Yes, that is an accurate assessment. If you don't bring anything more to the table than "I don't understand" then you're truly worthy of being insulted. It's not that different from some Republican defenses of Trump. There's no intellectual merit, and trying to engage as if there's intellectual merit is already granting the position much more than it's actually worth.

I think it was the first reply to you in that thread where you were already being accused of arguing in bad faith. That's how transparently bad the position of theological non-cognitivism is.

So either make you argument (or find some full-throated defense of theological noncognitivism and link that -- so that I can insult that person instead of you), or quit whining about it.

I have no idea what you are going on about with the proclamation. I wil just repeat my answer to your question, as to my concept of god

Pathetic.

Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.


Now, let everyone who intends to contribute to this thread, please enact the proclamation of affirmation that you know the information of the concept of God from my part, namely:

"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."

In case you have your very own information of the concept of God from your part, then 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."

There, that is the way for you who care to contribute to the resolution of God existing or not existing profess your sincere intention of exchange on the issue here, instead of aimlessly and wastefully of the resources of the forum, into disruption of the thread.


And here is my method for proving the existence of God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, namely:

from the concept of transient beings and the concept of God as first and foremost the creator, etc., we proceed to ascertain every instance of causation with us and everything in the universe as effects, which every instance of causation is an instance of proof for the existence of the cause corresponding to the concept of God in concept as creator etc.

1. I am a transient being i.e. I have a beginning and an ending.
2. Therefore God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
3. Let us therefore go forth to ascertain every instance of transient beings, and thereby encounter in every such instance the proof of God's existence, viz with every instance of beings like myself and you and every other human being and also everything with a beginning and an ending.
4. I have ascertained my existence and also your existence and also the existence of every other fellow human being, and also everything in the universe with a beginning and an ending.
5, Conclusion: God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Happy thinking and writing, but don't neglect to put up your proclamation of affirmation on the concept of God from my part, or from your part; otherwise I will take you to be into disruption of the thread here.


ANNEX
Quotes from Susmario:

Yesterday, 03:35 PM #443 Susmario

Re: How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic...


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!

__________________________________


Yesterday, 03:54 PM #445 Susmario

Re: How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic...


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!

__________________________________


Yesterday, 04:15 PM #447 Susmario

Re: How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic...


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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary of Atheism from atheists in Finland

God: A deity or a god, is a postulated supernatural entity, usually, but not always, of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by humans. They assume a variety of forms, but are frequently depicted as having human or animal form.

Sometimes it is considered blasphemous to imagine the deity as having any concrete form. They are usually immortal. They are commonly assumed to have personalities and to possess consciousness, intellects, desires, and emotions much like humans.

Such natural phenomena as lightning, floods, storms, other "acts of God?, and miracles are attributed to them, and they may be thought to be the authorities or controllers of every aspect of human life (such as birth or the afterlife).

Some deities are asserted to be the directors of time and fate itself, to be the givers of human law and morality, to be the ultimate judges of human worth and behaviour, and to be the designers and creators of the Earth or the universe.

Godless: An atheist. Godless is a very good word and I hope that people begin to use it. Godless is not a negative word. Spotless is not negative. Faultless is not negative. Flawless is not negative. Blameless is not negative etc.

http://www.dlc.fi/~etkirja/dictionar...mozTocId382589

Happy reading!

__________________________________


Yesterday, 04:28 PM #448 Susmario

Re: How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic...


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. ÿ

End of ANNEX

Here is my concept of god:

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")

Ye, (2) doesnt follow from (1), therefore your proof is invalid

Dear Neeeel, you say:

(2) does not follow from (1),

but I tell you, it does follow from (1), because God is defined by you as the being, or entity, that created everything.

[Originally Posted by Susmario]

1. I am a transient being i.e. I have a beginning and an ending.
2. Therefore God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
3. Let us therefore go forth to ascertain every instance of transient beings, and thereby encounter in every such instance the proof of God's existence, viz with every instance of beings like myself and you and every other human being and also everything with a beginning and an ending.
4. I have ascertained my existence and also your existence and also the existence of every other fellow human being, and also everything in the universe with a beginning and an ending.
5, Conclusion: God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

[Originally posted by Neeeel]

Here is my concept of god:

the being, or entity, that created everything

What aspect of (1) has a logical bearing on (2)? For example, if you were not a transient being, would (2) still be true?

