How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic... - Page 3 - Religion, God, and Theology

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.”

Nope. Im not resisting. I am asking you to clarify

You havent defined what it means for something to be "default status"
Does it mean
"some number of things in category X have the characteristic Y"?
or
"all things in category X have the characteristic Y"?
or
something else?

your use of the testicles analogy suggests its the first one( some number of things in category X have the characteristic Y) because not all males have testicles. But Im also fairly sure you're not arguing that only SOME of the things in existence exist, so its pretty unclear as to what you are actually saying.

Quote:

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."

What does it mean for existence to be the "default status"? You still havent explained that.

Things in the totality of being = things that exist

So you are saying

things that exist, exist

A meaningless tautology

Quote:

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.”

you can replace A with anything you want, and you end up with a tautology

Quote:

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.”

This doesnt make sense. I am pointing out that your logic is flawed, not trying to teach you the above

Quote:

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.”

Why do you think thats what I am arguing? I dont agree with your use of default status, so why would I use it to prove something?

Quote:

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.

If its a tautology, it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, its meaningless. So ( if it is a tautology) you are throwing around a meaningless sentence, and claiming that its proof of god.

Quote

08-15-2016 , 12:16 AM

#52

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Thanks, Neeeel, for your follow-up.

About what is the meaning of default.

Default is associated with reset, but not exactly the same idea; reset means to return to original status, stage, situation, set of circumstances, condition, setup, substance, nature, essence, etc., etc. etc., scil. back to default – get the idea?

Let us say that the factory set everything for an aircon to operate in the best way to make you comfortable, then you adjusted it further to suit your peculiar needs and desires; afterwards you find out that the factory setup was better than all your adjustments and whatever else you did to the aircon, so what do you do?

With manufacturers who are aware of how consumers always want to tinker with their products, they provide you with a button or switch or toggle, with the word reset describing it, which means to return to factory setup scil. back to default – get the idea?

There, that is what default means.

Another example, let us say that you are born a member of the American red indian ethnic group; but you want to look like an American white caucasian, so you go to a plastic cosmetic surgeon, who is really good at turning their clients from one ethnic looking human to another ethnic looking human.

Now, you look like an American white human. but after some time you realize that you would rather be your original ethnic looking human, an American red indian.

What you want now is to go back to default, get what I mean?

So, the word default in my sentence, "The default status of things in the totality of being is existence,” means original as original as evolution enthusiasts would want to identify: the original product from random mutation and natural selection - hehehe, that randomness and selection can co-exist as to be creative in turning out a better species, and preserve it until further randomness and further selection effect a still better surviving species – should we care to bring in evolution.

In the case of the default status of things in the totality of being, which is existence, if you should change it, then this is one change from which you cannot come back to the original default: because the change you have worked on yourself means you have gone into non-existence, or more correctly, inanimate existence also effectively in our context called death,

This default status that is existence, you will I hope grasp now, it is the exact diametrical opposite contrary contradiction of non-existence – in all interpretation of non-existence aka nothingness.

I like to have a sustained exchange but relevant to the thread with you; please, tell me what is your concept of God?

I have already told you that I am not going to bicker with you on your insistence I am into a tautology with my words:

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

So, can we just move on?

Tell me, what is the information you might have in your mental database on the concept of God, among the adherents of Christianism, Islamism, and Judaism.

Quote

08-15-2016 , 12:31 AM

#53

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

Another example, let us say that you are born a member of the American red indian ethnic group

Wow... just... wow. Is this the 1800s?

Quote

08-15-2016 , 01:45 AM

#54

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15,905

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

Dear Uke, please give me a link.

