Our dear defeated Yrger has not presented any reason to think his God exists as more than a concept in his head, so no need to take notice of his posts.
I want to talk with a militant atheist on God exists or not.
- Thread starter yrger
- Start date
The little-known offspring of William Lane Craig and Richard Dean Anderson. I hear he can create a poorly thought-out argument for God out of nothing more than a paper clip and some rubber bands.
Dear my readers here, again and again I have expounded on the object world and the concept world: the object world is outside and independent of our mind, while the concept world is inside our mind.
We homo sapiens members of the living domain, we think up concepts, ideas, wishes, intentions, definitions, syllogism, inventions, philosophy, science, art, etc, etc etc in our concept world which is in our mind, and then we proceed to the object world to search for the thing in the object world: that corresponds to the idea we have in our mind that covers the thing we are searching for in the object world.
That is why my colleague posters here do not know what they are talking about: because they don't have the thoughts in their mind of what is existence, what is God, and what is proof up the present, here and now.
So, no need to pay them any attention unless and until they bring forth their definitions which should be drafted inside their mind, in their concept world.
Again: useless to try to understand them when they talk about existence, God, and proof, FOR without their definitions of these three words/concepts, they really don't know what they are talking about.
Even their idol, one Bertrand Russell, he always fools simple folks that there is no God, but he never ever gives his definitions of existence, God, and proof.
What he does all the time is to play the fool jester telling simple folks that God is like an orbiting teapot in space, and his followers do likewise, calling God a flying spaghetti monster, tooth fairy, etc etc etc, but never ever presenting their definitions of existence, God, and proof.
So, here is my sig. again:
And I will bring up from my writings in the internet a recent argument from existence for the existence of God:
We homo sapiens members of the living domain, we think up concepts, ideas, wishes, intentions, definitions, syllogism, inventions, philosophy, science, art, etc, etc etc in our concept world which is in our mind, and then we proceed to the object world to search for the thing in the object world: that corresponds to the idea we have in our mind that covers the thing we are searching for in the object world.
That is why my colleague posters here do not know what they are talking about: because they don't have the thoughts in their mind of what is existence, what is God, and what is proof up the present, here and now.
So, no need to pay them any attention unless and until they bring forth their definitions which should be drafted inside their mind, in their concept world.
Again: useless to try to understand them when they talk about existence, God, and proof, FOR without their definitions of these three words/concepts, they really don't know what they are talking about.
Even their idol, one Bertrand Russell, he always fools simple folks that there is no God, but he never ever gives his definitions of existence, God, and proof.
What he does all the time is to play the fool jester telling simple folks that God is like an orbiting teapot in space, and his followers do likewise, calling God a flying spaghetti monster, tooth fairy, etc etc etc, but never ever presenting their definitions of existence, God, and proof.
So, here is my sig. again:
And I will bring up from my writings in the internet a recent argument from existence for the existence of God:
And you still can't show that your God exists anywhere but inside your mind as a concept.
No need to pay Yrger any attention until he is able to support his claims and address rebuttals.
Completely unsupported twaddle.
Dear my readers here, thanks a lot for staying with me, there now remains only one colleague poster.
------------------------------
Here are the fundamentals in the resolution of the issue God exists or not.
Take notice, it is God exists OR not, wherefore: it can come about in the resolution proof, that God does not exist, and that is what a non-partrisan issue should be.
Okay, dear readers, here are the fundamentals for the resolution proof of the issue God exists or not.
1. There is existence, for its definition, see below in my sig.
2. As there are us humans already existing, we can divide existence into the object world and the concept world: the object world is outside and independent of the concept world - which concept world is in our mind: when we become extinct which is quite possible, what with the warring nations of mankind being in possession of nuclear explosives which can exterminate us humans, entities with intelligence and consciousness, there goes out the concept world.
3. Now, as we exist we are formulating the issue God exists or not, we do that in our mind, in this connection we all have to define further in unison what is God and what is proof, otherwise we would be insane fools talking without agreeing on what we are talking about.
4. See my sig. below for the definitions of God and of proof, no need to read the one surviving colleague who is the only one and unique at that, my opponent in the negative position of there is no God; why no need to read him? Because he has no definitions at all, to the present and here and now.
5. As no opponents on the negative side of the issue God exists or not present definitions, then my definitions of existence, God, and proof are the only definitions that are the standards for our definitions of existence and God and proof.
6. Now, dear my readers, you will go with me to the object world to search for the evidence pointing to the existence of God, and that is by our knowledge of what is proof, see below, my sig.
7. We are components of the object world, in addition to all things which are not we but we have contact with, so we do have with us the in a way all the object world with us.
8. By examination of ourselves and all living things, we come to the irrefutable conclusion that we are transient entities, i.e. we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death.
9. Now we come to the most peculiarly distinction we mankind have as members of the taxonomy of homo sapiens, scil. Intelligent humans, by which intelligence we know irrefutably that transient beings that's us implicate at least one permanent self-existent entity to bring us transient beings into existence.
There, my dear readers, are the fundamentals required for the resolution proof, of the issue God exists or not.
