Thanks everyone for your presence.

Now, I notice that there are posters here who still do not understand what is the meaning of my sentence, The default status of things in the world is existence.

Perhaps you who do not understand seek out your neighbors or fellow workers or even the teachers in schools nearby, for persons who know how to make out the meaning of a sentence by reading, say, a hundred words preceding the sentence and a hundred words coming after the sentence, to consult with them.

Here, I suggest that you start with asking them for the meanings of the following words used in the sentence you do not understand.

the
default
status
of
things
in
the
world
is
existence

Now I will now look up posters who do understand what I mean by "The default status of things in the world is existence," and we will exchange thoughts on the thread here, which is about the following theme:

Yes, there are posters here who do understand the sentence:

The default status of things in the world is existence.


So, let us we who understand the said sentence proceed to do further thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

I already made a very brief exposition of how from existence being the default status of things in the world, we come to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

See, http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...96&postcount=7.

Have you started to think about the implications of the sentence, "The default status of things in the world is existence"?

Have you started to think on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas with mankind?

From your knowledge of truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas with mankind, you remember that things existing can be divided into two big classes: 1. Things existing from themselves, 2. Things existing from other things.

From that division of all things existing, you come to the logic that there has got to be an entity existing from itself, that is in concept unavoidably first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Otherwise known as God in the monotheistic religions of Christianism, Islam, and Judaism.

So, do you grasp now how the default status of things in the world being existence leads you to the enlightenment that God exists, in concept as first and foremost: the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?

What about God caring for mankind?

This is fundamental philosophy, for that you go to theology also called theodicy or philosophy of Western theism.

I have talked with fellow humans who are adept with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, and they some of them tell me that my exposition above does not lead to a one God creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Tell me, dear fellow thinkers, are you keen on one God or you are keen on plurality of Gods?

Which choice is more in accordance with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas?


Happy thinking and writing!

Thats a lot of words to call me dumb. Probably would of been better to just explain what you mean. As far as i can tell the universe has no default status. It exists now and then it wont.

But it does bring me back to being picked on for my dumbness so there is that. This will be my last post to you.

And smart kids wonder why they get their asses kicked by the "bullys" sometimes...

Yes. I believe that one of those posters is you. After all, you've used more than 50 words to describe it, which is a giveaway that you don't know what you are talking about, and hence are wasting our time.

Dear Batair, forgive me, but I think you have another opinion on what is the default status of things in the world, specifying the universe.

You see, I use these words to communicate what I mean by the default status of things in the world is existence - you notice I use the word, world, it is a bigger thing than the universe.

I agree with you that the universe has a beginning, and it will come to an end when the entity or entities who are things existing from themselves, decide to already stop keeping it in existence.

But, if I may, you are correct, in that the default status of the universe is that its existence is transient.

And I hope you can also accept my sentence to be correct:

The default status of things in the world is existence, understanding the world as the most biggest realm of everything that exists or has existed or will exist.

The idea is that there has never been nothing that is the default status of things in the world - here nothing is understood as non-existence.

You see, there are thinkers who write and get so much kudos from fellow humans or in particular their admirers, for propounding that nothing is the origin of the universe.

But when you read them, they are all the time understanding nothing not as literally nothing, but as already something existing; then they defend themselves with the use of the word nothing in their own peculiar usage of the word, telling everyone that there was a time in the past when people talked about nothing without being aware as we are today, that what people thought to be nothing was not nothing, because they did not know about things which they did not see to be existing at that time, etc., etc., etc.

Well. in that case, they should already tell their readers right at the beginning of their writing, that there was a time that people thought there was nothing but there was something only people did not see it or could not see it, or could not think as to infer to the something already existing when and where they thought there was nothing.

So, I accept your position that the default status of the universe is transient existence.

It's just that we were not focused on the same thing, from my part, the world; from your part, the universe.

Thanks, Aaron, for that reminiscence, I put in bold your notice of my wordiness at the end of my a year ago earlier post.

Thanks for the lesson, though.

Dear everyone here, in particular, Batair.

I have to take back my words that the world is greater than the universe, in my sentence, The default status of things in the world is existence.

See below, in my preceding post, the texts in bold.

I just did a search with google on the difference between the word world and the word universe.

And I realize that the world as a word of common usage refers to the earth and the human race and life, etc., but not that it is greater than the universe.

I believe that in my writings in the past I used to employ the term, totality of existence, as distinct from the term, universe; then I thought that a better word could be world - WRONG!


