Dear silent majority here, I have been thinking of - what else but existence? and I decided to look up with google the following inquiry:

what is existence in science

And you know what google turns up?

A lot of hits on God existing; but right there in the first page also about the conclusion of a scientific physicist/cosmologist, Michio Kaku (World Renowned Scientist Michio Kaku Proves Existence Of God ...), saying that he has concluded to the existence of God with science.


Dear silent majority here, you will notice as you search for science on existence, perhaps like me you will see that the word existence is almost non-existing in science [pun intended]; correct me though if you come to the the opposite.

This seems to indicate that scientists prefer to not think about existence, because they know that they will come to the existence of God, and get themselves sooner than later jobless in science studies, establishments, etc.

Anyway, let you go through the hits of google on what is existence in science, and we can learn together on what science has to tell us on what is existence.

Hits from google, https://www.google.com/search?q=what...J8GAmwWVn5XoCA

Google search: what is existence in science
_______________________________________

About 205,000,000 results (0.43 seconds)
Search Results



Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is ...
www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist ... Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous ...

_______________________________________

10 Scientists Who Claim to Have Proof about the Existence of God ...
www.oddee.com/item_98822.aspx
Jan 7, 2014 - 10 Scientists Who Claim to Have Proof about the Existence of God. 1/7/2014 (Updated 01/12/2014 ) by Natalie Umansky. Weird Science. Both believers and atheists are constantly waiting for clear evidence to confirm or deny the existence of God.

_______________________________________

Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_GodWikipedia
The existence of God is a subject of debate in the philosophy of religion, popular culture, and .... In Karl Popper's philosophy of science, belief in a supernatural God is outside the natural domain of scientific investigation because all scientific ...

_______________________________________

Can science prove the existence of God? – Starts With A Bang! - Medium
https://medium.com/.../can-science-p...f-god-b6fefdc5...
Dec 30, 2014 - This past weekend, Eric Metaxas lit up the world with his bold article in the Wall Street Journal, Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God.

_______________________________________

Does Science Prove God Exists? - One Faith
blog.onefaithonline.com/blog/article/does-science-prove-god-exists
Feb 24, 2016 - To answer the question about whether science can prove God exists, it helps to understand the difference between inductive and deductive ...

_______________________________________

World Renowned Scientist Michio Kaku Proves Existence Of God ...
http://www.scienceworldreport.com/.....t-michio-kaku-...
Jun 13, 2016 - Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, one of the most respected scientists today claimed that he found definitive proof of the existence of God.

_______________________________________

Has a Prominent Physicist Proved the Existence of God? - Breaking ...
http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/.....ed-existence-g...
Jun 23, 2016 - You can't prove the existence, or the non-existence, of God,” said Aviezer. ... Some lauded his declaration of faith as a sign that science finally ...

_______________________________________

Why Science Does Not Disprove God | TIME
time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/Time
Apr 27, 2014 - A number of recent books and articles would have you believe that—somehow—science has now disproved the existence of God. We know so ...

_______________________________________

Scientific PROOF that God Exists! | News24
http://www.news24.com/.../Scientific...01412...News24
Dec 13, 2014 - I have irrefutable scientific proof that God exists. This is evidence so clear that Atheists will not be able to use their normal tricks and their ...

_______________________________________

What Is Nothing? Physicists Debate | The Existence of ... - Live Science
www.livescience.com › Strange News
Mar 22, 2013 - Scientists are hard-pressed to define the concept. ... Memorial Debate, which this year was focused on the topic of "The Existence of Nothing.".

_______________________________________

Searches related to what is existence in science

science and the existence of god

science for god's existence

science souls exist

scientific existence of god

does god exist albert einstein

does god exist debate

god does not exist

proof that god exists

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Next

So I was thinking about it and I've accepted that there must exist some first cause of the universe, and I have decided to give a name to this conceptual first cause: "God".

Susmario: what next?

RGT prohibits personal attacks, so even if you think someone's position has no intellectual merit insults are not allowed.

Just to be clear, while I called Aaron out for his chain of "I'm stupid", "I'm a moran", "I've shut off my brain" level insults, it wasn't for the intent of any moderator action. I don't want those posts deleted or Aaron sanctioned for those posts in any way. I'm quite happy just not engaging it further when he does this.

