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

[Furion]

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

Interesting. If I ring the whatsisface justification bell, do I win a prize?

There is only justification in a universe that has actual law, not law made up by meaningless fizzlebags on a meaningless planet. Meh, it's like....meaningless to me. Think bigger.

No, if you want to talk of actual justification, it is God, pointing at His Son, saying those who listen to Him will be justified in His sight. He watched His Son die, at the hands of men who hated Him, so He can pour that grace onto me.

And so yes, people who honor God and honor the Son, who overflowed grace into my lap, that is the man who will be justified in His sight. To be justified in your sight is not worth anything to me, no offense.

No better example is in the atheist mock of Christ and His sacrifice on the cross. What is it people like you say? He just had a bad weekend?

This is why justification from God can never come to a man , you just mock it. Christ was very wise to say men condemn themselves with their own mouths. It's all so unnecessary, atheists mocking the things of God.

 

[Whatsisface]

Interesting. If I ring the whatsisface justification bell, do I win a prize?

Yes, if I make empty statements with no justifications as you have done.

There is only justification in a universe that has actual law, not law made up by meaningless fizzlebags on a meaningless planet. Meh, it's like....meaningless to me. Think bigger.

This is an empty statement that just says stuff, without saying why it might be true.

No, if you want to talk of actual justification, it is God, pointing at His Son, saying those who listen to Him will be justified in His sight. He watched His Son die, at the hands of men who hated Him, so He can pour that grace onto me.

And so yes, people who honor God and honor the Son, who overflowed grace into my lap, that is the man who will be justified in His sight. To be justified in your sight is not worth anything to me, no offense.

Another statement where you just say stuff without justification.

No better example is in the atheist mock of Christ and His sacrifice on the cross. What is it people like you say? He just had a bad weekend?

I have never said that. Don't blame me for what others might have said.

This is why justification from God can never come to a man , you just mock it. Christ was very wise to say men condemn themselves with their own mouths. It's all so unnecessary, atheists mocking the things of God.

Blah, blah, blah. I have never mocked.

 

[Furion]

I have never mocked.

Sorry, I don't believe you. And that's ok.

 

[5wize]

Interesting. If I ring the whatsisface justification bell, do I win a prize?

There is only justification in a universe that has actual law, not law made up by meaningless fizzlebags on a meaningless planet. Meh, it's like....meaningless to me. Think bigger.

No, if you want to talk of actual justification, it is God, pointing at His Son, saying those who listen to Him will be justified in His sight. He watched His Son die, at the hands of men who hated Him, so He can pour that grace onto me.

And so yes, people who honor God and honor the Son, who overflowed grace into my lap, that is the man who will be justified in His sight. To be justified in your sight is not worth anything to me, no offense.

No better example is in the atheist mock of Christ and His sacrifice on the cross. What is it people like you say? He just had a bad weekend?

This is why justification from God can never come to a man , you just mock it. Christ was very wise to say men condemn themselves with their own mouths. It's all so unnecessary, atheists mocking the things of God.

Justifications from a deity that only manifests as an idea in the minds of believers can take on any form necessary for the believers.... look around from religion to religion, and worse yet, just cruise the theism pages here for the disagreements in Christianity itself, and you see how true that is.

 

[yrger]

Now that Nouveau is back, I will concentrate on him, so all ye others, you have to talk to yourselves or among your same kind - and as I am only the one here affirming God'existence, I have to save my time and labor, to concentrate on Nouveau.

Besides, I have to do a lot of thinking in order to try to explain to myself what is Nouveau going into, but he is I see to be a master of explanation, so I will avail myself of his mastery expertise.

So, dear Nouveau, what is it to explain something?

You can just give me examples from concrete everyday life and environment of the human neighborhood where babies and roses abound, please nothing of so very abstract utterrances that have no connection with mankind at all.

You see we mankind are the only ones concerned with God exists or not, and we are the only ones therefore doing the resolution of that issue, God exists or not.

So, dear master Nouveau, what is it to explain something, like with explaining the following line:

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

How do I explain, tell me, as to pass your grading valuation that I have explained correctly, okay?