You need but scroll up in the thread, to post number 24. I was encouraged for you and I alone seemed to agreed that the default status of being is existence! We were using thinking on logic, truths, facts, and the history of human existence to agree on many terms and assumptions. Let I was confused at the key moment where you deduced gods existence and was hoping you could help me out. You can only imagine my feeling of abandon when after having made such fruitful progress you stopped conversing

Quote

08-15-2016 , 01:54 AM

#55

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15,905

Dearest Susmario, I know it is only ten minutes since my last post and your delayed response is merely that you have yet to read it. But I can hardly contain my excitement! I feel that after our tremendous progress in the foundation of logic and words and facts, that we are so close to coming to God, but for a few details that still elude me. I can only hope you can assist in elucidating these last few details for me. And I do so tire of all these other members trying to impose their words and meanings tautologically upon you, distracting I'm sure you would agree from your goals and purpose in this thread.

Quote

08-15-2016 , 02:22 AM

#56

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

In the case of the default status of things in the totality of being, which is existence, if you should change it, then this is one change from which you cannot come back to the original default: because the change you have worked on yourself means you have gone into non-existence, or more correctly, inanimate existence also effectively in our context called death,

how do you know that death, or inanimate existence isnt the default? We spend much more time in inanimate existence, how do you know that going from alive to dead isnt the "reset back to default status" as you put it?

Quote:

I have already told you that I am not going to bicker with you on your insistence I am into a tautology with my words:

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

So, can we just move on?

I have already explained, that if it is a tautology, then its just a meaningless sentence, and doesnt help to prove god, or anything.

Quote:

I like to have a sustained exchange but relevant to the thread with you; please, tell me what is your concept of God?

Tell me, what is the information you might have in your mental database on the concept of God, among the adherents of Christianism, Islamism, and Judaism.

relevant to the thread, my conception of the god of christianity islamism and judaism is that the default status of this entity is non existence.

Quote

08-15-2016 , 06:44 AM

#57

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

By seeing the evidence as conclusive? Many very reasonable people believe in god(s). I don't have a problem with most of those beliefs beyond intellectual disagreement.

The problem arises when a) you refuse to abandon or revisit such beliefs in light of new evidence and b) those beliefs or structures they maintain have a negative impact on yourself or society.

To use a real life example I've met many believers whose idea of god is more of a concept of some creating force they chose to believe is sentient, and it stops there. Such an example of deism is (from an intellectual viewpoint) almost indistinguishable from atheism in practice (though obviously not in theory).

Quote

08-15-2016 , 05:18 PM

#58

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Dear Uke, I love your keen interest in the topic of this thread, as to ask me to return to a point which you want me to resume exchanging thoughts with you on.

No need to go to my previous post, just tell me what you want me to resume to exchange thoughts on, and we can continue from your recount of our to your impression, the point where I interrupted or left our conversation.

In particular, what thought exactly you had and what thought I had, at which junction then I left you.

I am most truly all with bated breath to read your recount of our disrupted conversation, to resume it and pursue it as to reach a concurrence of our minds or an impasse, okay?

Please forgive me for not returning to my post 24; you produced the link, that is enough for me that you took the task to bring up the link. In the present instance, there is no need for me to visit it - sufficient for our purpose that you will recall to me what exact thought from you and from me, at which junction you got the impression that I left you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

Dear Uke, please give me a link.

|
|

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

You need but scroll up in the thread, to post number 24. I was encouraged for you and I alone seemed to agreed that the default status of being is existence! We were using thinking on logic, truths, facts, and the history of human existence to agree on many terms and assumptions. Let I was confused at the key moment where you deduced gods existence and was hoping you could help me out. You can only imagine my feeling of abandon when after having made such fruitful progress you stopped conversing:

Quote

08-15-2016 , 05:26 PM

#59

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Thanks everyone for your presence.

Now, so that we will work as to come to the same thing we would want to be talking about, please present your information if any you have of the concept of God in the long-standing three monotheistic religions of Christianism, Islamism, and Judaism.

Here is my 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."