If the entirety of an argument is "I don't understand what 'a being created the universe' means, even though I can understand contextually the meaning of words like 'being' and 'created' and 'universe' " then I believe it's fair to say that someone is playing dumb and characterizing the position as "I'm too stupid for this conversation" seems accurate.

Edit: To elaborate further, if the essence of the position is to reject the meaning of words, I think one should present an explanation for the rejection of meaning at a level that is higher than "I just don't understand." I gave a fairly long description of the types of arguments one can make to say that a sentence doesn't have cognitive content. But simply saying "I don't get it" isn't sufficient.

I have some time, so I'll just keep going.

The basic position of theological noncognitivism as I understand it is to reject that the word "God" is sufficiently well-defined for the purposes of having a discussion of it. Uke's position is very particular, in that he's made it clear that it's the absence of meaning non-cognitive perspective, and not the verificationist non-cognitive perspective. It's not that we are unable to verify a particular feature about God, but it's just that the sentence literally cannot be understood.

The usual approach is to reject things like "sovereign" or "perfect" or "eternal" as adjectives to describe God, and to take the position that such words describe a God that is either contradictory or that these words do not do not describe what God *IS* (as opposed to describing features about God).

But he has taken this argument much too far by trying to apply it to an idea that is worded fairly blandly and is used as part of the creation of an analogy. The basic position being taken is something akin to "We know what it is to create things, so it is possible to conceptualize that a being of some type created the universe."

This is just a statement of imaginable possibility. At this level, theological noncognitivism is simply not playing a role in the way that Uke is trying to do it. There is no necessity to "define" the being. There is not attribution of particular characteristics of the being. No truth values are being asserted. It's just an speculation built on an analogy with the idea of creating an anything.

I'm not even saying that the argument is stupid (though I think it is). I'm saying that taking that position is feigning stupidity. That is, it's pretending that something that's understandable isn't understandable. There is no intellectual merit to such a position. It's an argument rooted in bad faith, and it is not worthy of being treated as if it is raising a meaningful objection.

Admittedly I didn't read to the end, but I'm guessing your attempts to carefully reframe the argument for OrP didn't include the part I was objecting to: You can hold that my criticism of your "that which created the universe created the universe" is as intellectually valueless as you wish - I have no problem with that. But come on, we are two math professors with a passing interest in arm chair philosophy and who both willing, at times, to put in substantial effort in debates. Is the only debate you are willing to have one with this just unrelenting condescension comes through in every interaction? Heck, even your passion for unrelenting condescension, while unfortunate, is I dunno I guess somewhat ignorable. But can you please cut out the "I'm a moran!" level of schoolyard insult crap?


edit: to be clear again, I'm neither claiming they deserve moderation nor want moderation.

No, I was quite clear in my summary that "playing dumb" (which includes "turning brain activity down to 0" and "claiming to be a moran") is essentially how I've characterized the argument.

If the structure of your argument is to feign that you cannot comprehend a basic English sentence, then no. In essence, to engage with the idea that you are free to just reject meaning is an intellectual non-starter. (Just as engaging in politics with someone who does not acknowledge facts is not going to go anywhere.) You *MUST* raise a specific objection to meaning. It's simply insufficient to just keep repeating that you don't understand a sentence that's perfectly understandable.

Sorry, but unless you can say more than just "I don't understand" and start to elaborate one what precisely you don't understand and why, there's literally no meaningful conversation to be had about it.

Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.


Now, dear silent majority here (Aaron and Neeeel and your emulators, you don't have to read this, but I have also something for you below), you see the wastrels here are acting like robots.


Some days ago I noticed that the billing for my telephone is no longer 1,299.01 pesos, but 1,299.00 - without the 0.01 peso.

You know why? The way I see it, a human intervened to remove the 0.01 peso so that the whole payable amount is no longer with a silly added 0.01 peso, but a more simple rounded amount of 1,299.00 pesos.

My point is that with Aaron and Neeeel and their emulators, they are conducting themselves here like talkbots.

Now talkbots don't think, they operate according to their programmers' instructions, and their programmers do not program them as to operate with taking into account, that when they the talbots produce sounds like, "that is circular reasoning" (with Neeeel), and "what is the bearing of sentence 2 to sentence 1" (with Aaron), they talkbots first factor in that communication by words with humans is a very rich linking of heart and mind of the parties in exchange of thought and feeling, in the concrete situation of everyday life, and also sometimes in exceptional circumstances of an incident like when there is a bombing by a terrorist.