................................
Off topic
1. To the founders, owners, and operators of this forum, please fix the preview feature.
2. Explanation is very much into the core of the determination God exists or not, that is my submission, it can and also does touch on the resolution of the issue God exists or not: for example, what is the ultimate explanation for the existence of the nose on man's face - perhaps some adversaries against God will insist it is the infinite causal regress, I for myself I will say, "Simple, God is the ultimate explanation, period."

 

[Nouveau]

Now that Nouveau is back, I will concentrate on him, so all ye others, you have to talk to yourselves or among your same kind - and as I am only the one here affirming God'existence, I have to save my time and labor, to concentrate on Nouveau.

Great. Please tell me whether or not you concur with my definitions of "beginning" and "ICR". You yourself said it was important for us to first seek concurrence on these concepts, and that nothing productive could be achieved without such concurrence, so please answer - or have you changed your mind on this? Do these concepts no longer matter?

Besides, I have to do a lot of thinking in order to try to explain to myself what is Nouveau going into, but he is I see to be a master of explanation, so I will avail myself of his mastery expertise. So, dear Nouveau, what is it to explain something?

For the third time, my thoughts on explanation can be read right here: https://forums.carm.org/threads/explaining-explanation.82/

Yrger, you seem to be having tremendous difficulty following and responding to what others are saying. Is there something we should know about you that would explain this? For example, do you have some kind of cognitive deficit or disability? Or perhaps English isn't your primary language? If there are any such confounding factors at work, bringing them to light might help us communicate with you more effectively.

 

[yrger]

What I am doing now is to learn from you what it is to explain, so that when I do explain according to your concept of what it is to explain, you cannot anymore deny that my explanation is correct, because now you would be into contradicting your own explanation of what and how to explain something.

Do you comprehend my drift at all, for you are really very deep at semantics of the utmost abstraction.
.

Let me try again:

1. From Yrger: Infinite causal regress is sheer nonsense, period.
2. From Nouveau: Infinite causal regress is not sheer nonsense, period.

I can't seem to be able to explain num 1.

So, you please explain num 2.

Then I will study how you explain num 2, and see whether I can apply it to num 1, so that now we can if at all concur on whatever you want me to concur on, based on how you explained to me what it is and how to explain something, and I have followed your explanation on what it is to explain something.

 

[Tiburon]

The Jews of Christ's day also created a god of their imagining. Christ corrected them, said and demonstrated...God, and what God wants. Unless you are an imbecile, the message came through to you, 2000 years later.

Christ was a God of Jewish imagining.

 

[Whatsisface]

Sorry, I don't believe you. And that's ok.

I have mocked people when they have treated me poorly, but i've never said sky daddy or iron age goat herders etc, so you're wrong.

 

[Nouveau]

What I am doing now is to learn from you what it is to explain, so that when I do explain according to your concept of what it is to explain, you cannot anymore deny that my explanation is correct, because now you would be into contradicting your own explanation of what and how to explain something.

Then please read the thread I linked you to on explanation. I've given you the link three times. Do you need me to summarize the material? Please note that merely qualifying as an explanation (or even a good explanation) doesn't always amount to being the correct explanation.

Do you comprehend my drift at all, for you are really very deep at semantics of the utmost abstraction.

No, the problem is just that you are not responding to my posts. Is this because you don't understand things I've said? If so then you need to speak up and tell me what parts you are having difficulty with, so that I might help you to understand.

Let me try again:
1. From Yrger: Infinite causal regress is sheer nonsense, period.
I can't seem to be able to explain num 1.

Well, that's a big problem for you then, as your argument relies on this claim. Why can't you support or explain it? Do you not know why you think an ICR is nonsense? Or is it just that you can't put it into words?

2. From Nouveau: Infinite causal regress is not sheer nonsense, period.
So, you please explain num 2.

I gave you the definition. What more do you need? The definition is perfectly consistent and coherent, so it can't be nonsense. You do understand that negative integers (-1, -2, -3, ...etc.) go backwards without end, right? Past moments in time might be just like that, with each moment caused by the previous moment, going backwards without end.

Can you please respond directly to this post, quoting my posted words, and actually saying something that addresses what I've said? I think that is the best way to ensure we move in the direction of honest intelligent productive discussion.

 

[5wize]

What I am doing now is to learn from you what it is to explain, so that when I do explain according to your concept of what it is to explain, you cannot anymore deny that my explanation is correct, because now you would be into contradicting your own explanation of what and how to explain something.