And let us sit back and await with bated breath to witness our one surviving and unique colleague of the negative side, God does not exist, to actuate himself, but first my dear readers, see if he has fundamentals for the resolution proof of God exists or not, with him in the opposite side scil. God does not exist.
And don't forget to take notice whether he has definitions of existence, God, and proof.
Here is my sig.
------------------------------
Here are the fundamentals in the resolution of the issue God exists or not.
Take notice, it is God exists OR not, wherefore: it can come about in the resolution proof, that God does not exist, and that is what a non-partrisan issue should be.
Okay, dear readers, here are the fundamentals for the resolution proof of the issue God exists or not.
1. There is existence, for its definition, see below in my sig.
2. As there are us humans already existing, we can divide existence into the object world and the concept world: the object world is outside and independent of the concept world - which concept world is in our mind: when we become extinct which is quite possible, what with the warring nations of mankind being in possession of nuclear explosives which can exterminate us humans, entities with intelligence and consciousness, there goes out the concept world.
3. Now, as we exist we are formulating the issue God exists or not, we do that in our mind, in this connection we all have to define further in unison what is God and what is proof, otherwise we would be insane fools talking without agreeing on what we are talking about.
4. See my sig. below for the definitions of God and of proof, no need to read the one surviving colleague who is the only one and unique at that, my opponent in the negative position of there is no God; why no need to read him? Because he has no definitions at all, to the present and here and now.
5. As no opponents on the negative side of the issue God exists or not present definitions, then my definitions of existence, God, and proof are the only definitions that are the standards for our definitions of existence and God and proof.
6. Now, dear my readers, you will go with me to the object world to search for the evidence pointing to the existence of God, and that is by our knowledge of what is proof, see below, my sig.
7. We are components of the object world, in addition to all things which are not we but we have contact with, so we do have with us the in a way all the object world with us.
8. By examination of ourselves and all living things, we come to the irrefutable conclusion that we are transient entities, i.e. we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death.
9. Now we come to the most peculiarly distinction we mankind have as members of the taxonomy of homo sapiens, scil. Intelligent humans, by which intelligence we know irrefutably that transient beings that's us implicate at least one permanent self-existent entity to bring us transient beings into existence.
There, my dear readers, are the fundamentals required for the resolution proof, of the issue God exists or not.
And let us sit back and await with bated breath to witness our one surviving and unique colleague of the negative side, God does not exist, to actuate himself, but first my dear readers, see if he has fundamentals for the resolution proof of God exists or not, with him in the opposite side scil. God does not exist.
And don't forget to take notice whether he has definitions of existence, God, and proof.
Here is my sig.
Nope, this remains completely unsupported, so your whole proof falls flat on its face.
rossum
Well-known member
Your proof is incomplete, even on its own terms. You say "at least one". That gives you a pantheon of self-existent entities, it does not give you a single self-existent entity. You need further work to reduce the number from "at least one" to "exactly one", otherwise you are disproving the Abrahamic religions and supporting a religion like Hinduism with multiple gods.
Temujin
Well-known member
You are fooling yourself if you think that there remains only one person who disagrees with you. Most of us are watching, with a mixture of ennui and resignation, as you are demolished over and over and over again. You fail the most basic argumentative steps. I salute those who have stuck with it, but it is like playing rugby against a toddler. What's the point? You don't understand the rules. You spend most of the time running in the wrong direction. You don't understand what you are doing, and you are completely ill-equipped to make even the semblance of a contest.
Dear fellow posters here and atheists and all kinds and manners of God-deniers, let you and me work together in a non-partisan approach to resolve the existence or non-existence of God, okay?
That means that we will or we can arrive at the conclusion that God exists, or God does not exist, do you get me?
So, when we get to the conclusion that God does not exist, then Christians will no longer take to converting fellow humans to be Christians, and atheists and all manners and kinds of God-deniers, they will get to be accepted by erstwhile Christians to for example get voted to be say president of America.
Are you keen on us working together in a non-partisan approach to resolve God exists or not?
That means that we will or we can arrive at the conclusion that God exists, or God does not exist, do you get me?
So, when we get to the conclusion that God does not exist, then Christians will no longer take to converting fellow humans to be Christians, and atheists and all manners and kinds of God-deniers, they will get to be accepted by erstwhile Christians to for example get voted to be say president of America.
Are you keen on us working together in a non-partisan approach to resolve God exists or not?
That depends. Will this "working together" involve you actually responding to our posts and answering our questions?
Dear my readers here and all fellow posters, I am now into again another instance of a clean slate, suggesting that we all adopt the approach that we are all from a non-partisan position.
Wherefore I am not any God-knower and you are not any atheist or God-denier.
So, at least we know that we exist, is that acceptable to you, that we all concur that we exist, okay?
That means that we will or we can arrive at the conclusion that God exists, or God does not exist, do you get me?
So, when we get to the conclusion that God does not exist, then Christians will no longer take to converting fellow humans to be Christians, and atheists and all manners and kinds of God-deniers, they will get to be accepted by erstwhile Christians to for example get voted to be say president of America.
Are you keen on us working together in a non-partisan approach to resolve God exists or not?
