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

yrger

Member
Dear my colleagues here, that includes everyone writing here, *let us all work as to concur on how to achieve an irrefutable way to prove that God exists or not.

If you anyone here, your position is that there is no way at all to prove exist or not exist for God, and you will rather suffer martyrdom than take part to work as to concur on the way to prove God exists or not, then I suggest that you do not write anything in this thread for the time being, because we all who at least agree that it is possible, we will be talking to one another, is that okay with you guys, who will suffer martyrdom rather than even just to talk about the possibility of proving God exists or not?

Or you just wait until we are finished completely, then you can voice out your pertinent comments, okay?

My sig.
From Yrger Yesterday at 11:28 AM #1,891

Dear readers of mine here, think of this idea, that there are things which are transient, like for example, we ourselves, we get born at birth and we end our existence at death.

Behind this fact of birth and death, there is an operator which is God, He is all the time present and everywhere, otherwise how can we be sure that our nose will not fall off our face uncertainly?

As for the fact that there has always been existence, it is beyond refutation that when man chooses to think about a status if ever of non-existence, then logically according to his play or say drama of a status of non-existence, he should also conduct himself according to logic, to just puff up into nothing-ness, so that he is no longer around anywhere, much less in this net forum.


Annex
Okay, here are my concept of what is existence and what is God:

Existence in concept is anything at all that we experience directly with our senses and consciousness, and/or indirectly by our honest intelligent productive thinking on what it is from what we know with our senses and consciousness.

God in concept is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.


*This text is from me in another net forum.
.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Dear my colleagues here, that includes everyone writing here...
No it doesn't. We're not your colleagues. Colleagues don't ignore each other and spam endless evasive nonsense.

...let us all work as to concur on how to achieve an irrefutable way to prove that God exists or not.
Let us know if you ever find a way to show that God exists as more than just a concept in your mind. We won't be holding our breath.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Dear my colleagues here, that includes everyone writing here, *let us all work as to concur on how to achieve an irrefutable way to prove that God exists or not.

If you anyone here, your position is that there is no way at all to prove exist or not exist for God, and you will rather suffer martyrdom than take part to work as to concur on the way to prove God exists or not, then I suggest that you do not write anything in this thread for the time being, because we all who at least agree that it is possible, we will be talking to one another, is that okay with you guys, who will suffer martyrdom rather than even just to talk about the possibility of proving God exists or not?

Or you just wait until we are finished completely, then you can voice out your pertinent comments, okay?

My sig.


*This text is from me in another net forum.
.
Let's remove the controversial label God and replace it with "X" then tell me what the quintessential difference is between your 2 statements:

"Behind this fact of birth and death, there is an operator which is X,"

and your previous post which said:

"X in concept is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending."

??? Do yo know? I don't think you do.

"
 

Komodo

Well-known member
Let's remove the controversial label God and replace it with "X" then tell me what the quintessential difference is between your 2 statements:

"Behind this fact of birth and death, there is an operator which is X,"

and your previous post which said:

"X in concept is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending."

??? Do yo know? I don't think you do.

"
I wonder if Yrger is just fumbling towards an argument like the following:

There must be an ultimate cause for the existence of all the transient things we know, and an ultimate explanation for why they behave the way they do (e.g., always following the same rules).
I choose to call this ultimate cause "God."


If so, I imagine most of us would shrug and say, in a Unitarian manner, "if that's what works for you, I'm fine with it." You could argue that this was Einstein's "God" also: "Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not... a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." Of course this bears almost no resemblance to the God of the Bible.
 

5wize

Well-known member
I wonder if Yrger is just fumbling towards an argument like the following:

There must be an ultimate cause for the existence of all the transient things we know, and an ultimate explanation for why they behave the way they do (e.g., always following the same rules).
I choose to call this ultimate cause "God."


If so, I imagine most of us would shrug and say, in a Unitarian manner, "if that's what works for you, I'm fine with it." You could argue that this was Einstein's "God" also: "Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not... a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." Of course this bears almost no resemblance to the God of the Bible.
Yup. I already gave him the later argument and said I don't care what you call it.
 

yrger

Member
The question is not exactly about proving or disproving that God exists.

It is about both theists as atheists agreeing to work together to come to a mutually agreed on method for resolving definitively the issue God exists or not.