So, when humans say among themselves a sentence like "Man is man," the talbot in their midst right away as programmed notices the subject and predicate of the sentence are identical, and it the talkbot operates according to cue, this way: "That is circular reasoning, that is circular reasoning, that is circular reasoning..."

Now, dear silent majority, why I ask you will humans say among themselves a sentence like "Man is man," with the subject and the predicate physically identical insofar as naked symbols and sounds are concerned: unless they are sharing many other things aside from the naked visible symbols and audible sounds: things like emotions, instructions, memories, experiences, wishes, etc., etc., etc.

Let's take this scene that is still common in a typical Filipino home and family - I mean where there is still a house maid helper: there will always be a male member of the home trying to make a pass at the house maid, and the women folk will say among themselves, "Man is man."

Dear silent majority here, as you are not talkbots, you understand what I am telling you, and it is nothing to do with circular reasoning.


Now the following write up is also for Aaron and Neeeel and their emulators:

You see dear silent majority here, as the author of this thread it is my duty to effect that all posters of course starting with myself, get connected in order to work to the resolution of the issue presented in the thread.

The issue of the thread is whether God exists or not, and the resolution is achieved by proving that God exists or proving that God does not exist.

Now, it has seemed to me that the most productive way and means to achieve the resolution of the issue is to work together to concur, step by step until finally posters here everyone starting of course with myself, concur that yes, God exists, or no, God does not exist.

This morning I will ask Aaron and Neeeel and their emulators to take up the initiative, with presenting what thought in their heart and mind they want me to concur on with them, conducive to the resolution of the issue, yes God exists, or no God does not exist.

Dear Aaron and Neeeel and dear emulators of Aaron and Neeeel, please present a thought from your heart and mind, and I will together with you work as to come to concurrence ultimately on yes God exists, or to come to concurrence ultimately on no God does not exist.

Please proceed, dear Aaron and Neeeel, and you all emulators of Aaron and Neeeel.

I think he's talking to himself again.

A thought in my heart and mind is that it would be good if you went back and answered the points I have brought up over the last 500 posts or whatever in this thread.

The only thing real or that's true is the present

Dear Aaron and Neeeel, every so often I would try to start again from a blank slate, when the situation in my thread has gotten unwieldy precisely owing to you two disruptors, but you Neeeel are really a talkbot, for you will again and again and again want me to go back to your whatsoever if any at all points that I have not answered, that is really very much like a talkbot; with Aaron he will resort to something that is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, like I am again talking to myself.

Both of you are really into conducting yourselves as talkbots and in effect disruptors.

Here is my message for you this morning:

Neeeel, what about you bring up again your mention of circular reasoning, and tell me what you want to teach me about it.

Or that the sentence "The default status of things in the totality of reality or being is existence," that it is a tautology, and you teach me how it is a tautology, and point out one thing that you will want me to accept from you because it is what? the truth, the fact, the logical thing, or it is one of the greatest ideas in the history of man's thinking?

Same also for Aaron.

Dear silent majority here, now THAT I am inviting Aaron and Neeeel and their emulators to take the initiative to propose from their heart and mind anything at all they want me to know, as they do know, and they are speechless!


Hahahahahaha.

You guys can't think, please just go away.

Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.


We have a new participant in this thread, Welcome, Jaguar!


That is very good!


So, let you and me work out to arrive at a consensus on understanding your words above; the consensus statement we will arrive at might be something different though, but I hope with us two thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, the statement that we will concur on, will be a contribution to our both's advance in knowledge as compared and opposite to lies, i.e. instances of intentional falsehood.


Here are the words from your statement, dear Jaguar, or sentence above:

The
only
thing
real
or
that's
true
is
the
present

From my part I will think on them with my heart and mind grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

I find three words which are begging us to think on them as to concur on what we mean by them, so that we will not be like talbots which will just take them to mean whatsoever their masters implanted into their 0's and 1's computer storage of a mind, as to react on cue, but totally off tangent to the issue which you and I, Jaguar, have in our mind in this thread, which is on



I will take the first word of the three, namely real, which three deserve our attention.

Right away, I will say that real in common understanding is what we might say to be opposite to - what just now comes to my mind, namely, fake.

What do you say, dear Jaguar?

So you are admitting that you arent here for discussion, you are just here to spew the same rubbish over and over again, without addressing any objections or points raised by other people?