So, please forgive me, dear colleagues here, in particular, Batair.

Now I will use instead of the word world, the phrase totality of being.

From henceforth, I will use the phrase "totality of being" for the concept of the collectivity which embraces all beings whatsoever, even parallel universes, and also things purely in our mind.


Again, forgive me, in particular Batair.

all you're doing is showing the limitations of language and human intuition

I'm also curious how you go from the position that there may have been a prime mover billions of years ago to the tenets of a particular monotheism

you still havent explained WHAT you mean by "The default status of things in the world is existence"

Its no more clearer ( for me ) for you to say

"The default status of things in the totality of being is existence"


What you are saying, as far as I can understand it, is a tautology

"The default status of things that exist, is existence."

To use your testicle analogy, this would be equivalent to saying

"the default status of things that have balls, is to have balls."

I did wonder when the insults and ignoring would start. It seems to be a pattern of susmarios. Come in with flowery, "nice" language, pretend that they are so enlightened and intellectual and calling everyone "Dear", but behind it is a person just as petty and emotional and nasty as everyone else. So dishonest.

Its fine just thought id try again... ill let the big kids talk.

You could just as well used the "G" word or any other concept as the "default status". You're not really saying anything about the world/cosmos by using an abstraction, bereft of life or the living .

Better to say that "heat rises" or "ice expands when freezing" which at least gives some idea of that to which one refers. The "mineral kingdom is lifeless while the plant, animal and human kingdoms are alive".

This all refers to "science" which at least purports to speak to the world but of course has its own faults and effectively denies the "inner being' of man.

Better to speak to this default which you refer to, "existence", and attempt to examine "existence'; spread it out, give it feeling and color, be an artist, and you'll be closer to your default status than any can imagine.

An abstracted intellect is a poor excuse for reality in its moving dynamic.

Thanks, Dynamite, for your reply.


I want to tell everyone that I am a theist, and I think that I do have reason on my side with my position of being a theist.

So, all I am doing is trying to talk with everyone who cares to talk with me, to find out whether they also have reason on their side to accept or to deny that there exists God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

There, dear colleagues here, you now see clearly what I am doing with talking in a forum like the present one, which is ironically not principally into the subject of God exists or not, but into the game of poker.

You ask me, Dynamite, "I'm also curious how you go from the position that there may have been a prime mover billions of years ago to the tenets of a particular monotheism."

As the title of the thread indicates, and here is the full title if I may recite it, below:

"How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas."

Yes, that is how I have come to the existence of God, in my concept of God, namely, as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning: by thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

And I like very much to come to know how you all anyone has come to your idea of God exists or not.

Specifically, how have I come by reason to the knowledge that God exists?

By investigating existence.

So, if I may, let us consider the following statements:

1. The default status of things in the totality of being [erstwhile I called world] is existence.

2. Things in existence are of two super ultimate categories, namely:

(a) things which exist from themselves, and
(b) things which exist from other things.

3. From (a) and (b) by reasoning on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas with mankind, I have come to the knowledge that God exists, in concept as first and foremost, the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

There, that in brief is my reasoning process to have come to my knowledge that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator etc.

Well, you will notice, dear colleagues here, that I have not touched on the exact question of Dynamite, with his words I will put in bold as follow:

"I'm also curious how you go from the position that there may have been a prime mover billions of years ago to the tenets of a particular monotheism."

Actually, monotheism is of three predominant schools, namely: Christianism, Islamism, and Judaism.

And that is where I was going into earlier, asking everyone here to tell me which view they see to be more reasonable, namely:

1. One God or
2. Many Gods.

However, I imagine that you dear colleagues here would rather first deal with the question does a category of God, or Gods, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc. exist at all?

Tautologies are of two kinds, false statements or true statements.

We need not attend to false statements.

Let us attend to tautologies which are true statements.

Tautologies which are true statements indeed do not add to your knowledge of things, but they are invitation to thinkers to dwell on the implications of any tautology which is a true statement.

I already explained that in my posts earlier.

Suppose dear Neeeel, you give me an example of a tautology that is a true statement. and we will exchange thoughts on the implications of your example of a tautology that is a true statement.

I have given, if memory serves, three examples of tautologies that are true statements:

1. The default status of the totality of being is existence.
2. The default status of the human male is two balls hanging from his lower torso.
3. The default status of cells in our body is life or living as opposed to death or dying.

From the examination of the implications of them, we can come to conclude to more true thoughts.