To date there is no agreed upon by both sides the mutually accepted and prescribed method to be followed by both sides, for the definitive final irrefutable answer, God exists or God does not exist - and both sides, theists as atheists are bound to it.

If the mutually agreed on method results into the answer, No, God does not exist, then theists will no longer seek to convert fellow humans to accept God.

But if the answer is Yes God exists, then atheists will no longer complain why they are not accepted by Christians: as qualified to become say, President of America.

So, I really love to see anyone at all who will work with me to arrive at a mutually agreed on method to resolve the issue, God exists or not.
.

Today at 9:28 AM #1,901 Yrger

Dear my colleagues here, that includes everyone writing here, *let us all work as to concur on how to achieve an irrefutable way to prove that God exists or not.

If you anyone here, your position is that there is no way at all to prove exist or not exist for God, and you will rather suffer martyrdom than take part to work as to concur on the way to prove God exists or not, then I suggest that you do not write anything in this thread for the time being, because we all who at least agree that it is possible, we will be talking to one another, is that okay with you guys, who will suffer martyrdom rather than even just to talk about the possibility of proving God exists or not?

Or you just wait until we are finished completely, then you can voice out your pertinent comments, okay?

My sig.
From Yrger Yesterday at 11:28 AM #1,891

Dear readers of mine here, think of this idea, that there are things which are transient, like for example, we ourselves, we get born at birth and we end our existence at death.

Behind this fact of birth and death, there is an operator which is God, He is all the time present and everywhere, otherwise how can we be sure that our nose will not fall off our face uncertainly?

As for the fact that there has always been existence, it is beyond refutation that when man chooses to think about a status if ever of non-existence, then logically according to his play or say drama of a status of non-existence, he should also conduct himself according to logic, to just puff up into nothing-ness, so that he is no longer around anywhere, much less in this net forum.


Annex
Okay, here are my concept of what is existence and what is God:

Existence in concept is anything at all that we experience directly with our senses and consciousness, and/or indirectly by our honest intelligent productive thinking on what it is from what we know with our senses and consciousness.

God in concept is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
So, I really love to see anyone at all who will work with me to arrive at a mutually agreed on method to resolve the issue, God exists or not.
Are you going to propose a method then?

I would propose rational evidence-based reasoning as a method.

Is that something you could agree to?
 

yrger

Member
Can man prove God exists or not?

What do you say, dear colleagues here, a propos the question above, shouldn't we first work together to come to the mutually agreed on concepts of what is existence, what is God, and what is proof?

From my part, I say that Yes we have to first arrive at the mutually agreed on concepts of what is existence, what is God, and what is proof, because otherwise we are not going to get anywhere, but instead we are into each one's talking past the head of everyone's else - and that is not communication at all but an irrational happening.

Here are my concepts of existence, of God, and of proof:

Existence in concept is anything at all that we experience directly with our senses and consciousness, and/or indirectly by our honest intelligent productive thinking on what it is from what we know with our senses and consciousness.

God in concept is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Proof is the process by which we humans ascertain the existence of something directly by our conscious experience of the object of concern, and/or indirectly by reasoning from the data of our conscious experience.

So, dear colleagues here, to the question, Can man prove God exists or not, if you care to join in this undertaking of arriving at the mutually agreed on method to prove God exists or not, then please contribute to the concurrence on the concepts of the words: existence, God, and proof.

If you do not care to contribute to the concurrence on concepts, then it is obvious that you are not seriously keen to join in the formulation of the mutually agreed on method to resolve the issue God exists or not.

There are here two items:
1. To decide whether man can prove God exists or not.
2. To formulate a mutually concurred on method to resolve i.e. prove God exists or God does not exist.

First, work on num 1.


I have worked on num 1, with my proffer of the concepts of existence, God, and proof.

.
 

yrger

Member
Dear everyone here, take notice, my colleague posters here in carm.org forum, they have not brought forth here and now their concepts of existence, God, and proof.

It is regrettably from their part wastage of the bandwidth cash of carm.org.

--------------------------------


Addressing my colleague posters here:

Please bring forth your concepts of existence and God and proof, otherwise you will be into nothing but evasions from the issue God exists or not.

I am into sincere search for the resolution of the issue God exists or not, but with my definitions of existence, God, and proof.

No one here but no one has ever brought forth their concepts of existence and God and proof, for me and them to work out together to resolve with finality that God exists or not.

