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

rossum

Well-known member
So, everyone, get busy and do honest intelligent productive thinking, and contribute your comments.
That would be easier if you had answered Nouveau's two questions.

It would also be easier if you could specify the differences between your concept of God and a similar concept of origins, such as the multiverse. For example, God is usually considered to be intelligent while the multiverse is not. Is intelligence a necessary property of the First Cause or not?
 
Last edited:

5wize

Well-known member
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?
Proof of god's non-existence...

1.) Creation is a causal event of sentient will
2.) Formation is a causal event of nature not involving sentient will
3.) Only animals have been shown to have a sentient will to create.
4.) Everything other than the creations of animals, including animals themselves, are formed by natural causation, not a creator causation.
3.) Therefor the creator cause that you label god, the creator cause of "everything", is a mental fiction.
 
Last edited:

5wize

Well-known member
That would be easier if you had answered Nouveau's two questions.

It would also be easier if you could specify the differences between your concept of God and a similar concept of origins, such as the multiverse. For example, God is usually considered to be intelligent while the multiverse is not. Is intelligence a necessary property of the First Cause or not?
As well as mine....

Is the creator cause yrger believes in sentient?
Is the creator cause yrger believes in supernatural?

My proof of his version of God's non-existence above should cover my angle. Let's see if he responds to that as well.
 

yrger

Member
Now, everyone, I will give you something for you all to exercise your honest intelligent productive thinking skill.

Here, explain how an all mechanical non-electric toy car can run to the edge of a table and is about to fall off the edge, but it turns around and continues running and never runs off and falls off the table.

Happy and productive thinking!
 

ferengi

Well-known member
Proof of god's non-existence...

1.) Creation is a causal event of sentient will
OK that is correct
2.) Formation is a causal event of nature not involving sentient will
Correct -
3.) Only animals have been shown to have a sentient will to create.
Your evidence is?
4.) Everything other than the creations of animals, including animals themselves, are formed by natural causation, not a creator causation.
Non-sequitur
3.) Therefor the creator cause that you label god, the creator cause of "everything", is a mental fiction.
See above
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
Now, everyone, I will give you something for you all to exercise your honest intelligent productive thinking skill.

Here, explain how an all mechanical non-electric toy car can run to the edge of a table and is about to fall off the edge, but it turns around and continues running and never runs off and falls off the table.

Happy and productive thinking!
the toy is on a track that returns to its start point.
Or.
the toy was specifically made for the table... or the table for the toy.


So is there a point to this?
 

5wize

Well-known member
Now, everyone, I will give you something for you all to exercise your honest intelligent productive thinking skill.

Here, explain how an all mechanical non-electric toy car can run to the edge of a table and is about to fall off the edge, but it turns around and continues running and never runs off and falls off the table.

Happy and productive thinking!
Respond to post #142 please or you have exhausted my good will to your dishonest and unproductive dialogue.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Here, explain how an all mechanical non-electric toy car can run to the edge of a table and is about to fall off the edge, but it turns around and continues running and never runs off and falls off the table.
The table is a sphere with a small black hole at its centre. The table has no edge and the black hole's gravity stops the car falling off.

You still have a number of questions to answer. You appear very ready to ask us questions, but less ready to respond to our questions. That is not good if you want a two-way discussion.
 

yrger

Member
Dear everyone, please, no evading from my challenge to us all, on what it is to explain something.

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?
 

yrger

Member
The table is a sphere with a small black hole at its centre. The table has no edge and the black hole's gravity stops the car falling off.

You still have a number of questions to answer. You appear very ready to ask us questions, but less ready to respond to our questions. That is not good if you want a two-way discussion.


Have you done an experiment to see whether you toy car and your kind of table work at all?

Everyone, please do experiments to see whether your toy car works at all, to never fall off the table, and mind you, the conventional table is flat and square or rectangular.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Dear everyone, please, no evading from my challenge to us all, on what it is to explain something.
Dear yrger... Quit evading your own challenge. Do you concede that you were wrong about your definition of God and that it does not exist?.

Changing the subject and moving on to some other challenge will be noted as a yes.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Have you done an experiment to see whether you toy car and your kind of table work at all?

