "first concur on the concept of beginning and the concept of infinite regress".

I just gave you a definition for each concept. Can you please tell me whether you concur on those definitions before we continue?

You see, dear Nouveau, I decided that for the sake of not getting into a lot of words forever, we have to go to the very ultimate words, concepts, and realities.

That is why and I think the word, the concept, and the reality of existence demand our first before anything else, utmost attention.

And that is very reasonable, because the question here is whether God exists or not.

Can you propose a word, and concept, and reality that is more radically fundamental in the question God exists or not?

 

[Nouveau]

You see, dear Nouveau, I decided that for the sake of not getting into a lot of words forever, we have to go to the very ultimate words, concepts, and realities.

That is why and I think the word, the concept, and the reality of existence demand our first before anything else, utmost attention.

And that is very reasonable, because the question here is whether God exists or not.

Can you propose a word, and concept, and reality that is more radically fundamental in the question God exists or not?

I would like for you to address my definitions and answer my questions before we proceed any further.

Can you do that?

 

[yrger]

I have to take a recess, I will be back a bit later.