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

yrger

Member
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.


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:

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 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.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
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):
If you take the time to dive into any (and all) of these, you'll indeed find someone who appears to sound just like this thread's author. This person appears to behave the same way elsewhere, rambling on barely-coherently, and listening to almost no one. He (?) appears to fancy himself an intellectual, and someone who researches things in an academic fashion.

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...
 

Temujin

Well-known member
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):
If you take the time to dive into any (and all) of these, you'll indeed find someone who appears to sound just like this thread's author. This person appears to behave the same way elsewhere, rambling on barely-coherently, and listening to almost no one. He (?) appears to fancy himself an intellectual, and someone who researches things in an academic fashion.

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...
It's just intellectual onanism, faintly disgusting to witness, like someone exposing themselves in a bus.
 

Deist

Active member
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.
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."
 

yrger

Member
Haha, long time no write.

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.

1. Our investigation of our own existence tells us that we are transient beings, i.e. we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death.
2. 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.
3. At this point we go forth into the object world that is outside our concept world which is in our mind.
4. In the object world we seek this being which is permanent and self-existent and is the cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.
5. We are still seeking . . .

What do you guys fellow posters here say about my idea?

:::

NB This post already published in another net forum.
 

rossum

Well-known member
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.
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.

There can be no "cause of X" unless X also exists. Otherwise I, rossum, can claim to be the cause of 42 universes, but I haven't got round to causing them yet. Since that claim is obviously false, then there can be no permanent cause of an impermanent thing.

Neither the cause of humans nor the cause of the universe existed 20 billion years ago.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
The investigation of existence leads us to the existence of God...
It may have led you there. That doesn't mean it should have.

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.
Why? This is the same assertion you've previously repeated throughout the thread, without ever once supporting.

What do you guys fellow posters here say about my idea?
I say it remains completely unsupported.
 

Rockson

Active member
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."
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.

People will claim they have excuse but it's already decided there will be none. This gives me peace to know it's not my place to do all of this heavy lifting those who don't want God choose that I do that is prove it. Here's the thing....if they won't yield and acknowledge what God has said and defined as self evident THEY WILL NOT yield to what other things you might want to share, and in fact with them they feel a sense that they're empowered....as in they've got God on the run. As in they're perched up on their attitude and God is somehow below them. Nope...he's not and never will be.
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
And does he have unique fingerprints on his hands too?
And when did he make my unique fingerprints, or the unique fingerprints of koalas?


First of all.... You do not believe there is a God... Why ask, then?

You got to hate someone in projection.... I accept that fact.

The fact you can not accept? We each have unique finger prints.
 
Last edited:
Top