Do you comprehend my drift at all, for you are really very deep at semantics of the utmost abstraction.
.

Let me try again:

1. From Yrger: Infinite causal regress is sheer nonsense, period.
2. From Nouveau: Infinite causal regress is not sheer nonsense, period.

I can't seem to be able to explain num 1.

So, you please explain num 2.

Then I will study how you explain num 2, and see whether I can apply it to num 1, so that now we can if at all concur on whatever you want me to concur on, based on how you explained to me what it is and how to explain something, and I have followed your explanation on what it is to explain something.

Yrger, you are confusing mere assertions with arguments. Let me make an argument for you.... try it this way.

You assert: Infinite causal regress is sheer nonsense, period.
You also assert: There is a "creator cause" that always existed.

To support those assertions you could argue:

1) You cannot get something from nothing, so something had to exist prior to our causal reality. Call that something base reality.
2) That base reality must not have been caused or it would not qualify logically as existing prior to causal reality.
3) That base reality must have existed in a past eternal steady state or it would not qualify as existing prior to causal reality.
4) That steady state, past infinite, base reality had to be the source of causal reality as you cannot get something from nothing.

This is a possible argument for what you are asserting. Do you understand the difference? Do you agree?

 

[Mr Laurier]

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?

Not so fast. Back to the toy car on a table. YOU need to explain your point... if indeed you have one.

 

[yrger]

[ . . . . ]

1. From Yrger: Infinite causal regress is sheer nonsense, period.
2. From Nouveau: Infinite causal regress is not sheer nonsense, period.

I (Yrger) can't seem to be able to explain num 1.

So, you (Nouveau) please explain num 2.

[ . . . . ]

Dear Nouveau, can you explain num 2 or not, no evasions now, please.

I need your explanation so that I can learn from it, okay?

No need for me to read again your last post, and react to it, for it is nothing except stalling.

 

[rossum]

Dear Nouveau, can you explain num 2 or not, no evasions now, please.

I need your explanation so that I can learn from it, okay?

No need for me to read again your last post, and react to it, for it is nothing except stalling.

From which I gather that you have no argument to support your claim that an infinite regress is sheer nonsense.

 

[Nouveau]

No need for me to read again your last post, and react to it, for it is nothing except stalling.

Incorrect. You need to read my last post again and actually respond to it.

Honest intelligent productive conversation requires each person to actually address what the other has said. So far you're not doing that.

 

[yrger]

Dear readers, here is my explanation for the existence of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, namely:

• God in concept as the self-existent creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

.

 

[Nouveau]

Dear readers, here is my explanation for the existence of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, namely:
God in concept as the self-existent creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

And your argument in support of that explanation has been refuted.

Why can't you address what people are posting?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Dear readers, here is my explanation for the existence of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, namely:

• God in concept as the self-existent creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

.

Your explanation is short on details, and short on evidence.

 

[5wize]

Dear readers, here is my explanation for the existence of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, namely:

• God in concept as the self-existent creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

.

That is not an explanation. it is an assertion. You need to make an argument for your assertion. You need to learn the difference between an assertion and an argument. I showed you what an argument for your assertion looks like:

1) You cannot get something from nothing, so something had to exist prior to our causal reality. Call that something base reality.
2) That base reality must not have been caused or it would not qualify logically as existing prior to causal reality.
3) That base reality must have existed in a past eternal steady state or it would not qualify as existing prior to causal reality.
4) That steady state, past infinite, base reality had to be the source of causal reality as you cannot get something from nothing.

Do you agree with that argument as an explanation of your assertion of the nature of a creator cause of man and the universe?

If not, please educate yourself on this before posting again.... I wouldn't expect to hear from you again for about a year or so given your current level of understanding. You are too far behind intellectually to be taking this argument on.

 

[yrger]

Dear everyone here, in particular my adversaries, do you have an explanation for the existence of yourselves and the universe and everything with beginning? If you have, let you name it here, okay?

I have an explanation in one word, God, in concept as the self-existent creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

See if you can present in one word what is your explanation for your existence and the universe and everything with a beginning.

Put it in one word, then elaborate from that one word, okay?

.