Everyone, please do experiments to see whether your toy car works at all, to never fall off the table, and mind you, the conventional table is flat and square or rectangular.
Besides... Mr. Laurier was onto it already. The table has a lip and the car has a touch sensitive bumper mechanically attached the the wheels that steer it.

... or ...

There is a pressure sensitive wheel in front that detects a lack of upward pressure against it that is mechanically connected to the steering.

Yes... I have experimented with both of those in my son's robotics club.

Have you conceded your definition of God? I think you should. It has been successfully refuted to not exist.
 

yrger

Member
You guys are so afraid as usual and resort to dishonest un-intelligent un-productive irrational stubbornness.

When a discussion is getting nowhere at all owning to dishonest un-intelligent un-productive posting from participants, then folks with more wisdom than shallow irrational stubbornness will propose another way: to see whether the irrational stubborn posters will start anew with the new approach, do you comprehend?

And avoid and abstain already with semantic trickery like with one Bertrand Russell.
 

5wize

Well-known member
You guys are so afraid as usual and resort to dishonest un-intelligent un-productive irrational stubbornness.

When a discussion is getting nowhere at all owning to dishonest un-intelligent un-productive posting from participants, then folks with more wisdom than shallow irrational stubbornness will propose another way: to see whether the irrational stubborn posters will start anew with the new approach, do you comprehend?

And avoid and abstain already with semantic trickery like with one Bertrand Russell.
I think you have described yourself quite well yrger. Refute post #142. It was everything you have been asking for, yet you dishonestly ignore it.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Have you done an experiment to see whether you toy car and your kind of table work at all?
The earth is a sufficient experiment.

You have failed to say whether or not your concept of God is intelligent or not. The presence or not of intelligence changes the arguments needed to refute, or support the entity in question.
 

5wize

Well-known member
yger... I think we can all agree that you are done here. A gentleman lays his king down without putting everybody through the motions of the obvious end.

Besides, I know what your new tack is... "For something to function to fit its environment, it had to be created to do so"

No yrger... Things form and conform naturally to fit the environments they find themselves in like a puddle fills a hole. The hole wasn't built specifically to the shape of the water that filled it or vis-versa - the water eventually found all the nooks and crannies and conformed to the hole. Things that form and do not comply to their environments fail. They fall off the table - they spill out of the hole, like 99% of everything that found form so far on this earth is extinct.
 
Last edited:

Nouveau

Well-known member
Dear Nouveau, I have three questions for you...
Before you ask any more questions I think you need to answer this: Do you concur with my definitions of 'beginning' and 'ICR'? If you are into honest intelligent productive thinking then you will answer without further evasion. Acceptable answers are:

[ ] Yes, I concur with your two definitions
[ ] No, I do not concur with your two definitions
[ ] I still do not understand your two definitions

Please tick the box that applies to you. Then we can proceed to your questions.

And the issue is whether God exists or not: I advocate the affirmative claim, and you advocate the negative claim.
No, I have not agreed to advocate the negative claim. I asked if you wanted me to, and you never answered.

Let us now talk about what it is to explain something, is that all right with you?
No, not really. You seem to be constantly jumping around changing the topic, making wild demands, and then refusing to address what anyone has said to you, even when they are providing exactly what you asked for. But as it happens, I already have an entire thread on the topic. So you can read my thoughts on the topic of explanation right here.
 

yrger

Member
Dear everyone here, starting with Nouveau, I am now into what it is to explain something.

So, dear Nouveau, suppose you tell mankind what it is to explain something?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Dear everyone here, starting with Nouveau, I am now into what it is to explain something.
Sorry, but you don't get to randomly jump from topic to topic while ignoring everything said to you. That's not how honest intelligent productive discussion works.

So, dear Nouveau, suppose you tell mankind what it is to explain something?
I already linked you to my thoughts on that topic: https://forums.carm.org/threads/explaining-explanation.82/
 

5wize

Well-known member
Dear everyone here, starting with Nouveau, I am now into what it is to explain something.

So, dear Nouveau, suppose you tell mankind what it is to explain something?
Post #142 is an example of the type of explanation you asked for. Are you conceding your definition of God as a "creator cause" of everything?
 
Top