Dear posters here, when you write please see if you are into neglecting any one of the following statements below; for if you do, I will not read you.


Happy thinking and writing!

And dear uncooperative writers here, please already cease and desist from further distracting readers here from concentrating on the issue of the thread, namely: How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

Addendum:

See you guys again tomorrow; and dear uncooperative writers here, please examine your heart and mind, because I fear for you that you are treading the wrong and flawed path with coming to genuine knowledge of truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, as to be united with objective reality.

Tell you what, suppose you do mankind a service, by explaining to mankind how you come to the conclusion that infinite regress exists in objective reality outside your mind, just like the nose in our face.

Or that things existing are not into ultimately two classes, namely: things existing from others and things existing from themselves.

Or start with the explanation how the default status of things in the totality of being is NOT existence, like for example the existence of the nose in our face is NOT an instance of existence.

See you again tomorrow, tomorrow is the start of my weekend, I am now into August 26, 2016, Friday, 06:12 a.m.


Happy thinking and writing, but please no insanity and no lying.

And don't disregard to consult your consciousness as to ascertain that our contact with objective reality outside our mind is grounded on our conscious experience of things that objectively exist, even when we were not yet around, and when we are dead (of course when you think about it as you lay dying).

Nah. I think you want the attention.

See! You *DO* want the attention!

Both are intact and functioning within established parameters. Your fear is unwarranted.

I don't claim it exists. I'm claiming that denying its possible existence seems to be an unwarranted conclusion.

I believe that numbers exist, but they don't exist from themselves, nor are they derived from anything. Do you reject the existence of numbers?

It's amusing how you want to talk about "default status" but yet you are arguing instead about an "instance" of existence.

I'm very happy and I'm very writing. And I'm not lying about it. Insanity... By my measure I'm not.

I tried to consult my consciousness, but it's not talking to me right now.

And thank YOU for YOUR presence!

I do indeed most emphatically concur (see Annex 2 of your post). Honestly, while I admire your dedication I think you shouldn't even bother concern yourself with the deliberate confuscation and gibbledeblob of those whose main interest seems to be denying their own nipples!

Unfortunately, I am eluded at this point. Certainly your eloquent portrayal of 1 and 2 remain valid. I'm convinced that something must exist from itself. Yet what eludes me is why call it a god? Why give it words like "creator" and "operator" and "god" and all these words that imply some sort of agency. Maybe it is seven things that came from themselves. Maybe it is some nongod thing? And worst of all, if all we know is that something - maybe not even a "thing" - created the universe, your argument doesn't show a single other property outside of this creation that we would normally ascribe to god. For instance, most gods that humans believe in care a lot who we ****. But with my hand on my balls as I type this, I really can't see from your argument why this would be the case?

Thats not the name of this thread. This thread is called "How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic...", when did the history of ideas suddenly get included?

Ive never stated that things existing are not into ultimately two classes, they might be. All I asked is for you to clarify your 2 classes, which you have never done. Are you going to?

Not sure what you mean by "instance of existence", but I fully agreed that my nose exists.

What if its some type of hologram or computer simulation....i guess it would still exist. Not sure it would fit religious exist..

I know very well that you are just a lazy gimmick account. No genuine accounts start their 2+2 career in RGT and post exclusively there. But it shines through that you have a bit of an ego. You think you are smarter than people, and you enjoy ducking debate so you can call them dumb because they don't catch you in actual debate - so you avoid making actual points at all costs.

But you did write that infinite regress was self-defeating, which is a logical impossibility. You have now shifted your stance to it being defeated. This is a clear admission of error.

You see, I don't have a problem with calling out stupidity. I'm an arrogant man, I've done it hundreds of times in my life and on this very forum plenty of times. But someone who avoids the debate, someone who doesn't make points, someone who never stands for anything intellectually - that person doesn't get to call others stupid in my book and that person certainly isn't smart. To test if something is smart, you have to dare say something potentially stupid.

So what I'll take from this thread is the enjoyment of seeing you make intellectual boo-boo the one and only time you dared make an actual claim. Sure, it was probably just a spur of the moment thing and some misapplied rhetoric. Still funny.

Oh ok, so you will stop posting then?

Thanks everyone for your presence.


Now, the floor is open to receive your objections, please however know what is the meaning of the word objection in the present environment, otherwise I will not interact with you at all.

For your convenience I reproduce below the what I might consider to be the 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.

Everyone is entitled to only one objection, and try to expound on your objection within 50 words, if you do not keep to this limit then I will not read you because you are up to inanity.

And prior to transmitting your post, examine it whether it is relevant at all to the what I might call my proof for the existence of God, see below.


Happy thinking and writing!

__________________________


Okay, guys here, thanks for your presence.


Now, please read the post from me reproduced below, before you talk about evidence, infinite regress, etc., in this thread on "How to Come to God Existing with Thinking on Truths, Facts, Logic, and the History of Ideas."

As I read your posts when I notice that you do not accept that the default status of things in the totality of being is existence for example, the nose in our face, I have to quit your posts.

Or you do not accept that things existing are of two kinds, namely, things existing from others or things existing from themselves, I will quit reading.