Wherefore I am not any God-knower and you are not any atheist or God-denier.
So, at least we know that we exist, is that acceptable to you, that we all concur that we exist, okay?
- Yesterday at 7:38 AM by yrger #1,930
That means that we will or we can arrive at the conclusion that God exists, or God does not exist, do you get me?
So, when we get to the conclusion that God does not exist, then Christians will no longer take to converting fellow humans to be Christians, and atheists and all manners and kinds of God-deniers, they will get to be accepted by erstwhile Christians to for example get voted to be say president of America.
Are you keen on us working together in a non-partisan approach to resolve God exists or not?
That depends. Will this "working together" involve you actually responding to our posts and answering our questions?
Given that you've already ignored this question once, I'm guessing not.
Will you live up to your own standard?
Dear readers and all fellow posters here, thanks for your contributions to this my thread.
Now, I am still into us all posters taking up what I call a non-partisan approach to the resolution of the issue God exists or not.
Let you all not be resistant to answer my in effect challenge to you all, that we all be keen on us working together in a non-partisan approach to resolve God exists or not.
What indeed is a non-partisan approach to resolve the issue God exists or not?
Is there such an animal as a non-partisan approach to resolve any issue at all?
Yes, and I can think up a panel of honest intelligent productive humans, who will first work to concur on the criteria to be applied in the resolution of any issue at all.
In re the issue God exists or not, the criteria will be the concurred on definitions of the words/concepts: existence, God, proof - reached by the humans who work together honestly, intelligently, and productively, as to arrive at the final agreed on definitions of the words/concepts: existence, God, proof.
Dear fellow colleague posters here, please tell me what are your provisional definitions of these words: existence, God, proof?
From my part, here are my proposed definitions of existence, God, and proof - for the consideration of such a non-partisan panel of humans to work on: as to arrive at the communally agreed on final definitions of existence, God, and proof:
Now the non-partisan panel of honest intelligent productive humans can use our provisional definitions of the words/concepts of existence, God, proof, and (1) work to produce their own concurred definitions, which they will employ as to (2) determine a common definitive finding on Yes, God exists, or No, God does not exist.
Now, I am still into us all posters taking up what I call a non-partisan approach to the resolution of the issue God exists or not.
Let you all not be resistant to answer my in effect challenge to you all, that we all be keen on us working together in a non-partisan approach to resolve God exists or not.
What indeed is a non-partisan approach to resolve the issue God exists or not?
Is there such an animal as a non-partisan approach to resolve any issue at all?
Yes, and I can think up a panel of honest intelligent productive humans, who will first work to concur on the criteria to be applied in the resolution of any issue at all.
In re the issue God exists or not, the criteria will be the concurred on definitions of the words/concepts: existence, God, proof - reached by the humans who work together honestly, intelligently, and productively, as to arrive at the final agreed on definitions of the words/concepts: existence, God, proof.
Dear fellow colleague posters here, please tell me what are your provisional definitions of these words: existence, God, proof?
From my part, here are my proposed definitions of existence, God, and proof - for the consideration of such a non-partisan panel of humans to work on: as to arrive at the communally agreed on final definitions of existence, God, and proof:
Now the non-partisan panel of honest intelligent productive humans can use our provisional definitions of the words/concepts of existence, God, proof, and (1) work to produce their own concurred definitions, which they will employ as to (2) determine a common definitive finding on Yes, God exists, or No, God does not exist.
No-one can 'work together' with you while you continue to ignore anything and everything that is said to you.
Do you understand this?
Dear readers and fellow posters here, have you ever had come across atheists and all kinds and manners of God-deniers, working together with theists and all kinds and manners of God-knowers, to resolve together the issue God exists or not, and to have agreed from start, to accept their mutually arrived at conclusion, namely, God exists, or God does not exist?
That is what I would consider to be a non-partisan approach to resolve the issue, God exists or God does not exist.
I am a God-knower, and I care very much to invite an atheist or any kind of God-denier, for us to work together, on behalf of mankind of which we are members, to pool our cognitive resources together, and collaborate honestly, intelligently, and productively: to arrive at the conclusion - God exists or God does not exist.
I am waiting with bated breath to meet any fellow human for a non-partisan undertaking to resolve the issue, God exists or God does not exist.
That is what I would consider to be a non-partisan approach to resolve the issue, God exists or God does not exist.
I am a God-knower, and I care very much to invite an atheist or any kind of God-denier, for us to work together, on behalf of mankind of which we are members, to pool our cognitive resources together, and collaborate honestly, intelligently, and productively: to arrive at the conclusion - God exists or God does not exist.
I am waiting with bated breath to meet any fellow human for a non-partisan undertaking to resolve the issue, God exists or God does not exist.
You've shown no willingness whatsoever to work together with any other person here.
Temujin
Well-known member
Yes, but not when you were involved.
And yet, as soon as anybody attempts to engage with you on this subject, you either ignore or abuse them. Once you can demonstrate that you understand what the words "work together" actually mean, you might have more success. Until then you are a lone, weak voice bleating forlornly in the wilderness. You are ignored because you are impossible to work with.