Of course I want you to go back and address my points. Otherwise, every time you bring up your argument, I am going to bring up the same objections, and see them unanswered again

Dear Neeeel, please bring up one point you want me to work together with you to concur on, on how the point is to be resolved, for you tell me:

[From Neeeel #493]

Of course I want you to go back and address my points. Otherwise, every time you bring up your argument, I am going to bring up the same objections, and see them unanswered again

Dear silent majority here, again, this is my honest sincere effort to bring Neeeel to my offer or request or demand even, that he now and also with Aaron, take the initiative to bring up one point for us to work on together as to come to an agreed on resolution of the point they will bring up, for us to work on to come to an agreed on resolution of the point they bring up.

My purpose in this thread is to expound on my idea, namely, "How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas."

For myself I have proven to my certainty that from thinking on truths, etc., man will come to the certainty that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

I really want to know from the heart and mind of Aaron and Neeeel and their emulators, what is their purpose in this thread.

The way I see them from their writing, in end effect it is to disrupt my thread, so that readers will get confused and not get me on what I am pursuing, namely: to explain to them how thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, they will come to the existence of God, with (again) thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas; as I have myself come to certainty, namely: that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

So, dear silent majority, when Neeeel and Aaron and their emulators write again in this thread, you and I should expect to read of their thoughts which must cover two things here:

1. What is their purpose for writing in this thread?

2. What is the point they want to bring up now, for us they and I to work together as to concur on the agreed on resolution of the point they bring up.


Dear readers, let us sit back and await with bated breath the action Aaron and Neeeel and their emulations will take now, so that we will know what is in their heart and mind with writing in this thread: Is it to contribute to the resolution of this thread, mainly, on God existing or not, OR it is in essence attempts to disrupt i.e. derail this thread.


Okay, everyone, let us sit back and observe the reaction of Aaron and Neeeel and their emulations, what is their reaction when they write again in this thread.

Happy awaiting!

Forgive me, but I am very excited to read their coming posts if any at all, for I am sure that with their kind of heart and mind, Neeeel will again insist that I answer the points he has brought up already in the past, and Aaron will bring up something that is totally off tangent; so that in effect they are again into the end purpose of writing here, viz. to disrupt the thread with their maneuver wicked at that, insisting that I answer the points they bring up, and also talking without connection to this thread.

That is the action if at all in 'good faith' of talkbots, but if they would be in sincere honest genuine good faith, then they should just bring up one point for now, for I want to start again as from a blank slate.

I ask you, dear silent majority here, as Neeeel is continuously droning on and on and on that I should answer the points he brought up in the past - which I have done several times already, is it not simple and to his credit in regard to being in good faith, to just bring up one point for now; with regard to Aaron, he should just as also with Neeeel of course, tell mankind what is his purpose with writing in this thread.


Again, Happy awaiting!

And everyone here, just one point, and then when that one point has been resolved to everyone's good faith satisfaction, we will go into another point Neeeel and Aaron and their emulators will bring up - that is the way of being systematic instead of wickedly disrupting the thread with endless repetition of past points whatsoever they are referring to, for there are as many as their wicked heart and mind will want to bring up, and then I will be derailed into endless debate on whether I have already answered the points, on and on and on forever, with my thread already disrupted forever.

Dear silent majority here, I just hope that you don't find my wordy eloquence annoying.

The Romans - if memory serves, have this idea about better to be overly cautious than risk misunderstanding from the part of talkbots.

ex abundanti cautela. out of an abundance of caution. In law, describes someone taking precautions against a very remote contingency. "One might wear a belt in addition to braces ex abundanti cautela".
https://www.google.com/search?q=ex+a...NMLE8QXm24OwCg

On the other hand, I must confess that I really enjoy doing this thread.

(2) doesnt follow logically from (1). So either your argument is incorrect, or there are premises that you are assuming but not including. Perhaps you can fill out the argument with your missing premises?

Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.


Now, dear Neeeel, thank you for bringing up one point, that is a very good sign of your good faith.

Quote from Susmario #494
So, dear silent majority, when Neeeel and Aaron and their emulators write again in this thread, you and I should expect to read of their thoughts which must cover two things here:

1. What is their purpose for writing in this thread?

2. What is the point they want to bring up now, for us they and I to work together as to concur on the agreed on resolution of the point they bring up.