Next, when you talk evidence and you deny that the nose in your face is evidence of the origin of the nose and of everything else that has its existence from other things, that it is evidence of the existence of things which exist from themselves, then I quit reading you.

Lastly, when I read that you can continue to ask the question in your mind Who is the creator of the creator of the creator... without eventually dying, I quit reading you.

Still further, when I read you that you have found an example of something outside your mind that you are still searching in the objective reality like the nose in our face is in objective reality, as to confirm that it is still being caused by another thing and by another thing and by another thing without ending, I will quit reading you.

Why?

Because then I know that you are either crazy or into falsehood, also called lying.


Happy thinking and writing!


____________________________

Quote:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=172
Today, 12:29 PM #172
Susmario

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

Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.

Now, there are already folks here who concur on these two statements, like Susmario yours truly the proponent of this thread, and Uke, and Frommagio (see Annexes 1, 2, and 3 below):

1. The nose in our face exists, or the default status of things in the totality of being is existence.

2. Things in existence are of two ultimately two classes: (a) existing from others, or (b) existing from themselves.

From premises 1 and 2, we who concur on them, the conclusion follows that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning (see Annex 4).


The folks who do not concur with us, they have two wrong thoughts, namely:

First error: There is no evidence.
Folks with this thought are miserably wrong: because the evidence is everything that exists from others; all they have to do with everything that exists from others so that they will see it as evidence, is to think from everything that exists from others to things that exist from themselves.

There, the things that exist from others, like the nose in our face, ultimately they exist from things that exist from themselves: it cannot be otherwise than that is the case; if you cannot see that, then produce an example of something that is neither existing from others and nor existing from itself.

So, the things that exist from themselves we can for the present take them to be collectively God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning: all these three items are things that exist from others.

Second error: Who created God?
That is the wrong thought grounded on the self-defeating quasi nonsensical concept of infinite regress.

Folks who question God existing lapse into infinite regress because they espouse the error that everything has a cause, therefore God must have a cause.

Everything has a cause, that is an error in thinking, the correct idea is:

Everything with a BEGINNING has a cause.

For folks who do not accept that to be the case, then let them present an example of something with a beginning that does not come from a cause.

Besides, I have shown that infinite regress is a self-defeating concept, see Annex 4 below.

____________________________

ANNEXES


Annex 1 - From Susmario
Quote:
Now, to everyone even though I don't mention your name, please resume our common task to work as to come to concurrence from concurrence, because otherwise we are or you are wasting my time here.

1. We have already concurred that the nose exists, or in general, "The default status of things in the totality of being is existence.

2. I am now asking us all to work as to concur on this statement:

“Things existing are of two ultimate classes: (a) things existing from others, (b) things existing from themselves.”

Now, if you do not concur on #2, please present your explanation why.

From my part with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, it cannot be otherwise than that things existing are ultimately of either one of two classes: [a] things existing from others, or [b] things existing from themselves.

What about my explanation?

Here it is:
Consider your nose, it comes from your parents, and you can go on from there to the Big Bang and beyond, that is an example of things existing from others; continue on as I said beyond the Big Bang and on and on and on… and sooner than later you come to the sure conclusion that the nose in our face has its origin ultimately in thing(s) which exist from themselves.

For posters who will not concur with me on #2 and will not explain as to be lucid to readers here, instead of going into inanities, please go away, I will not read you.

Happy thinking and writing!

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=145
____________________________


Annex 2 - From Uke
Quote:
I concur on one and two. Now how do we come to God?

Please don't abandon me when we are so close, not even the comfort of experiencing the existence of my balls and my nipples and my nose and help me here when you refuse to help me go further

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=147
____________________________


Annex 3 - From Frommagio
Quote:
Consider the nose in your face, which comes from your parents, and so is an example of a thing that comes from another thing. And also think on this: that same nose consists of many cells, each of which continues to divide, thereby producing new cells - these new cells are therefore existing things that come from themselves.

So by thinking on the nose in our face with logic and the history of ideas of biology we can verify the two types of existence (a) and (b) as Susmario described. Now could there be other varieties of existence, things that don't come from somewhere else or from themselves? I say no based on the history of ideas and logic.

Let us proceed to God.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=150
____________________________


Annex 4 - From Susmario
Quote:
You see, guys here, infinite regress is a quasi concept, give credit to our mind, that it can give haven even to quasi or inherently nonsensical concepts or intrinsically self-defeating concepts like infinite regress.

How to topple smart guys who cannot think their way out of their self-mind-obfuscation, imprisoning themselves in such stupid concepts as infinite regress:

Tell them to continue thinking on and and and on, on infinite regress, in their mind, with asking themselves "Who is the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator...” and on and on and on, they will die eventually as with everything that lives, and that is the end of their infinite regress concept with the demise of their brain.

Or, tell them, "Very good, you have a brain to think on and on and on Who is the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator... Now, armed with this concept, proceed to the universe and look up such any entity at all that corresponds to your even just the generical concept of infinite regress; in the meantime we are going to go search for an entity in the universe corresponding to the concept of God, that God is in concept first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning: like for example, the nose is an instance of God's presence and operation in the universe, another instance, the balls in our lower torso, etc., etc., etc., and also the very tough microscopic critters called tardigrades, and bigger things like the moon and the sun in the sky.”