Quote

08-15-2016 , 11:42 PM

#60

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15,905

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

Dear Susmario, thank you for your willingness to continue our fruitful discussion on logic and truth. I will of course help remind you of the aforementioned discussion. You will recall that we had agreed - rather unlike certain posters in this thread who seem more interested in distraction than truth - that the default status of all of being is indeed existence. You had then helpfully offered the following argument:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

You ask me, dear Uke, to tell you: "Explain - precisely - the logic that allows you to jump from this division to this remarkably conclusion."

First, let us agree on what we mean by logic, I put in bold the word logic above in the quote from you.

In our present context, logic means that when we concur on a concept or a rule, then we also concur on the implications that are embedded in the concept or the rule.

So, let us concur that:

1. Things are divided into things existing from themselves and things existing from other things.

2. Things existing from others must end up with ultimately things which exist from themselves, that is logical: yes? no?

3. So, it is clear from 1 and 2 that there exists an entity that is ultimately the thing from which everything else existing from other things owe their existence to, and this thing exists from itself.

Do you accept 3 to be the logical conclusion of 1 and 2?

If not, then tell me what is the logic of your non-acceptance of 3 when you accept 1 and 2?

You will recall that I agreed with your terms and 1 and 2, but had a small confusion about part 3:

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke

Could it be two entities? Could it be "something" but isn't an "entity"? And why do you think this "entity" is a "God"?

I look forward to your response, and merely ask that you keep in mind the history of ideas and logic in your response.

Quote

08-15-2016 , 11:45 PM

#61

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15,905

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

Thank you for this excellent conveyance of information about the concept of God, I emphatically agree! Let's use this as a foundation for future discussion using logic and ideas and also facts and logic to think about how to come to God existing, in particular as the default status of the world*.

*world might not be the right word here. Perhaps something like "all of existence" is more appropriate.

Quote

08-16-2016 , 02:02 AM

#62

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

wait, why are we moving on? Your original post was about the default status of things and whether we agree or not. I dont agree, and we still havent resolved that disagreement. Why are we moving on to some other topic?

Quote

08-16-2016 , 03:40 PM

#63

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

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!

Happy to you as well Sus. I acknowledge having read the concept of God you have offered. And yes I am familiar with that and related concepts.

Have you considered how that concept may , reasonably, fit or connect with an inter-faith perspective?

Quote

08-16-2016 , 04:42 PM

#64

MakingMoves

grinder

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 589

Originally Posted by Susmario

3. So, it is clear from 1 and 2 that there exists an entity that is ultimately the thing from which everything else existing from other things owe their existence to, and this thing exists from itself.

Not exactly.

Existence either came from nothing, or has always existed. (a third theory would be appreciated)

How can you infer the existence of god from either? Where did god come from so that it could create itself, or has it always existed?

Both are crazy to comprehend being possible, which makes life quite mysterious.

Quote

08-16-2016 , 04:57 PM

#65

MakingMoves

grinder

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 589

IMO:

God believers tend to like having the belief in the afterlife, allowing them to feel better about their fear of death. Or to give their live some meaning.

Others find this foolish (the I don't believe in anything unless there is evidence guys), and jump to the conclusion of religious bashing. Now they call themselves atheists.

Being agnostic seems to be the only rational stance to take on god until we no more.

It seems logical that there would be a truth though. Or could there not be?

Quote

08-16-2016 , 06:09 PM

#66

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.

Yes, Uke, you are one person who appear to think, but of course you have to examine also how you think.

Now, you ask me:

Quote:

From Ssumario

1. Things are divided into things existing from themselves and things existing from other things.

2. Things existing from others must end up with ultimately things which exist from themselves, that is logical: yes? no?

3. So, it is clear from 1 and 2 that there exists an entity that is ultimately the thing from which everything else existing from other things owe their existence to, and this thing exists from itself.

Do you accept 3 to be the logical conclusion of 1 and 2?

If not, then tell me what is the logic of your non-acceptance of 3 when you accept 1 and 2?