Here are again my definitions of existence and God and proof:

  • Existence in concept is anything at all that we experience directly with our senses and consciousness, and/or indirectly by our honest intelligent productive thinking on what it is from what we know with our senses and consciousness.

    God in concept is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

    Proof is the process by which we humans ascertain the existence of something directly by our conscious experience of the object of concern, and/or indirectly by reasoning from the data of our conscious experience.
So, I regret that you are here in my thread, and in effect directly on the issue God exists or not, but you are in fact into evasions from the issue, God exists or not - sad indeed, and also a wastage of the bandwidth cash of carm.org.


You can still redeem yourselves by presenting your concepts of existence and God and proof.


Otherwise, what a waste of bandwidth cash from the part of carm.org.

.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You're wasting bandwidth again, Yrger.

And you still haven't shown that your God exists as anything more than a concept in your head.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Can man prove God exists or not?

God in concept is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.
Do you want to help develop just this concept (what is God) a bit more with me?
 

yrger

Member
Dear readers, and in particular my fellow posters here, and addressing the latters, please just present your concepts of what is existence, what is God, and what is proof.

Otherwise, without intention to offend you, you are not relevant to the thread, owing to resistance to get your mind linked up to the issue God exists or not.


Now, dear readers, I will continue to develop my proof for the existence of God, and you notice that I have definitions of the words/concepts: existence, God, proof.

There is the irrefutable fact and truth that there is the distinction between the object world that is outside and independent of our mind, and there is the concept world that is inside our mind.

First we employ our mind to map out a method to ascertain the existence of God in the object world outside and independent of our mind, then we use this map or method to search for God in the object world, do you see my point, dear readers here?

[ More tomorrow ]


I will again for the enlightenment of everyone so that they can also get linked up with me, author of this thread, my definitions of existence, God, proof:

  • Existence in concept is anything at all that we experience directly with our senses and consciousness, and/or indirectly by our honest intelligent productive thinking on what it is from what we know with our senses and consciousness.

    God in concept is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

    Proof is the process by which we humans ascertain the existence of something directly by our conscious experience of the object of concern, and/or indirectly by reasoning from the data of our conscious experience.


Now, dear readers and also my colleague posters here, allow me to share with you a luxury I allowed myself recently to play in the internet, with entering . . .


  • I have just entered these words below into google, bing, and yahoo:

    Free my God from atheists' obfuscations and theists' stupidities

    And here are their numbers of hits:

    Google: About 1,350,000 results (0.56 seconds) (divided into nine pages)

    Bing: 650 (divided into seven pages of 10 hits per page)

    Yahoo:12,300 results (get it at the bottom right side for each page around that number 12,300 or less...)


    I am different, I am neither into obfuscations and nor into stupidities, because I have definitions for existence, God, and proof, while - let you all read them atheists' and theists' writings, them atheists and them theists don't have definitions of existence, God, and proof.


From Yrger Yesterday at 11:07 AM #1,910

Dear everyone here, take notice, my colleague posters here in carm.org forum, they have not brought forth here and now their concepts of existence, God, and proof.

It is regrettably from their part wastage of the bandwidth cash of carm.org.

--------------------------------


Addressing my colleague posters here:

Please bring forth your concepts of existence and God and proof, otherwise you will be into nothing but evasions from the issue God exists or not.

I am into sincere search for the resolution of the issue God exists or not, but with my definitions of existence, God, and proof.

No one here but no one has ever brought forth their concepts of existence and God and proof, for me and them to work out together to resolve with finality that God exists or not.

Here are again my definitions of existence and God and proof:

  • Existence in concept is anything at all that we experience directly with our senses and consciousness, and/or indirectly by our honest intelligent productive thinking on what it is from what we know with our senses and consciousness.

    God in concept is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

    Proof is the process by which we humans ascertain the existence of something directly by our conscious experience of the object of concern, and/or indirectly by reasoning from the data of our conscious experience.
So, I regret that you are here in my thread, and in effect directly on the issue God exists or not, but you are in fact into evasions from the issue, God exists or not - sad indeed, and also a wastage of the bandwidth cash of carm.org.


You can still redeem yourselves by presenting your concepts of existence and God and proof.


Otherwise, what a waste of bandwidth cash from the part of carm.org.
.
.
 

yrger

Member
The more I think about existence, the more I come to realize that from the study of existence, it is irrefutably that the mind of homo sapiens must come to the existence of God.

