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

[Tetsugaku]

Please, dear Nouveau, you have not yet determined to concur or not with my latest request for concurrence...

Yes, this is because I am still waiting for you to indicate concurrence or otherwise with my two definitions. As soon as you do this we can then proceed to your latest request.

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.

As someone who is into honest, intelligent, and productive thinking, I am sure you will address this without any further stalling or evasion.

 

[yrger]

"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." - Nouveau


Please reword the line above to change everything abstract into concrete events, things, or persons, like Nouveau or Yrger and also dates and times, for example, your birthday or president election day in the US.

 

[Tetsugaku]

"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." - Nouveau

Please reword the line above to change everything abstract into concrete events, things, or persons, like Nouveau or Yrger and also dates and times, for example, your birthday or president election day in the US.

I can reword it to remove the formal notation, but I can't make it specific to concrete cases because then it would no longer be a general definition. I can give an example though, to illustrate the definition.

Definition: Something has a beginning if and only if there is some time at which that thing is so, and no time before that at which it was also so.

Example: I have a beginning because there was a specific time at which I (first) existed (my conception/first-state-of-awareness), and I didn't exist at any prior moment before that.

Do you concur with this definition?

 

[yrger]

I honestly did not follow any of that. I have no concept of some sentient tea-pot god that I already don't believe in that you could call a flying spaghetti monster.

You are acting small and cornered. Be brave instead. Here's the simple question again:

Is this "creator cause" you are ranting on about a sentient willful agent or not?

Simple yes or no will get this interchange off the ground. But right now, you are prattling on about some ambiguous concept of some "creator cause" thing (actually I don't even know if you think it is a thing), that you gave the arbitrary label of God. That just sounds like pantheism.

The issue is the existence or non-existence of God, I give my concept, so you can keep to that, or you can go on with your own, but I am not going to join you there.

Now, if you can't understand these words:
"God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning," that is just too bad - anyway you can leave this thread with the excuse that you can't understand the language of the author, one Yrger.

 

[yrger]

I can reword it to remove the formal notation, but I can't make it specific to concrete cases because then it would no longer be a general definition. I can give an example though, to illustrate the definition.

Definition: Something has a beginning if and only if there is some time at which that thing is so, and no time before that at which it was also so.

Example: I have a beginning because there was a specific time at which I (first) existed (my conception/first-state-of-awareness), and for which I did not exist at any prior moment before that.

Abstract concepts and words derive from the concrete life and world of mankind, so if you cannot change them for any of the concrete events, things, persons, etc. of mankind, then you are not into things which to my honest intelligent productive thinking has to do with the issue God exists or not.

Anyway, we have concurred on that there is existence and that there are things in existence which have a beginning, now what do you say, will you now decide to concur or not to concur with me on the fact that you and I we are entities with a beginning?

 

[Tetsugaku]

Abstract concepts and words derive from the concrete life and world of mankind, so if you cannot change them for any of the concrete events, things, persons, etc. of mankind, then you are not into things which to my honest intelligent productive thinking has to do with the issue God exists or not.

Anyway, we have concurred on that there is existence and that there are things in existence which have a beginning, now what do you say, will you now decide to concur or not to concur with me on the fact that you and I we are entities with a beginning?

Yrger, definitions are necessarily general. Specific concrete instances are examples, not definitions. Anyway, I gave you both - a general definition and a concrete example to illustrate it. Please indicate whether or not you concur with the definition I gave. Then address my ICR definition. And then we can return to your questions.

 

[yrger]

Hi Yrger.

What's your concept of a militant atheist?

I would define God as the supremely powerful, good, and knowledgeable personal creator of the universe.

But I have no major objections against your definition.

Do you have any good arguments/reasons for thinking God so-defined exists?

Dear Nouveau:

You say: "I would define God as the supremely powerful, good, and knowledgeable personal creator of the universe."

By way of curiosity, is that the God you are keen to prove to not be existing?

 

[Tetsugaku]

Dear Nouveau:

You say: "I would define God as the supremely powerful, good, and knowledgeable personal creator of the universe."

By way of curiosity, is that the God you are keen to prove to not be existing?

I don't mind. I'm happy to work with your definition of God.

Can you please return to addressing my definitions of "beginning" and "infinite causal regress"?

 

[yrger]

Dear everyone, but in particular militant atheists:

I am curious to learn how militant atheists explain ultimately their own existence as human beings, because our being human being is the closest thing to us.

So, we should be able to see into ourselves to find the explanation of our own existence.

When I notice that a poster is into sooner than later endless words, that will not be productive of any concurred on finding for himself and his adversary parties, then I will seek to at least return to previous points of concurrence.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Dear everyone, but in particular militant atheists:

I am curious to learn how militant atheists explain ultimately their own existence as human beings, because our being human being is the closest thing to us.

So, we should be able to see into ourselves to find the explanation of our own existence.