So, please Neeeel, please present an example of a tautology that is a true statement.

Susmario, I'm confused why you abandoned the thread with me right as we focused on the key issue, especially after we had made so much progress agreeing on terms and assumptions!

1) may be true, but its meaningless
2) this is not a tautology.
3) not true. our cells spend much more time dead than alive

Tautologies are always true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

Dear Uke, please give me a link.

Dear Neeel, please read the texts below I now put in bold.
When you have given an example from your mental database of a tautology that is a true statement, then I will know that you are talking about the same thing that I am talking about.

Dear Aaron:

I don't seem to be able to find the text you cite from Wikipedia when I clicked on your link to locate the text you reproduced supposedly from Wiki.

I will try again.

No, I could not locate your text.

I have to leave now, have a good day; and here is the complete entry in Wiki from your link:
Please cite the whole article of the link, I can't locate the particular paragraph you reproduced supposedly from it.

Why is God, logically, the boss? Who made God boss factually? If God is not the boss, how is God controlling and operating all his creations truthfully?

A = A is a tautology

No.

The link broke when copying it over. This is not an uncommon occurrence because of parentheses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

Copying the whole article is excessive and pointless.

Dear everyone, thanks for your presence.


Now, addressing Neeeel, please give readers your idea of what is a tautology, in plain simple language of everyday's life.


You see, dear everyone reading this thread, the most difficult task of yours truly is to get connected with posters here.

On the one hand, I appreciate their interactions with me on the topic of the thread, which is "How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas," on the other hand, their interactions are incidents of resistance if not patent opposition to me and them getting connected.

I am trying at this stage of the thread, to get them to concur with me on concepts and thoughts, hoping that we might come to understand in unison what we mean by the words we use.

Neeeel is obviously into resisting us two getting concurred on the meaning of the words:

“The default status of things in the [erstwhile world] totality of being is existence.”

So, dear everyone here, if you do comprehend my words in this thread, please also chip in to enlighten everyone else, who is to all appearances resisting to get concurred with me on my words here.

The words which Neeeel and others here are finding to be difficult to grasp are the following:

"The default status of things in the [erstwhile world] totality of being is existence."

I will now take up a different tack with Neeeel and others like him.


Tell me, Neeeel what do you want me to understand from you, but please talk in plain everyday's language, not in such words employed by mathematical thinkers or logicians.

For example, Neeeel, instead of giving your example of a tautology like A = A, do it this way, by giving a concrete example of what can be represented with A, like for example the nose in our face, so instead of writing A = A, write:

“The nose in my face is the nose in my face.”


Also everyone else who are not getting connected with me, tell me on what you want me to get connected with you [on]? - something that is important to you of course, or more correctly that should be for us both, that we will concur on to be important to us all.

Yes, that should be our agendum at this stage of the thread, namely: getting us from both sides, you and I, to get connected with each other's heart and mind, so that you can reach me and teach me to accept whatever you care to see me accepting of your feeling and thinking.

So, at this point of the thread, please teach me to know your heart and mind on whatever you see to be of relevance to this thread.

This thread is about my idea on, "How to come God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas."

So, Neeeel, please teach me on how to NOT get to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.”

And also, dear Neeeel, let it be my fondest wish that you teach me to comprehend how “The default status of things in the [erstwhile world] totality of being is NOT existence, but it is non-existence.”


Now I will attend to a poster who is not happy with God existing.

And to everyone who feels that I am not attending to your words here, please forgive me, because I cannot be attending to everyone who have put words in this thread.

Tell you what, you ask me in simple plain everyday's language what is your understanding of the following words from me:

"The default status of the totality of being is existence."

You see, dear everyone here, I have to be extra careful not to be drawn away from the issue in the thread, which is about "How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas."

Try your best not to indulge in drawing me away from the thread by introducing things as to entice me to go into endless discussion, that has nothing to my critical observation to do with the resolution of the thread, "How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic and the history of ideas.

Yes, before I forget, I want or have to tell Neeeel, if it is so important to you that my words, namely: "The default status of things in the totality of being is existence," is a tautology, so let it be.

Let you move on, for example, to tell me what is your concept of God.

Dear Spank, thanks for speaking out your heart and mind.


So that we will both of us be talking about the same thing, tell me what is your information of the concept of God among adherents of Christianism, Islamism, and Judaism.

Since I am the advocate of God existing, of course you will require me to assume the burden to define the word God.

Okay, here it is:

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


Happy thinking and writing!