[ Antecedent post transmitted accidentally, here is the completed and corrected write up. ]
This is the escape latch of Neeeel, insisting that whatever I say of something in order to explain and prove that it exists - not only as concept but also as object corresponding to the concept, that it is already an assumption, hence I am into circular reasoning.*
The same charge of assumption can be hurled at him also with circular reasoning by which he wants to refute my argument for God existing, but that is not any beef in the way of refuting an argument but only a very thin sauce; for circular reasoning is not in fact reasoning, but repeating the subject part of a sentence in the predicate part of the sentence, often in different words but with the same denotation, i.e. definitions.
That is why I am insisting that he expounds on what he knows and understands to be circular reasoning.
He is into irrationality in exchange of thoughts as to ascertain that an object does exist in objective reality outside of our concepts in our mind.
Irrational because he is conflating an assumption with a piece of concept information for a placeholder,* to go into the issue on existence or no existence from the information of the concept, so as to investigate in objective reality whether there is indeed an object corresponding to the information of the concept.
The fact however is that the existence of God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, that is known already from truths, facts, logic and the history of ideas; and only people like Neeeel deny it.
And they therefore have nothing else to use to refute the existence of God, except than bringing up the charge that people who do know with certainty God exists are assuming the existence of God wherefore that approach is not all right with them deniers of God – see? They are into malingering altogether, pretending to be ignorant, witless, and naïve, in order to escape from the reality of God existing.
And that is their way and only self-dungeon of refuge from entering into a genuine exchange of ideas, and into an investigation of the objective world for the search of the evidence for existence of the object in issue, or the very concrete objective existence of the object itself.
That is why I have told you, dear readers, that deniers of God or atheists, they don't have anything that is at all founded upon truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas to rebut the existence of God: All their socalled - no not arguments, but objections are only in substance deviations and thus escapes from the genuine core of the issue God exists or not..
*
Pace "Granting though not conceding..."
Please disregard this post accidentally prematrely transmitted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Susmario
This is the escape latch of Neeeel, insisting that whatever I say of something in order to explain and pofe that it exists not only as concept but also as object corresponding to the concept, that it is already an assumption, hence I am into circular reasoning.
The same can be hurled at him also with circular reasoning by which he wants to refute my argument for God existing.
He is into irrationality in exchagen of thoutghs as to ascertain that an object does exist in objective reality outside our concept6s in our mind.
Irrational because he is conflating a piece of information for a placeholder to go into an issue on existence or no existence on the information of the concdpt, so as to investingate in objective reality whether there is indeed an object corresponding to the information concept.
The fact however is that the existence of God in aconcept as first and foremost the existence of God, that is known arleady from truths, facts, logtic and teh history of ideas; and only people likke Neeeel deies it, and they therefore no nothing else to use to refute the exsistence of God, excpet than bringing up the charge that people who do know with certainty God exists are assuming the existence of God where that is not all right wtih them deniers of God.
And theat is thdrir way and only lactch of refuge from entering into a genuine exchange of ideas and into an investigation of the ohbjective world for the search of the existence of the object in issue.
That is why I have told you, ddar readers, hthat deniers of God or atheists, they don't have antyijg tat all from truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas to regut the existrence of God; about the existen