This Aaron character does not or is not worthy whatsoever of any reply from yours truly, because he does not present his information of the concept of God.

That is the telltale proof of a poster who is into disruption of the thread.

When I don't see any information of his concept of God at the top of his post, at that very point, a poster is automatically ignored by yours truly as an undesirable poster in this thread, he is up to nothing but disruption of the thread.

No matter what volumes of words he writes. it is all disruption.


So, dear everyone wanting to write here, place your information of the concept of God at the very top of your post.

Here is an example of the information of the concept of God:

In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

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

Indeed. If pointing out logical flaws is a disruption to your lecture, I'll do it all day long.

How many times must I accept your concept for you to accept that I accept your concept?

This is a good way for you to continue to pretend like the flaws in your argument don't exist.

Done.

Annex: What aspect of (1) has a logical bearing on (2)? For example, if you were not a transient being, would (2) still be true?

Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.

Here are so far three posters with their information on the concept of God:


From Susmario
God exists, in concept as first and foremost: the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning [et passim].

From Neeeel
Here is my concept of god: the being, or entity, that created everything.

From Aaron
God is in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

______________________


[From Susmario in #454]
And here is my method for proving the existence of God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, namely:

...from the concept of transient beings and the concept of God as first and foremost the creator, etc., we proceed to ascertain every instance of causation with us and everything in the universe as effects, which every instance of causation is an instance of proof for the existence of the cause corresponding to the concept of God in concept as creator etc.

1. I am a transient being i.e. I have a beginning and an ending.
2. Therefore God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
3. Let us therefore go forth to ascertain every instance of transient beings, and thereby encounter in every such instance the proof of God's existence, viz with every instance of beings like myself and you and every other human being and also everything with a beginning and an ending.
4. I have ascertained my existence and also your existence and also the existence of every other fellow human being, and also everything in the universe with a beginning and an ending.
5, Conclusion: God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

[Aaron asks in #451]
What aspect of (1) has a logical bearing on (2)?


They are both in existence.

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

This doesn't answer the question. If you don't exist, how does that impact the truth value of (2)?

Right, but just because I define god as something, doesnt mean it exists. This is why I put the disclaimer at the bottom of my post. You were asking about the concept of god. This is what I answered. I understand what is meant by the word god, this doesnt mean that such a thing exists, or that I believe in the concept as a real thing.

I understand what is meant by the word "gnome", and can talk about and discuss gnomes. It doesnt mean that I believe such a thing exists.

You are assuming that god exists, in order to prove that god exists.
Thats what is called circular reasoning.


You are also assuming that there needs to be a creator. Its possible that there is no such thing, and was no such thing. You cant deduce that such a thing exists solely from your premise (1). You need to add in extra premises.

Thanks everyone for your presence.


Now, I will repeat the concepts of God from myself and Neeeel and Aaron:

From Susmario
God exists, in concept as first and foremost: the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

From Neeeel
Here is my concept of god: the being, or entity, that created everything.

From Aaron
God is in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

And I will repeat my proof for the existence of God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

[From Susmario in #454]
And here is my method for proving the existence of God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, namely:

...from the concept of transient beings and the concept of God as first and foremost the creator, etc., we proceed to ascertain every instance of causation with us and everything in the universe as effects, which every instance of causation is an instance of proof for the existence of the cause corresponding to the concept of God in concept as creator etc.

1. I am a transient being i.e. I have a beginning and an ending.
2. Therefore God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
3. Let us therefore go forth to ascertain every instance of transient beings, and thereby encounter in every such instance the proof of God's existence, viz. with every instance of beings like myself and you and every other human being and also everything with a beginning and an ending.
4. I have ascertained my existence and also your existence and also the existence of every other fellow human being, and also everything in the universe with a beginning and an ending.
5, Conclusion: God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Dear silent majority here, please let you and me see whether Neeeel and Aaron will collaborate with me on the proof I am presenting, by concurring with me step by step, or show me why they do not concur with a step, but they will propose another step by which God can be proven to exist or TO NOT EXIST.

So, addressing Aaron and Neeeel, I will not attend to your perverse efforts again to derail the thread into your wicked end purpose to bog me down with useless and wasteful dilly-dallying: so that you will achieve your aim, which is to disrupt and worst of all, to make this thread altogether un-intelligible to readers.