[...]
__________

From uke

Could it be two entities? Could it be "something" but isn't an "entity"? And why do you think this "entity" is a "God"?

I look forward to your response, and merely ask that you keep in mind the history of ideas and logic in your response.

___________________

You are asking me questions, but you do not think as to answer your questions yourself.

You see, and pardon me for trying to lead you to a life of thinking for yourself: before you address a question to someone, for whatever purpose why you are addressing a question to him: as you are possessed of working reason and intelligence, you first do thinking as to find the answer to your question; then when you have come to your answer to your own question, you ask other thinkers to take in their answers for further thinking on your part - in that way you will learn or we all learn from each other.

So, before I answer your question, first do your own thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, and tell me what is your answer, at this point you will already know my answer by reading my writing here.

So, Uke, do thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, as to come to your own answers to your own questions. from your very own personal intelligent thinking, and tell me what you see in my writing here to be my answers to your questions; at this point we will exchange thoughts as to arrive at concurrence or at an impasse.

Choose one specific point in your answer and in my answer, then we will exchange thoughts as to come to concurrence on a mutually worked out answer, or to an impasse.

Okay?

I assure you that in all my writing here, there are already my answers to your questions, but first work out your answers to the questions you address to me.

You see, a lot of thinkers imagine that with asking questions they are already doing some thinking.

No, that is not thinking but a flagrant avowal of ignorance and witlessness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Yesterday, 10:42 PM #60

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Susmario

Dear Uke, I love your keen interest in the topic of this thread, as to ask me to return to a point which you want me to resume exchanging thoughts with you on.

No need to go to my previous post, just tell me what you want me to resume to exchange thoughts on, and we can continue from your recount of our to your impression, the point where I interrupted or left our conversation.

In particular, what thought exactly you had and what thought I had, at which junction then I left you.

I am most truly all with bated breath to read your recount of our disrupted conversation, to resume it and pursue it as to reach a concurrence of our minds or an impasse, okay?

Please forgive me for not returning to my post 24; you produced the link, that is enough for me that you took the task to bring up the link. In the present instance, there is no need for me to visit it - sufficient for our purpose that you will recall to me what exact thought from you and from me, at which junction you got the impression that I left you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Susmario

You ask me, dear Uke, to tell you: "Explain - precisely - the logic that allows you to jump from this division to this remarkably conclusion."

First, let us agree on what we mean by logic, I put in bold the word logic above in the quote from you.

In our present context, logic means that when we concur on a concept or a rule, then we also concur on the implications that are embedded in the concept or the rule.

So, let us concur that:

1. Things are divided into things existing from themselves and things existing from other things.

2. Things existing from others must end up with ultimately things which exist from themselves, that is logical: yes? no?

3. So, it is clear from 1 and 2 that there exists an entity that is ultimately the thing from which everything else existing from other things owe their existence to, and this thing exists from itself.

Do you accept 3 to be the logical conclusion of 1 and 2?

If not, then tell me what is the logic of your non-acceptance of 3 when you accept 1 and 2?

You will recall that I agreed with your terms and 1 and 2, but had a small confusion about part 3:

Quote:
Originally Posted by uke

Could it be two entities? Could it be "something" but isn't an "entity"? And why do you think this "entity" is a "God"?

I look forward to your response, and merely ask that you keep in mind the history of ideas and logic in your response.

Quote

08-16-2016 , 06:58 PM

#67

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Dear Neeeel, I have already told you and now tell you again, that as you insist that the sentence from me, namely: "The default status of things in the totality of being is existence," is a tautology, then I will let you continue insisting on your submission that the sentence is a tautology, in the meantime you and I also move on, with you telling me what is your concept of God.

Now, if you desire to continue talking about tautology, then you start your own thread on what is a tautology.

So, here let us move on, the thread is on "How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas."

Oh, I almost forget, you say that the sentence, "The default status of things in the totality of being is existence," is meaningless and therefore useless.

