Yrger posted Yesterday at 10:19 AM #1,938
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.
Posted by Yrger Yesterday at 10:30 AM #1,936
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.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.
It's just intellectual onanism, faintly disgusting to witness, like someone exposing themselves in a bus.If anyone in the thread wants a bit of insight into the nature of this unique trolling we're being confronted with, do yourself a "favor" and Google "Marius Dejess".
The first four links which appear when I do this are to the following (in order):
As a software developer, I actually spend a lot of time on Stackexchange, albeit in a branch having nothing to do with philosophy, and I'm well aware of how the site tries to encourage high-quality answers. Yrger's inability to provide such answers is almost comical, as can be seen when he asks his own question and then attempts to answer it. None of the philosophically-minded people there buy any of it...
It's all fairly amusing...
I think it was Christopher Hitchens who said something like, "Even IF you prove A "God" exists, you have your whole lifetime ahead of you in proving she is the Christian God concept."Well, at this point in time in this thread of mine, I am into inviting my colleague posters here, to with me adopt a non-partisan mode, and work together as to finally conclude on, Yes God exists or No God does not exist.
And how do we both adopt a non-partisan mode?
How else but with us both working together to arrive at concurrence on all things: that we see to be honest and intelligent and productive toward the final conclusion to the issue, God exists or not.
And right now from my part, I tender the irrefutable statement that I and my to be partner concur that we both exist.
So, please come forward anyone among posters here, who care and dare to adopt a non-partisan mode to work with me on resolving the issue, God exists or not.
Here I am and I will be waiting for such a non-partisan poster to work with me, on the things that we will accept to be honest and intelligent and productive: toward the communal labor of resolving the issue, God exists or not.
Logically false. If there was a first human, then there was no "cause of the first human" before the appearance of that first human. Similarly for the cause of the universe. The universe is less than 20 billion years old, hence there was no "cause of the universe" 20 billion years ago.The investigation of existence leads us to the existence of God, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.
It may have led you there. That doesn't mean it should have.The investigation of existence leads us to the existence of God...
Why? This is the same assertion you've previously repeated throughout the thread, without ever once supporting.Thinking on this fact, namely, that we are transient beings, brings us to the implication that there has got to be a being that is permanent and self-existent, that is the cause of us humans, and everything else that also has a beginning and an ending, like the universe.
I say it remains completely unsupported.What do you guys fellow posters here say about my idea?
I can make for some interesting discussion as to whether God exists but the Creator doesn't allow himself to be put on the defensive like that. He merely points out the way things will be judged and defined that is because the creation reveals it. Rom 1: 19,20 He uses the term that people will be without excuse.I think it was Christopher Hitchens who said something like, "Even IF you prove A "God" exists, you have your whole lifetime ahead of you in proving she is the Christian God concept."
And does he have unique fingerprints on his hands too?
And when did he make my unique fingerprints, or the unique fingerprints of koalas?