1. You concur with me that you and I exist, yes? no?

ANNEX

Yesterday, 08:11 PM #462
Susmario
journeyman

Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 375

Re: How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic...
Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.

Here are so far three posters with their information on the concept of God:


From Susmario
God exists, in concept as first and foremost: the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning [et passim].

From Neeeel
Here is my concept of god: the being, or entity, that created everything.

From Aaron
God is in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

______________________


[From Susmario in #454]
And here is my method for proving the existence of God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, namely:

...from the concept of transient beings and the concept of God as first and foremost the creator, etc., we proceed to ascertain every instance of causation with us and everything in the universe as effects, which every instance of causation is an instance of proof for the existence of the cause corresponding to the concept of God in concept as creator etc.

1. I am a transient being i.e. I have a beginning and an ending.
2. Therefore God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
3. Let us therefore go forth to ascertain every instance of transient beings, and thereby encounter in every such instance the proof of God's existence, viz with every instance of beings like myself and you and every other human being and also everything with a beginning and an ending.
4. I have ascertained my existence and also your existence and also the existence of every other fellow human being, and also everything in the universe with a beginning and an ending.
5, Conclusion: God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.


[Aaron asks in #451]
What aspect of (1) has a logical bearing on (2)?


They are both in existence.
Susmario is online now Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Unread Yesterday, 08:18 PM #463
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 26,442

Re: How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic...
God is in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Susmario View Post
[Aaron asks in #451]
What aspect of (1) has a logical bearing on (2)?


They are both in existence.
This doesn't answer the question. If you don't exist, how does that impact the truth value of (2)?
Aaron W. is offline Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Unread Today, 01:22 AM #464
neeeel
Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,283

Re: How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Susmario View Post
Dear Neeeel, you say:

(2) does not follow from (1),

but I tell you, it does follow from (1), because God is defined by you as the being, or entity, that created everything.
Right, but just because I define god as something, doesnt mean it exists. This is why I put the disclaimer at the bottom of my post. You were asking about the concept of god. This is what I answered. I understand what is meant by the word god, this doesnt mean that such a thing exists, or that I believe in the concept as a real thing.

I understand what is meant by the word "gnome", and can talk about and discuss gnomes. It doesnt mean that I believe such a thing exists.

You are assuming that god exists, in order to prove that god exists.
Thats what is called circular reasoning.


You are also assuming that there needs to be a creator. Its possible that there is no such thing, and was no such thing. You cant deduce that such a thing exists solely from your premise (1). You need to add in extra premises.

[Aaron asks in #451]
What aspect of (1) has a logical bearing on (2)?


They are both in existence.
Susmario is online now Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Unread Yesterday, 08:18 PM #463
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 26,442

Re: How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic...
God is in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Susmario View Post
[Aaron asks in #451]
What aspect of (1) has a logical bearing on (2)?


They are both in existence.
This doesn't answer the question. If you don't exist, how does that impact the truth value of (2)?
Aaron W. is offline Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Unread Today, 01:22 AM #464
neeeel
Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,283

Re: How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Susmario View Post
Dear Neeeel, you say:

(2) does not follow from (1),

but I tell you, it does follow from (1), because God is defined by you as the being, or entity, that created everything.
Right, but just because I define god as something, doesnt mean it exists. This is why I put the disclaimer at the bottom of my post. You were asking about the concept of god. This is what I answered. I understand what is meant by the word god, this doesnt mean that such a thing exists, or that I believe in the concept as a real thing.

I understand what is meant by the word "gnome", and can talk about and discuss gnomes. It doesnt mean that I believe such a thing exists.

You are assuming that god exists, in order to prove that god exists.
Thats what is called circular reasoning.


You are also assuming that there needs to be a creator. Its possible that there is no such thing, and was no such thing. You cant deduce that such a thing exists solely from your premise (1). You need to add in extra premises.

[/indent]

You're doing that quite well on your own.

Just answer the question:

1. You concur with me that you and I exist, yes? no?

From Susmario in #465

So, addressing Aaron and Neeeel, I will not attend to your perverse efforts again to derail the thread into your wicked end purpose to bog me down with useless and wasteful dilly-dallying: so that you will achieve your aim, which is to disrupt and worst of all, to make this thread altogether un-intelligible to readers.