I tell you you are entitled to your opinion.

So, if you think the sentence, "Your nose in your face is your nose in your face," is meaningless and therefore useless to you, you are entitled to your opinion.

But please start a thread on what is a tautology.

Still, if you insist that you don't accept the thought in my sentence, "The default status of things in the totality of being is existence," because you cannot comprehend it, and therefore it should be also meaningless and hence useless to mankind at large; well, at least you will you accept this sentence from me, "You, dear Neeeel exist," or is that also meaningless and wherefore useless to yourself, and hence you will also insist that you exist is meaningless, and wherefore useless to yourself and also mankind at large, because it is a tautology?

You know what, dear Neeeel, suppose you and I, let us talk about what is existence, or what is it to exist; that should be a very useful subject to my mind for us to exchange thought on, than you getting all worked up with my sentence, "The default status of things in the totality of being is existence."

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

Today, 01:02 AM #62

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Susmario

Thanks everyone for your presence.

Now, so that we will work as to come to the same thing we would want to be talking about, please present your information if any you have of the concept of God in the long-standing three monotheistic religions of Christianism, Islamism, and Judaism.

Here is my 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."

Quote

08-16-2016 , 07:20 PM

#68

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Dear Spank, you ask me, to my concept of God as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, "Have you considered how that concept may, reasonably, fit or connect with an inter-faith perspective?"

Well, to my knowledge and for myself that should be the common conclusion from persons thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, prescinding from faiths, religions, churches, denominations, cults, and what you will, just from working reason and intelligence.

I know for a fact that the Roman Catholic Church has that as one of its dogmas. that man by his natural reason can and does come to the existence of God, in concept (as I would put it from my own wording), first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Happy thinking and writing!

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie

Today, 02:40 PM #63

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Susmario

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!

Quote

08-16-2016 , 07:20 PM

#69

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

It's not a tautology. Why do you avoid talking about the thing that is most obviously wrong about your position?

You've claimed earlier that there are "true" and "false" tautologies, but I pointed out that all tautologies are necessarily true. And you have yet to acknowledge that error. If you are unable to acknowledge an error of such a small magnitude (such as not understanding the meaning of a word), then what are the chances that you would accept an error of larger magnitude and importance?

Quote

08-16-2016 , 07:31 PM

#70

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Dear MakingMoves, you say:

"Existence either came from nothing, or has always existed. (a third theory would be appreciated)"

Please give as an example of something in the concrete realm of objective existence like the nose in our face, that comes from nothing, literally nothing.

Happy thinking and writing!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakingMoves

Today, 03:42 PM #64

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

Originally Posted by Susmario

3. So, it is clear from 1 and 2 that there exists an entity that is ultimately the thing from which everything else existing from other things owe their existence to, and this thing exists from itself.

Not exactly.

Existence either came from nothing, or has always existed. (a third theory would be appreciated)

How can you infer the existence of god from either? Where did god come from so that it could create itself, or has it always existed?

Both are crazy to comprehend being possible, which makes life quite mysterious.

Quote

08-16-2016 , 07:36 PM

#71

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Dear MakingMoves, you bring up the need for evidence, suppose you give readers here your idea of what is evidence and in particular how it serves mankind to come to the certainty of anything at all being true, or the fact, or in brief existing.

Happy thinking and writing!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakingMoves

Quote

08-16-2016 , 07:52 PM

#72

MakingMoves

grinder

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 589

Susmario

Dear MakingMoves, you say:

"Existence either came from nothing, or has always existed. (a third theory would be appreciated)"

Please give as an example of something in the concrete realm of objective existence like the nose in our face, that comes from nothing, literally nothing.

Happy thinking and writing!

I can't. How can you come to the conclusion that the entity created itself? And from what? Itself? Where'd that come from? And that?

Or is your whole point of this thread, that something from nothing isn't possible, therefore something has always existed?

Then how can you explain something always existing?

You just jump to god from there?