So, let us dear readers just start with my definition of existence:
  • Existence in concept is anything at all that we experience directly with our senses and consciousness, and/or indirectly by our honest intelligent productive thinking on what it is from what we know with our senses and consciousness.
That kind of a definition, as it is not challenged by my colleague posters here who belong to the what I might call all kinds and manners of God-deniers school of opinions, then it stands as the standard for judging something to be an example of existence.

And that means everything whether predominantly of the object world that is outside and independent of our mind, or even of the concept world that are ideas, thoughts, fictions, intentions, decisions, even such an invalid concept insofar as concept no matter how invalid, namely, infinite causal regress, etc. etc. etc. in our mind - it has existence inside our mind.

Of course all these things inside our mind remain in existence inside our mind until our mind dies or goes into non-existence with the death of the human with a brain, i.e. when a human is dead, definitely so - because his corpse is already in decay, thus more than just brain-dead.

Do you follow me, dear readers?

Now, let us think on this thought which is irrefutably the fact and the truth, namely:

  • There has always been existence everywhere and all the time, even when there were no time and no space yet, that means that existence cannot ever go into non-existence.

That thought in our mind, namely, that there has always been existence, when we go forth from our mind with that thought for a road-map of sorts, we come to all kinds of objects, starting with the nose on our face, or if you prefer the brain inside your skull, and the sun and the moon in the sky, and on and on and on . . .

How to now transit from our experience of things that are outside our mind and independent of our mind, to the existence of God?

What about that we just concentrate on ourselves and take notice that we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death, that means that we are transient entities.

Transient entities irrefutably impicates at least one permanent entity that is self-existent.

There! The fact and the truth is staring at our face: God exists in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

This whole concise exposition is what I call my argument for God's existence, scil., the argument from existence.

.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
The more I think about existence, the more I come to realize that from the study of existence, it is irrefutably that the mind of homo sapiens must come to the existence of God.
Nonsense. Your claims are as refutable as they could possibly be.

Transient entities irrefutably impicates at least one permanent entity that is self-existent.
Where's your argument for this? You've been claiming this throughout the thread and never once supported it.

There! The fact and the truth is staring at our face: God exists in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.
That's your conclusion. Unfortunately you still have not supported it.

This whole concise exposition is what I call my argument for God's existence, scil., the argument from existence.
It's not even an argument. You're just back to asserting your conclusion.
 

yrger

Member
Dear my readers here, I will now expatiate on my preceding post, let you not get distracted, as long as my fellow posters do not present their concepts of existence and God and proof - here and now, no need to get distracted by them.

Yrger Yesterday at 4:11 AM #1,916

The more I think about existence, the more I come to realize that from the study of existence, it is irrefutably that the mind of homo sapiens must come to the existence of God.

So, let us dear readers just start with my definition of existence:
  • Existence in concept is anything at all that we experience directly with our senses and consciousness, and/or indirectly by our honest intelligent productive thinking on what it is from what we know with our senses and consciousness.
That kind of a definition, as it is not challenged by my colleague posters here who belong to the what I might call all kinds and manners of God-deniers school of opinions, then it stands as the standard for judging something to be an example of existence.

And that means everything whether predominantly of the object world that is outside and independent of our mind, or even of the concept world that are ideas, thoughts, fictions, intentions, decisions, even such an invalid concept insofar as concept no matter how invalid, namely, infinite causal regress, etc. etc. etc. in our mind - it has existence inside our mind.

Of course all these things inside our mind remain in existence inside our mind until our mind dies or goes into non-existence with the death of the human with a brain, i.e. when a human is dead, definitely so - because his corpse is already in decay, thus more than just brain-dead.

Do you follow me, dear readers?

Now, let us think on this thought which is irrefutably the fact and the truth, namely:

  • There has always been existence everywhere and all the time, even when there were no time and no space yet, that means that existence cannot ever go into non-existence.
That thought in our mind, namely, that there has always been existence, when we go forth from our mind with that thought for a road-map of sorts, we come to all kinds of objects, starting with the nose on our face, or if you prefer the brain inside your skull, and the sun and the moon in the sky, and on and on and on . . .

How to now transit from our experience of things that are outside our mind and independent of our mind, to the existence of God?

