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

[yrger]

[ . . . . ]

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.

[ . . . ]

Dear Nouveau:

(a) What about for definition of beginning, you give this example of beginning, the event when baby Nouveau was conceived in the womb of his mama, that is the beginning of his existence.

(b) And for infinite causal regress, what about you give the example of baby Nouveau was conceived by his mama plus of course his papa, and baby Nouveau's mama was previously conceived by her mama, and this mama was previously conceived by her mama, and this mama was also conceived by her mama, and on and on and on...

Now, you propose that I accept your (a) and (b) as respectively the meanings of beginning and of infinite causal regress?


By the way, have you put together your step by step proof of there being no God existing, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

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

(See next post from me.)

 

[yrger]

Here is my step by step proof for the existence of God:

Yrger wrote Today at 10:56 AM #118
--------------------------------------

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.

 

[Nouveau]

Dear Nouveau:

(a) What about for definition of beginning, you give this example of beginning, the event when baby Nouveau was conceived in the womb of his mama, that is the beginning of his existence.

(b) And for infinite causal regress, what about you give the example of baby Nouveau was conceived by his mama plus of course his papa, and baby Nouveau's mama was previously conceived by her mama, and this mama was previously conceived by her mama, and this mama was also conceived by her mama, and on and on and on...

Now, you propose that I accept your (a) and (b) as respectively the meanings of beginning and of infinite causal regress?


By the way, have you put together your step by step proof of there being no God existing, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

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

(See next post from me.)

Good grief. Do you concur with my two definitions or not?

 

[Nouveau]

Here is my step by step proof for the existence of God:

Already addressed. Please see here:

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?

 

[yrger]

Dear Nouveau, I am asking you whether you having been conceived by your mother is an example of the meaning of the beginning of your existence, or you are denying that your conception by your mama is an example of the meaning of beginning?

And also that your mama was conceived by her mama, and her mama by also her mama, and on and on and on, are you denying that is an example of the idea of infinite causal regress?

In regard to your step by step proof against the existence of God, I don't see any step by step exposition at all.

 

[Nouveau]

Dear Nouveau, I am asking you whether you having been conceived by your mother is an example of the meaning of the beginning of your existence, or you are denying that your conception by your mama is an example of the meaning of beginning?

And also that your mama was conceived by her mama, and her mama by also her mama, and on and on and on, are you denying that is an example of the idea of infinite causal regress?

I'm not interested in trading examples. I want to know whether or not you accept my definitions. Why won't you answer? A simple yes or no will do.

In regard to your step by step proof against the existence of God, I don't see any step by step exposition at all.

I didn't agree to give you one yet. You didn't even answer me when I asked if you wanted me to give you an argument against God. And you're still ignoring my questions regarding your own proof. Why is that? Are you no longer into honest intelligent productive thinking?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Please, dear Nouveau, you have not yet determined to concur or not with my latest request for concurrence, see text within " " in my post reproduced below.




So, do you or don't you concur with me that you and I we have a beginning to our existence?




.....................
Off topic
If this post does not come out as I expect it to come out according to my formatting specs, I will call it back and edit it.

Yrger. Nobody is saying that people do not have a beginning to our existence. It is called CONCEPTION. And it is when our mothers have sex with our fathers, and get results.
The problem is that everything that has a beginning, has its OWN beginning. Unique to itself.
The chicken rolls I have in the oven, have a beginning very separate and distinct from the beginning of the Inca state, or the Himalayas.
None of them involve God, or Elf, or Unicorn.

 

[Mr Laurier]

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

How can anyone "Chucksplain" anything?

 

[Mr Laurier]

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 Ok.
2. Why?
You need to explain this. Also, internal self contradiction.
3. Does not follow.
I can just as easily say that therefore Hobgoblin exists, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe etc etc....
You can insert any random word, and your final conclusion is just as valid. God, Elf, Unicorn, Hobgoblin, Dragon, Space Alien... All equally useful and relevant.

So you have ONE point, out of three. You are at 33.3%

 

[Nouveau]

Yrger. Nobody is saying that people do not have a beginning to our existence. It is called CONCEPTION. And it is when our mothers have sex with our fathers, and get results.
The problem is that everything that has a beginning, has its OWN beginning. Unique to itself.
The chicken rolls I have in the oven, have a beginning very separate and distinct from the beginning of the Inca state, or the Himalayas.
None of them involve God, or Elf, or Unicorn.