Quote

08-16-2016 , 08:01 PM

#73

MakingMoves

grinder

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 589

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

I didn't bring up the need for evidence. I was saying that a lot of people (atheists) don't believe in god because there is no evidence.

There may be a way to logical prove the existence of god without evidence.

In regards to how coming to the certainty of anything at all being true and how that can serve to benefit mankind: Suppose we found out the reincarnation is true. That would have a dramatic effect on the behaviors of the current population.

Quote

08-16-2016 , 08:03 PM

#74

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15,905

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.

Yes, Uke, you are one person who appear to think, but of course you have to examine also how you think.

Dear Susmario, thank you for your kind recognition, it fills me with joy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

You are asking me questions, but you do not think as to answer your questions yourself.

You see, and pardon me for trying to lead you to a life of thinking for yourself: before you address a question to someone, for whatever purpose why you are addressing a question to him: as you are possessed of working reason and intelligence, you first do thinking as to find the answer to your question; then when you have come to your answer to your own question, you ask other thinkers to take in their answers for further thinking on your part - in that way you will learn or we all learn from each other.

So, before I answer your question, first do your own thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, and tell me what is your answer, at this point you will already know my answer by reading my writing here.

So, Uke, do thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, as to come to your own answers to your own questions. from your very own personal intelligent thinking, and tell me what you see in my writing here to be my answers to your questions; at this point we will exchange thoughts as to arrive at concurrence or at an impasse.

Choose one specific point in your answer and in my answer, then we will exchange thoughts as to come to concurrence on a mutually worked out answer, or to an impasse.

Okay?

I assure you that in all my writing here, there are already my answers to your questions, but first work out your answers to the questions you address to me.

You see, a lot of thinkers imagine that with asking questions they are already doing some thinking.

No, that is not thinking but a flagrant avowal of ignorance and witlessness.

First, let me apologize for my ignorance and witlessness. I hope you understand it was not intentional. Please recognize that while I do try and hope I can learn something from you, I am not as advanced in thinking about logic and facts and reasons as you are. So I may blunder here and there, but perhaps you could guide me to the error of my thinking, perhaps with respect to the totality of being in particular.

Taking your astute advice to focus on one thing, I've been struggling to answer this myself, as you've asked, and was hoping you could shed some light on it for me:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

3. So, it is clear from 1 and 2 that there exists an entity that is ultimately the thing from which everything else existing from other things owe their existence to, and this thing exists from itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke

Could it be 2 entities? Could it be something not deserving of the name "entity"?

Quote

08-16-2016 , 08:13 PM

#75

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Dear Aaron, thanks for your contribution.

You say:

"It's not a tautology. Why do you avoid talking about the thing that is most obviously wrong about your position? [Which one is that?]

You've claimed earlier that there are "true" and "false" tautologies, but I pointed out that all tautologies are necessarily true. ... "

Are you, Aaron, if I may, a logician?

I am talking in common everyday language, understanding tautology by examples, like the following, The nose in your face is the nose in your face, and also, "The default status of things in the totality of being is existence." That is the insistence of Neeeel.

And also this example, You, Aaron, exist.

Suppose you give an example each of what is a tautology and what is not a tautology.

What about this sentence, Man is a four-footed animal, or if I may, man is a quadrupedal animal.

That sentence above I submit in everyday language can pass for a tautology but a false tautologous statement.

Here is a true tautologous statement:

Man is a bipedal animal.

But let you start a thread on what is a tautology.

Happy thinking and writing!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

Today, 06:20 PM #69

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Susmario

Dear Neeeel, I have already told you and now tell you again, that as you insist that the sentence from me, namely: "The default status of things in the totality of being is existence," is a tautology, then I will let you continue insisting on your submission that the sentence is a tautology, in the meantime you and I also move on, with you telling me what is your concept of God.

Quote

Page 3 of 25

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 23

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 3 of 25

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 23

Last