1. You concur with me that you and I exist, yes? no?

Despite the fact that I've never touched your nose or fondled your junk, I'm willing to accept that we exist.

I will also point out that at no time was 1. ever in question in this entire thread.

Dear Aaron and Neeeel, I really want to know whether you guys hold such shallow ideas, as that because there is the concept of God: therefore it is already circular reasoning to investigate the existence of God?

That is the point of Neeeel, last he posted here; but the man seems to be always into not taking into account the whole big picture, like this one:

Now, I will repeat the concepts of God from myself and Neeeel and Aaron:


From Susmario
God exists, in concept as first and foremost: the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

From Neeeel
Here is my concept of god: the being, or entity, that created everything.

From Aaron
God is in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

And I will repeat my proof for the existence of God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.


[From Susmario in #454]
And here is my method for proving the existence of God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, namely:

...from the concept of transient beings and the concept of God as first and foremost the creator, etc., we proceed to ascertain every instance of causation with us and everything in the universe as effects, which every instance of causation is an instance of proof for the existence of the cause corresponding to the concept of God in concept as creator etc.

1. I am a transient being i.e. I have a beginning and an ending.
2. Therefore God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
3. Let us therefore go forth to ascertain every instance of transient beings, and thereby encounter in every such instance the proof of God's existence, viz. with every instance of beings like myself and you and every other human being and also everything with a beginning and an ending.
4. I have ascertained my existence and also your existence and also the existence of every other fellow human being, and also everything in the universe with a beginning and an ending.
5, Conclusion: God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

With you, Aaron, you are not any different but at present you are into entrapping me into an endless discussion on how this has a bearing on that, whatsoever.


I have this idea which I am certain insofar as humans are certain from their experiences of things and from inference on these experiences to the existence of things, which are not directly subject to human experiencing, like for example, God certainly existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.


Now, I am asking you to concur with me on that we exist.

Then I will ask you to concur with me that your parents exist.

Further, I will ask you to concur with me that your ancestors existed and they are now into non-existence, but you will want to dwell upon: that they exist because the dust that they have turned into is existing, and therefore I cannot say that they no longer exist, and on and on and on, that is why you make yourselves and Neeeel with his terrific idea about a concept is already into circular reasoning, make yourselves, to prevent the the charge of ad hominem against me, I will just say you make yourselves so sophomoric, or say so naïve, or say so amateurish, or say so simpleton-ic.
.

Now, I want to ask you again, do you at all have any conclusion that you have in your heart and mind that you want to make people accept as to be certainly valid as concept, and/or if you are into investigating reality, it is existing? But you have already professed not: so what are you really after in this thread which is on the issue God exists or not - your purpose is really insidiously wicked and you know it.

So, we can continue to play the game.


In short, that is why the way I see you guys, you are either in good faith which I am sure you are not, but your idea here could certainly be to make fun of people, whom you take to be as silly as you want to make them think you are so ignorant, witless, and stupid with your foolish discovery of circular reasoning (Neeeel), and with you now into the offing of how this has any bearing on that gimmick.


Anyway, let us continue.

So, No. 2, Do you concur with me that mankind exists?

Then tomorrow I will ask you if you concur with me that your ancestors existed once in the human kind of existence, but today no longer; of course no need to bring in your insistence that they still exist as remnants of physical things into which they have their earthly bodies degraded into.


I think I have to ask the powers that be here, whether they see anything that is objectionable with you two, and Uke now and then dropping in even though he had gotten nowhere with playing the fool, what you all I see to be into, trolling.

Of course if they the powers that be are of the same kind as you guys are, then I guess it is time for me to say Adieu to this forum and website.

And that is why this forum and website is not into filtering out posters who are not in genuine honest constructive treatment of the question, but into trolling.

Or I will go here into something else than what I like most to think about and seek other people's thinking on, namely, that God exists and man can and does know Him to exist, on reasoning with truths, facts, logic and the history of ideas.


But I will let you in on the secret that is in my heart and mind, why I will not go away, it is something that is very human with myself – that is the secret, I will not go away from this thread as long as you two are still here to interact with me, however simpletons you make out yourselves to be.

I will not go away because it is something very human with me.



So, happy thinking and writing!