What about that we just concentrate on ourselves and take notice that we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death, that means that we are transient entities.

Transient entities irrefutably implicates at least one permanent entity that is self-existent.

There! The fact and the truth is staring at our face: God exists in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

This whole concise exposition is what I call my argument for God's existence, scil., the argument from existence.
.

Take notice of this line from above quote:
  • There has always been existence everywhere and all the time, even when there were no time and no space yet, that means that existence cannot ever go into non-existence.
Forgive me dear readers, I am not into offending you, with asking you whether you can accept that statement above as fact and truth, with absolute certainty?

There are statements that are absolutely certain as fact and as truth, and I call them self-evident facts and truths, owing to our being homo sapiens, i.e. intelligent human, their certainty comes immediately into our mind, like a flash of lightning.

Such statements are some of the most simple and concise, like I come from my papa and mama, and of course this one, There has always been existence and it will never ever end.

Now, homo sapiens i.e. intelligent humans need not have to explain to themselves in words and concepts, unless they have to do so for fellow humans who are sad to say it, not of average intelligence, in which case no matter you expend volumes and volumes of words, they will still be lost altogether.

But when humans have average intelligence and even above average intelligence, they know that such self-evident statements of facts and truths are absolutely certain: BECAUSE their directly contradictory statements are absolutely absurd and ridiculous.

So, it is absolutely certain as fact and truth, I come from my papa and mama, the directly contradictory is absolutely absurd and ridiculous.

And this one, There has always been existence and it will never end, the directly opposite contradictory statement, There has never been existence and existence will end, that is absolutely absurd and ridiculous.

Now, intelligent folks will just react to people who challenge self-evident statements with a loud hoarse laugh at humans who claim otherwise.

Sig:

  • Existence in concept is anything at all that we experience directly with our senses and consciousness, and/or indirectly by our honest intelligent productive thinking on what it is from what we know with our senses and consciousness.

    God in concept is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

    Proof is the process by which we humans ascertain the existence of something directly by our conscious experience of the object of concern, and/or indirectly by reasoning from the data of our conscious experience.

.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Take notice of this line from above quote:
  • There has always been existence everywhere and all the time, even when there were no time and no space yet, that means that existence cannot ever go into non-existence.
This is internally inconsistent. You talk about "all the time" and then say "were no time and no space yet". Therefore your first point should have been "more than all the time" because you are claiming existence when there was no time.

Further, you use the words, 'were' and 'yet' in your statement "were no time and no space yet". Both 'were' and 'yet' are time related words. In the absence of time those two words have no meaning, since their meaning depends on the existence of time, and time, in your scenario, does not exist.

Moving from time to space. You talk about "existence everywhere." If there is no space then there is no 'everywhere', there is only 'nowhere' because there is no space to be in yet.

You need to examine the internal logic of your statement more closely. You are implicitly assuming the existence of space and time initially and then denying their existence, at least in part, subsequently.
 

yrger

Member
Mankind can and does prove God exists, but atheists and all kinds and manners of God-deniers, they are into evasions all the time, from the issue, so that they don't have to engage in honest intelligent productive thinking, with the rest of rational mankind, to attend to the issue at all.

Like the proverbial ostrich with its head under the beach sand.

Here is my very own argument on existence:

In existence there are transient beings like for example, you and me, we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death.

This fact and truth irrefutably implicates the reality of a permanent self-existent cause - of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

There! Do you now see God staring at your face like a flash of lightning?


(From the Conversation)


My colleague posters here have not presented here and now their definitions of existence, God, and proof, so no need to take notice of their posts.


MariusDejess3 days ago

The best proof that atheists and all kinds and manners of God-deniers cannot prove that God does not exist is the fact and the truth that: no atheists and no all kinds and manners of God-deniers, starting with Richard Dawkins, have the intellectual resources to engage in public debate with William Dean Craig.

https://www.wordonfire.org/resource...hat-god-doesnt-exist/5216/#comment-5302646062

----------------------------
Sig:

  • Existence in concept is anything at all that we experience directly with our senses and consciousness, and/or indirectly by our honest intelligent productive thinking on what it is from what we know with our senses and consciousness.

    God in concept is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

    Proof is the process by which we humans ascertain the existence of something directly by our conscious experience of the object of concern, and/or indirectly by reasoning from the data of our conscious experience.
 
Top