When I notice that a poster is into sooner than later endless words, that will not be productive of any concurred on finding for himself and his adversary parties, then I will seek to at least return to previous points of concurrence.

I don't think there are any militant atheists here.

As you say, we need to work towards concurrence, so can you please let me know whether you concur with my two definitions?

If you'd rather not get bogged down with the meanings of words, then you can return to my two previous questions:

1. Can you please explain why you think everything with a beginning must have been brought into existence?
2. And why you think an infinite causal regress can only exist in one's mind, and not in reality?

 

[yrger]

What exactly are you after, dear Nouveau?

But first, are you a militant atheist?

What about myself? I am into finding out how militant atheists think as to arrive at their position that in effect there is no God.

What about the existence of God? I am sure from my honest intelligent productive thinking that God exists in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

 

[5wize]

...

The issue is the existence or non-existence of God, I give my concept, so you can keep to that, or you can go on with your own, but I am not going to join you there.

Now, if you can't understand these words:
"God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning," that is just too bad - anyway you can leave this thread with the excuse that you can't understand the language of the author, one Yrger.

Listen yrger. You are profoundly mistaken if you think it is me that doesn't understand the landscape of the language in play here. You're not that tricky. A "creator cause" entails the language "creator" which I know you are specifically using to imply willful agency, because only willful agents make things. All other things not "created" by willful agents are just "formed".

Do you get it now? Do you see why the language is important? Nature "forms" things. Sentient things with a will and agency "create" things. Both "formed" things" and "created" things have a beginning, so your concept of everything has a beginning does not imply a "creator cause" (your God). Some things with a beginning have a "formed cause" which is NOT your concept of God unless you are a pantheist and you think nature is god and stuff is just "formed"

My good yrger, let's use some other important language to get to the core of this "creator cause" you speak of.... Is it natural or supernatural?

 

[Tetsugaku]

What exactly are you after, dear Nouveau?

I believe I've made that very clear: I would like you to indicate whether or not you concur with the two definitions I gave.

But first, are you a militant atheist?

I have already told you that I am not.

 

[yrger]

And you are into proving to me that there is no God, even in my concept of God?

Okay, I have given you my step to step proof of God, now let me see your step by step proof for the non-existence of God.

 

[yrger]

Nouveau said:
Hi Yrger.

What's your concept of a militant atheist?

I would define God as the supremely powerful, good, and knowledgeable personal creator of the universe.

But I have no major objections against your definition.

Do you have any good arguments/reasons for thinking God so-defined exists?

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.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

You will find few if any militant atheists.

My own concept of God, is an imaginary super-self that English speaking Christians create as their idealized self.
An extension of their character, and an expression of their fantasies.
Also a vehicle for revenge fantasy.

So how do you Chucksplain Darwin cursing GOD?
He was not a Christian.

 

[yrger]

Nouveau said:
Hi Yrger.

What's your concept of a militant atheist?

I would define God as the supremely powerful, good, and knowledgeable personal creator of the universe.

But I have no major objections against your definition.

Do you have any good arguments/reasons for thinking God so-defined exists?

Nouveau said:
Obviously all the work here is being done by (2). Can you explain why you think (2) is true?

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.

 

[yrger]

Okay, dear all my adversary posters here, please produce your step by step proof for the non-existence of God.

Here is my extensive step by step proof for the existence of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

#115, #117
--------------------------

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.

• Nouveau said:
  Obviously all the work here is being done by num 2. Can you explain why you think num 2 is true?

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.

 

[Tetsugaku]

And you are into proving to me that there is no God, even in my concept of God?

Not really, but I can if you want me to. Is that something you would like me to do? At the moment I am just focusing on your argument.

I believe you said: "We have to first concur on the concept of beginning and the concept of infinite regress..."
And you also said: "I submit that without continuous search for concurrences on our positions ... there can be no productive outcome to our issue."

So to that end, can you please indicate whether or not you concur with my definitions of these two terms:

BEGINNING
Definition: Something has a beginning if and only if there is some time at which that thing is so, and no time before that at which it was also so.
Example: I have a beginning because there was a specific time at which I (first) existed (my conception/first-state-of-awareness), and I didn't exist at any prior moment before that.

INFINITE CAUSAL REGRESS (ICR)
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.

Okay, I have given you my step to step proof of God, now let me see your step by step proof for the non-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 and everything with a beginning.

(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.

I've already raised objections to both (b) and (e). I think your argument fails at both points, because (i) the first entity in the chain might be something with a beginning but which did not cause itself; and (ii) the chain might have no beginning, as would be the case with an infinite causal regress (ICR). These considerations led to my below two questions, which you have yet to address:

1. Can you please explain why you think everything with a beginning must have been brought into existence?
2. And why you think an infinite causal regress can only exist in one's mind, and not in reality?

 

[Whatsisface]

What's the matter, cat got your tongue?

Right. Your assertion is just that, an assertion, and it doesn't address my point.