Quote from Neeeel #496

Quote from Susmario cited by Neeeel:
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.

Quote from Neeeel
From (2) doesnt follow logically from (1). So either your argument is incorrect, or there are premises that you are assuming but not including. Perhaps you can fill out the argument with your missing premises?

____________________


Now, dear Neeeel, you have brought up one point from my past writing here, thank you!

We will go to it to read your explanation why you see something whatever it is with my point you bring up, BUT I want you to bring up also my No. 1 demand from you and Aaron and your both's emulators, namely:

1. What is their purpose for writing in this thread?

You will recall that I am always demanding that you and Aaron and your both's emulators tell mankind what is your purpose in writing in this thread, because when you don't tell mankind what is your purpose in writing in this thread, then mankind does not know what exactly is your orientation in this thread, for you can be just into trolling: the way I see it, one of the first and foremost give-away of a troll in a forum, is that the troll will not tell mankind what is his purpose in writing in a thread.


Okay, dear silent majority here, as soon as Neeeel and Aaron and their emulators tell mankind what is their purpose in writing in this thread, and their purpose is to pursue the resolution of the issue in this thread, namely, that God exists in concept first and foremost as the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning OR not, then I will accept you and interact with you; otherwise, please go away, for we don't need trolls to do nothing but frustrate the thread with all kinds and means they can come up with to do so.


Now, dear silent readers, please let you concur with me, that as they have not, I mean Neeeel and Aaron and their emulators do not tell mankind and us here in this thread, what is their purpose in writing here, we can just ignore their writing here, for it is all into in end focus, disruption of this thread.


You see, dear silent majority, the author of a thread is like a tour operator offering to fellow humans to bring them to a destination, like for example, in the realm of ideas, the existence of God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Now, there are folks joining the tour but not so certain that the tour operator will bring them to the destination as advertised, STILL they are keenly interested to contribute in good faith toward the arrival at the advertised destination OR not, AND they will not in any ways and by any means obstruct the conduct of the tour operator in bringing everyone to the destination as advertised, namely, to lead them to the certainty of the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.


Okay, let us sit back and await with bated breath the answer of Neeeel to my idea of what folks writing here should be into, by telling us what is their purpose in writing in this thread.


Happy awaiting, and I assure you that I am not into dilly-dallying here, I will go to Neeeel's point about what I wrote in the past and what he finds wrong whatsoever he understands by wrong.

AS SOON AS HE TELLS MANKIND WHAT IS HIS PURPOSE IN WRITING IN THIS THREAD, AND IT IS NOT TO CONDUCT HIMSELF AS A TROLL.

Dearest Susmario - It's when you engage in patterns like this that you reveal yourself not to be discussing in good faith and that you are the one who is the troll. Well, that and your propensity to continue to ignore anything that's actually spoken and continue soliloquizing endlessly while offering little intellectual content at all. In nearly 500 posts in this thread, you have not once engaged on a single issue raised about your presentation.

At this point, my intention is to see if you will engage in any intellectual content at all, or if you will continue in your current anti-intellectual patterns. I have little hope for the former.

Dear silent majority here, while Neeeel is thinking up what should be his spin next he writes here, let you and me go into something which I will propose to you, to think on truths, facts, and logic, and the history of ideas on, which I want to believe is toward the enhancement of mankind's knowledge of reality, or with mankind's knowledge of that "The default status of things in the totality of reality or being is EXISTENCE!


Here we go, dear silent majority:

1. The first and also the final ultimate ground of our knowledge of reality is our conscious experience of things in the totality of being, directly, and/or indirectly but also validly by inference from direct experience.

How do I propose to convince you that No. 1 is the truth, the fact, and the logical thing, and it is already been discovered or concluded on by mankind in the history of ideas from mankind?

What about in this way: You think hard on your experiences, and tell me what you might have found of some information of reality that you now know which has not come to you by directly from your experience, and/or indirectly but also validly by inference from your direct experience.


So, addressing silent majority here (but not Neeeel and Aaron and their emulators, please don't react to this post), tell me your comments.


What I say is my crude certainty, but we will all work together as to arrive at a short sentence in this regard here, that is similar to the short sentence that I am propounding endlessly, namely:

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

Happy thinking and writing!

At this point, my intention is to see if you will engage in any intellectual content at all, or if you will continue in your current anti-intellectual patterns.