I think the idea Yrger is going for is that while different things may have differing proximate causes, they all have the same ultimate distal cause in God.

 

[Nouveau]

2. The existence of entities with a beginning demands an entity without beginning to come into existence.

Also, internal self contradiction.

I thought that too, but I suspect the more charitable reading is something like this:

2. The existence of entities with a beginning requires some entity without a beginning in order for them to be brought into existence.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I think the idea Yrger is going for is that while different things may have differing proximate causes, they all have the same ultimate distal cause in God.

Ah.
And he has evidence for this God thing being an actual thing?

 

[Nouveau]

Ah. And he has evidence for this God thing being an actual thing?

No, but he has an argument, which puts him ahead of many here, even if he isn't exactly doing the best job of defending it. Yrger may not recall, but the two of us have actually been through all of this before years ago on a previous iteration of CARM. Nothing seems to have changed.

 

[Temujin]

No, but he has an argument, which puts him ahead of many here, even if he isn't exactly doing the best job of defending it. Yrger may not recall, but the two of us have actually been through all of this before years ago on a previous iteration of CARM. Nothing seems to have changed.

I remember that exchange. I think that your patience then and now has been exemplary.

 

[5wize]

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

Here is my concept of God:
"God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."

Dear militant atheist, what is your concept of God?

Yrger, here is my step by step disproof of the existence of the god you define....

1.) All things have a beginning
2.) Some things with a beginning are created by a force of sentient will (Art, music, architecture, meals - not food, but meals, machines, man made chemical compounds - like medicines, etc....)
3.) Some things with a beginning are formed by natural biological/mechanical processes with no sentient force of will (base chemicals, naturally forming chemical compounds, plants, mountains, animals, humans - humans can only set in motion the natural process of forming humans - they do not "create" humans as in a lab with parts, tools, and instructions, or a capacity to create a different form like a human with an ear for an eye instead)
4.) All things that are both formed by nature and created by sentient will have an origin
5.) There is nothing in reality created by an origin that wasn't already formed by nature.
6.) ergo there is no "creator cause" that is a source of formed reality. Nature forms all things. Only some of those formed things (humans, animals) have the sentient capacity to create from that which is already formed by nature..
7.) You refer to such a creator cause as God. That is not known to exist in reality. Only humans and some animals create
8.) Your definition of God, a creator cause, does not exist in reality except as a mental exercise.

Point #5 is the big one yrger.

 

[5wize]

Yrger... you have to prove that nature was created by a force of will to define God as a creator cause

 

[yrger]

Dear Nouveau, I have three questions for you:

1. Dear Nouveau, I am asking you whether you having been conceived by your mother is an example of the meaning of the beginning of your existence, or you are denying that your conception by your mama is an example of the meaning of beginning?

2. And also that your mama was conceived by her mama, and her mama by also her mama, and on and on and on, are you denying that is an example of the idea of infinite causal regress?

3. In regard to your step by step proof against the existence of God, I don't see any step by step exposition at all.

And you have two questions for me:

From Nouveau
1. Can you now 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?

And the issue is whether God exists or not: I advocate the affirmative claim, and you advocate the negative claim.

Let us now talk about what it is to explain something, is that all right with you?

 

[Furion]

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

All your assertions are just assertions.

Glad that's cleared up.

 

[Whatsisface]

All your assertions are just assertions.

Glad that's cleared up.

True. Well done. But your assertions were the ones under discussion. You haven't justified them.

 

[yrger]

Okay, everyone, please contribute to this thread by giving your comments to my last post, see below.

Yrger wrote Today at 1:21 AM #137
----------------------------

Dear Nouveau, I have three questions for you:

1. Dear Nouveau, I am asking you whether you having been conceived by your mother is an example of the meaning of the beginning of your existence, or you are denying that your conception by your mama is an example of the meaning of beginning?
2. And also that your mama was conceived by her mama, and her mama by also her mama, and on and on and on, are you denying that is an example of the idea of infinite causal regress?
3. In regard to your step by step proof against the existence of God, I don't see any step by step exposition at all.

And you have two questions for me:

From Nouveau
1. Can you now 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?

And the issue is whether God exists or not: I advocate the affirmative claim, and you advocate the negative claim.

Let us now talk about what it is to explain something, is that all right with you?

So, everyone, get busy and do honest intelligent productive thinking, and contribute your comments.