No, that wasnt my point,thats not what I think, and thats not what I said. I didnt say "because there is the concept of God,investigating the existence of god is already circular reasoning" , I said it is circular reasoning to assume the existence of god, in order to prove the existence of god.

ok, we exist

Dear silent majority here, thanks a lot for your presence.


Now, I want to tell you what is my procedure in proving that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

1. Show Neeeel and Aaron and their emulators that we all humans exist, that is from our experience; and the things which we know with our experience to exist – all that is summed up in this short sentence:

The default status of things in the totality of reality or being is existence.

2. Show Aaron and Neeeel and their emulators that our existence has a beginning and an ending, that is also known by us all with seeing how babies come to existence outside their mother's womb and how we from babies started living and end up with death, when our body can no longer continue in life because all the vital systems have worn out, or been destroyed by some lethal incident impacting on us.

I hope Aaron and Neeeel and their emulators understand my English, because my English is what English speaking folks who use the language as their native tongue, know that I am using the language for a second language – so they could be unfamiliar with my kind of English, but that does not make them moronic as to not comprehend at all what I am conveying with the language.

But these posters more often than not exhibit very poor command of English vocabulary, and on how to understand meanings of words as from the totality of a text in English, for example and this is very conspicuous with Neeeel, and also from Aaron: Neeeel insisting that he cannot understand my use of the word 'transient', notwithstanding that I tell him time and again in my posts that taking the context of my writing here, it means existence with a beginning and an ending; with Aaron it is now with his insisting that he cannot get what is the bearing of this and that in two statements from my proof of God existing.

That is why I often have the temptation of concluding that I am dealing with sub-intelligent human beings, or at most call center workers who have a repertory of at most 4 answers, with the universal answer to callers, like "I cannot understand your circular reasoning" (that should leave the caller speechless), or with Aaron, "What is the bearing of your second statement to your first statement?" (that should also leave the caller totally speechless); or certainly not that Aaron and Neeeel and their emulators are talkbots, so we cannot blame them when they regularly go off tangent, leaving us completely speechless.

3. Show Aaron and Neeeel and their emulators that we and everything we know, are transient beings, repeat: transient means having a beginning and an ending – there, hope they get the idea correctly finally, namely: everything starting with ourselves being transient have need of a cause to come to existence, and we are the effects of that cause, which that cause brought us and everything with a beginning and an ending, into existence, i.e. everything at all transient has need of a cause to have come to existence.

At this point Neeeel will interrupt with, "That is circular reasoning, you have not proven anything of God existing."

So, addressing Neeeel and Aaron and their emulators, "Will you please keep quiet but attentive and with alert status of your working reason and intelligence, and read with verbal comprehension further?

4. I bring Aaron and Neeeel and their emulators to the universe, starting with the nose in our face: we who are guys will each pinch our nose and each others' nose, or if modesty is dispensed with, we will each one and mutually grip very hard with our hands our balls hanging from our lower torso, until we cry out in excruciating pain: there, that should prove from experience that we exist: that is one instance of causation in which we are the effect and the cause is also present in the our experience of pain; though the cause is not subject to our sense experience, but from our inference – later on I will expatiate on why the cause is not subject to our human experience with our senses, but by inference from our experience.

5. I invite Aaron and Neeeel and their emulators to observe everything they encounter everyday in their living and working and enjoying years of their transient living existence, and know that all these things are transient, meaning they have a beginning and an ending.

6. Therefore the conclusion follows, that the cause exists which is the creator and operator of the everything with a beginning and ending, i.e. transient things, this means the universe and us humans, and in four words, everything with a beginning.

7. And the cause we call traditionally in English, God, and our concept of God is namely: in concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.*



Now, addressing Aaron and Neeeel and their emulators, as I will now assume that you are not sub-intelligent humans, nor lazy to learn call center telephone receptionists, and certainly not talkbots, please now concur with me on my No. 2 statement:

2. You and I and everyone human and everything we experience as also we ourselves experience our own existence, we are transient beings i.e. we have a beginning and an ending, yes? no?

Please remember that you two already concur with my first statement, namely, that we you and I exist.


Okay, dear silent majority, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to observe whether Aaron and Neeeel and their emulators are not sub-intelligent humans, and neither lazy call center workers, and definitely not talkbots.

