So, I am back, and the posters here have not yet presented their concepts of God.

It is now in my place 4:20 a.m., Saturday, September 24, 2016.


I will be back in one hour's time.



Happy thinking and writing!

Instead of moving on, how about addressing my objections to your previous points, that you asked for, or my definitions of evidence, that you asked for?

Dear posters here, I am not going to play your game of endless nonsensical exchange on your demand that I should talk to you but uselessly on meanings of words, and on and on and on.

It is about time that you do some systematic thinking and writing in my thread, first of course find out what is your purpose here, and I am sure you are here in effect to disrupt my thread with all kinds of muddling that you can come up with, by your unworthy tricks of all kinds, but predominantly with recourse to endless demands for me to satisfy you on what are the meanings of words I use because you are so deficient with even just grade school vocabulary.


I will be back after an hour's time, and see, dear silent majority here, whether the posters here like Neeeel and Aaron and Uke will get to their concepts of God, which is the systematical way to exchange on the issue God exists or not, namely, first we work to concur on the concept of God.




Happy thinking and wiring!

This is an odd request. For surely, as we have started into systematic thinking and writing, you have demanded that you would only respond to posts structured in an exceedingly narrow manner, limited both in length and in content to that which you have specified.

It is true that, at a certain level, I am intending to disrupt your thread. But my disruptions are to get you to do some systematic thinking and writing of your own. For, as has been evidenced by the 400+ posts in this thread along with the posts in your previous attempt to engage on this topic, you have not done much systematically. You don't have a systematic approach that involves any of the four features that you promote:

* Truth
* Facts
* Logic
* The history of ideas

You have likewise shown an inability to be able to address the most basic of challenges to your ideas, and merely repeat yourself endlessly as if you were making a rational point. Basic logical flaws in your presentation have been pointed out repeatedly by many posters, whom you have basically chosen to ignore or misrepresent. For example, you have mistaken a challenge to your concept of existence as the default state of certain objects as claiming that said objects don't exist.

This has been done once again. Let us now see whether you will engage systematically, or whether you will simply repeat yourself once again or engage in an intellectually arbitrary manner and pursue a separate topic.

Just present our concept of God,

Smarting? Lol. When I bowed out because of your refusal to keep schoolyard insults out of every other paragraph, you were reduced to trying to put it at "bachelors are unmarried men" (not as a definition) level of deep and profound meaning. What is odd is you seemed to believe that was you winning...

Just present your concept of God, this is a thread to talk about the existence of God.

If you don't want to present your concept of God, then just go away, for you are not in the right place,

So, when you don't want to present your concept of God at all, that is the proof that you are up to anything and everything that is into disrupting the thread, and I am sure there is a point of discipline here to prevent people from writing in a thread just to disrupt it.

And no, there is no right here of writing in a thread just to disrupt it; I am sure that the creators, owners, and operators of this forum are not going to let you guys write in a thread to just disrupt it.

The word our in the quote below should read your, sorry for the typo.


And here again is my concept of God: In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Please, feel free to rebump the thread and fighting the good fight of theological noncognitivism, aka "I'm just going to pretend I simply cannot comprehend the idea that the universe was created." You might as well just join Susmario and claim to be thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

You don't seem to understand that the issue isn't the concept of God. I can accept (as was done by others several times throughout the thread) your concept of God using the exact language that you're using. The problem is that you don't do anything logically effective with it.

I'm not writing to disrupt the thread. I'm writing to engage in the content of your train of thought.

But if you *really* wanted a place where you can simply make posts and speak to the silent majority, why not start a blog? There's even a forum for that.

Oh id love to. But can you manage to keep the schoolyard insults down? I highly doubt it. I'm quite content to let you think you've won when your prattling on about how I should really just agree with the deep and profound meaning kinda like "bachelors are unmarried men". Like you literally tied yourself up with "that which created the universe created the universe". Theological noncognitivism can be as much of a philosophical ****can as your uhhh creative uhh insults uhhh try to convey and you still irrevocably lost when you said that.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but you're kind of tarding up Susmario's thread here. You haven't even connected yet with the relevance of that analogy, so I have serious doubts that you will see the failings and flailings of theological non-cognitivism.

If you want to go at it, then let's go at it where it belongs. But pay attention to the fact that all you're saying at every single step of theological non-cognitivism is that you're grasping at the claim that you lack the intellectual capacity to understand a sentence that people throughout time and across essentially every culture has been able to understand.

It has no more intellectual depth than the radical skeptic who doesn't accept that anything can possibly be known. It's pretty worthless and incapable of doing anything other than try to defend its rightness by rejecting everything that's remotely reasonable.

What are you two talking about? Pease provide a link to the dispute.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...ument-1626573/

I spent three weeks overtly trolling Susmario pretending to be a subservient dilettante so not exactly worried about tarding up the thread.

It's sad, it would be fun to have a conservation with someone more competent then, well, Susmario, but your inability to control your schoolyard insult urges is just something I'm not going to reward. And all from someone wanting me to be impressed with how deep and meaningful "that which created the universe created the universe" is. No. Pointing and laughing at you from over here is quite fine until such time as you demonstrate a willingness to have a conversation beyond you telling me I "lack the intellectual capacity" to do things. Find it within yourself to control your uncontrollable urges just a tad, then maybe we can talk more more meaningfully.

the being, or entity, that created everything

(note, I am not saying that such a thing exists, or that I believe in such a thing, or that this is the only definition, or the correct definition. I am just answering your question as to what I understand by the word "God")

Here's my suggestion: Go into that thread and make a defense of theological non-cognitivism that presents a reason for rejecting meaning other than "I just don't know what it means." Defenses of statements being non-cogntive like "I smell green" as meaningless revolve around explaining that the concept of "smell" as an olfactory experience is misaligned with the "green" as a visual experience. If you can do that, we'll talk.