At this point I fear Aaron will return again to his question, What is the bearing etc....

And Neeeel with protesting that he is not saying anything I am saying which he is referring to whatsoever, it is (or is not) circular reasoning, it is something else, like that from the concept of God, I am going to search for God in the universe...


Okay, now from my part, dear Aaron and dear Neeeel, please explain you Aaron, what do you mean with saying or asking how my this sentence has any bearing on that sentence; and you Neeeel, please explain what you mean with saying whatever you want to refer to in my posting where which to you is an example of circular reasoning and of course end up with, "That is what I mean by the phrase, circular reasoning.”

I am going to wait to read your explanation of what is it about there being a bearing or not having a bearing between two sentences, that’s for you Aaron; and for Neeeel, what exactly is circular reasoning?

You can write as much as you want or need to.




Happy thinking and writing!

*At this point Neeeel, in his role as perhaps a talkbot will be stirred up to utter, “That is circular reasoning, that is circular reasoning, that is circular reasoning…”


From my part: Hehehehehehehe… playing the role of a talkbot.

It doesnt matter how nasty, or petty, or insulting you get. Using something to prove the existence of that thing, is circular reasoning. That is the definition.

So, if you say "God is the creator of all things with a beginning. We are created. Therefore god exists" this is circular reasoning. You have your conclusion in your premises.

You are free to disagree that you showed circular reasoning, and explain to me why your argument isnt circular.




Nope. The fact of existence does not lead to your conclusion. You are assuming that there must be a cause.

I'm moderately confident that your struggle is not with the English language itself.

This doesn't follow. I will once again call upon the banana and the monkey. The existence of an empty banana peel does not imply the existence of a monkey in my house.

It is worth noting that this is not what people traditionally mean about God in English. This is a particularly purpose-built definition for arguments of the nature that you're attempting to present.

I do not know yet whether I will have an end. I haven't experienced that yet. However, I do feel comfortable admitting that I have a beginning.

I'm saying that it seems (1) can be either true or false without impacting the truth of (2). Therefore, (1) does not have enough logical force to imply (2).

Dear silent majority here, I will not any further interact with the wastrels here.

Thanks a lot for your presence, dear silent majority here; your presence is an endorsement on the merit of my thinking and writing on truths, facts, logic and the history of ideas.


In this thread from myself I have from thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas come to the following truths and facts:

1. The default status of things in the totality of reality or being is existence.
2. Existence is of two kinds: permanent or transient.
3. Transient existence depends on permanent existence to come into existence.
4. This dependency is as effect scil. transient existence depends upon its cause scil. permanent existence to come to existence from non-existence.
5. There exists God in concept as first and foremost the permanent existing entity creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.


Now, dear silent majority, see if you can deny with refuting the truth and the fact of the five statements above.




Happy thinking and writing, but not addressed to the wastrels here.

Don’t bother to write posts in this thread, Oh ye wastrels, take that from me, because I won’t be reading your posts from this point on.

I will devote my time and interest in examining all kinds of information on the basis of the five statements above, like for example the information content of science today and all other disciplines, and of course religion and art and everything else that is the concern of honest and productive thinkers.


I almost forgot, namely, every so often in order to test the capability of the wastrels here to do sincere and productive thinking on anything at all, I would pose to them the challenge to write on an idea in 500 words or less.

In my preceding post I challenged them to write with as many words as they want and need, on the from Aaron the idea of how one sentence has a bearing on another sentence, and from Neeeel on the idea of circular reasoning.

You have noticed, dear silent majority here, they never ever have done any such sincere and productive expatiation on an idea.

That is the truth and the fact that wastrels can't think, they only regurgitate sour and stale at most clichés* they swallowed from their similar to themselves masters of deceit.


*cliché klēˈSHā/

a phrase or opinion that is overused and betrays a lack of original thought.
"the old cliché “one man's meat is another man's poison.”
synonyms: platitude, hackneyed phrase, commonplace, banality, old saying, maxim, truism, stock phrase, trite phrase; old chestnut
"a good speechwriter will steer clear of clichés"

https://www.google.com/search?client...M8aD1ASFjaTwAQ

I challenge #1. It's the same issue that you have failed to address in nearly 500 posts. Observing the existence of an object does not imply that the object's default status is existence.