But so far, all of your statements have come down to "I don't know what this means" without having any expression of why you should struggle with its meaning.

"I don't understand how a 'god' can be like a 'being' or how a 'thing' might be like a 'universe.'"

"I don't know what 'being' and 'created' and 'universe' mean in this context."

Notice how in none of these cases have you presented an actual *reason* for why you reject the meaning of these words or why you can't understand those words in this context. And at no point do you actually present such an argument.

The other thing that you have done that you *shouldn't* do in your non-cognitive presentation is worry about any sense in which there is "value" to assenting to or rejecting the statement. That is not part of the non-cognitivist position.

This is an example of you shifting the goalposts and worrying about what is accomplished by accepting or rejecting a statement. (And here is the bachelor conversation enters: There is literally nothing is accomplished by accepting the statement "a bachelor is an unmarried man" other than establishing the meaning of a word. Assenting to or rejecting this definition doesn't meaningfully do anything except for that. But that doesn't say that the statement is devoid of cognitive content.)

Also, if you're arguing from the non-cognitivist position, you should *NEVER* invoke the following question:

That question is utterly irrelevant to any non-cognitivist position. You can't even understand the statement, so the question of whether it's true or false isn't even on the table for discussion. Again, it's a goalpost shift. It doesn't matter whether something can be accomplished or not by assenting to or rejecting the claim.

Your position is that you just don't know what it means, but that you have a good reason to claim that you don't know what it means. That is the argument you must successfully make in order for theological noncognitivism to be on solid ground. Simply saying that you don't understand what it means is insufficient.

Edit: Here's another way to think about the task at hand. The challenge is not to present a reason why *YOU* don't understand the claim, but a reason why the claim *CANNOT* be understood. "I smell green" cannot be understood because of the misalignment of sensory experiences. "A being created the universe" cannot be understood because... ?

Dear everyone here, thanks a lot for your presence.


Now, no more too much wasteful but subversive talk into disruption, from guys here who are into disruption of the thread here.

What you guys should do in order that the thread for everyone of the silent majority can advance to the conclusion that God exists,

in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning

- what you guys should do is to proclaim this affirmation, with total commitment, as follows:

"I [put you name here, like Aaron, Neeeel, and Uke, and their emulators] accept

that God in concept is first and foremost the creator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning:

so help me, Oh ye the international community of humans for the advancement of knowledge founded upon thinking on truths, facts, logic and the history of ideas."

There, dear silent majority here, that should make these guys abstain from disruption and join in the work of from the concept of God, the search for the entity that corresponds to the concept of

God, as in concept namely, first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Happy thinking and writing!

why should I do this? I already gave you my answer to your question

Now, Oh ye guys who do not accept the concept of

God, namely, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning,

let you guys who are into advancing your own concept of God, proclaim the following affirmation, to wit:

"I [put your name here, like Aaron, Neeeel, and Uke, and their emulators] proclaim that for myself,

[put here your very own self-committed concept of God];

so help me, Oh ye the international community of humans for the advancement of knowledge founded upon thinking on truths, facts, logic and the history of ideas."

Happy thinking and writing!

You seem confused. I have no intention of reading your post. The conditions of me stopping to engage the point - beyond laughing and laughing and laughing at you for the oh-so-meaningful "that which created the universe created the universe" - were very clear: your refusal to stop littering your posts with schoolyard level insults. Those conditions haven't changed. If you can find it within yourself to NOT do that - namely you will change your behavior - then I might be tempted back.

Dear everyone here, see this gem of a dictionary of atheism from the atheists in Finland. I will just reproduce its entry on these two words, God and Godless. pay attention to the line I put in bold:




Happy reading!

As you guys who are into disruption here will not make the proclamation in writing here, instead claiming this and that in the past, but no proclamation as per my demand, using the text I put up for you, then there is no reason for me to reply to your posts; again, unless and until you make that proclamation: otherwise you are into disruption by all kinds of maneuvers here, as with uttering that you have said already this and that and etc. etc. etc. - but no proclamation today and for all future reference from this point onward.

Just make your proclamation, that will be the proof of your acceptance of God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Then when you want to deny your proclamation, the only reason if you have any working reason and honesty at all: pradoxcally and ironically, you will have to affirm that you are insane.

It's your choice to read what you read. And it's your choice to post what you want to post. But the simple fact remains: Theological non-cognitivism is nothing more than sitting around pretending you're too stupid to have the conversation. If that's the intellectual position you want to take, so be it. If you can't even come up with an argument as to *why* you can't have the conversation, then I will probably continue to ridicule you for it. (But just remember, you're the one who brought it up in this exchange, not me. It's clear you're holding the grudge, not me. The door is open for you to make an actual argument -- which you have yet to do.)

I'm going to link that post back to the other thread just to keep the information together.

I'll take that as 'Yes, I intend to continue bringing schoolyard "I'm stupid"/"I'm a moran"/"I've shut my brain off" insults in if we engaged again'. Too bad. If that isn't the case, let me know, and I'd be happy to reengage and explain how unimpressive your "that which created the universe created the universe" is. And remember, I'm not even objecting to your favourite internet posting style of unrelenting condescension, ridiculous though that is. Keep that, if it really tickles your fancy, although a conversation with just a modicum of decorum would be nice. But at least shut off the schoolyard insult crap.