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=165

____________________________


End of Annexes

I would prefer to object to everything that's wrong (because there's plenty of it), but I will content myself with just one.

Begin objection: The claim of "default status" is unsuccessful. Simply by observing something in a particular state does not imply that the observed state is the default state. [26 words]

Please respond using no more than 50 words. If you do, then I will not read you because you are up to inanity.

Aaron objects: "Begin objection: The claim of "default status" is unsuccessful. Simply by observing something in a particular state does not imply that the observed state is the default state. [26 words]"

Continue observing until you come across something in existence that does not belong to the category of the totality of being.

Hope you live long to come to more instances of things belonging to the category of the default status of the totality of being, which is existence, and you don't die before coming to one instance of something existing that does not belong to the totality of being.



Happy thinking and writing!

While managing to fit within the 50 word limit, you've demonstrated a form of illiteracy which is that you seemed to have failed to read any words on your screen.

Michael Jackson bleached his skin. But upon observing his skin color at the time of his death, one might conclude wrongly about the default status of his skin. Therefore, observing anything at all tells you nothing about the default status.

A 1600 word post demanding 50 word replies is hilarious. I've granted every definition and assumption for weeks. Yet you've still only got to "at least one thing began from itself". Why call that thing God? I've been asking since post five. You have yet to respond. Why? There, 50.

I propose the following rule: If anyone posts more than 50 words in a single post, they are immediately permabanned from this forum. Anyone opposed? If yes, have you touched your balls and your nipples and verified that they exist? Did you die doing this? See, 50 words is easy.

Can anyone tell me if a thread can be "unsubscribed to" so that it will no longer show up when I log on. Thanx in advance.

I have no idea what you mean by "no longer show up" but you probably want to do the following:

Go to here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/su...n&folderid=all

Select the thread and at the bottom there's a dropdown where you can select "Delete Subscription" and click the "Go" button. I haven't done it, but seems like it would do what you want it to do.

Please stick to objections that are relevant.

The relevancy here is the issue existence or non-existence.

So, first, tell me do you object to the fact that there is only existence, and there is no such thing as non-existence.


If there is for you such a thing as non-existence, then give a concrete example of non-existence.

An even prime number greater than 3.

Is that for you an example of existence or non-existence?

If you can't figure it out, I feel sorry for your ability to increase your current level of knowledge on your own.

"An even prime number greater than 3. "

That is a verbal phrase in this forum, as such it exists.

I am not a mathematician, so you have to tell me what is your understanding of the phrase, then I will tell you whether it is an example of existence or non-existence.

Start with whether it is a concept or an object.

Will you now go into us two exchanging thoughts on what is a concept and what is an object? In which case I think you are succeeding in distracting the concentration of readers here; still, I will tell you a concept is at least in our mind if you have a mind, and an object is not necessarily in our mind; now there can be an object outside our mind that corresponds to the concept in our mind.


But what really is your intention here? To contribute to our understanding of existence as distinct to and from non-existence, and from that point to proceed 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?

Or is it to distract and confuse readers here?

Let's talk about balls hanging from the lower part of your torso if you are a human male, that is easy to talk about, for it is accessible to every human.

If it is your intention here to muddle up the thread, there is I am sure a matter of discipline in a self-respecting forum, that such a behavior is not allowed.

I might have to consult behind the scene the powers that be here, whether your behavior is allowed here, or not; because there are forums which allow anything and everything except threatening to kill or injure someone.

If you don't exist I can help you, place your balls and nose together and sniff.

But I can't grab its nose.

I am a mathematician, and if you can't interpret it properly then you have the mathematical understanding of an 8 year old. (These days, you might qualify as a middle school student, unfortunately.)

I'm fairly confident I'm distracting only one reader. And I'm also confident that that reader doesn't actually know the difference between the two. Thus, I would like for you to elucidate your concepts to see whether they actually conform to the generally accepted understanding of a concept. After all, you've already butchered the definition of a tautology and even went as far as to obfuscate the meaning by saying that it's the "common meaning" (as opposed to the correct meaning?).

What if I don't have a mind?

My point is to drive you to either coherence or insanity.

Okay. Let's talk about them. No more than 50 words.

Feel free to consult whatever powers you choose. Or fondle your balls or nipples. I'm sure the end result will be roughly the same.

Supposition granted. Now how do you get to God?

Dear everyone here, I have already presented my proof for the existence of God, in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

See, http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=184.

So, I am now requesting you in particular the silent majority to pose objections.

I have not come across any serious objections, but attempts at distracting the concentration of readers to the thread, by for example posing the same question again and again, in aid of distraction to readers, and/or also in annoyance to yours truly.

Please, if you think you have objections but serious ones to my proof of God existing, then concentrate on bringing up something that does not exist at all in any aspect of consideration whatsoever, so that things in the totality of being can be either existence or non-existence.

Or bring up an example of an infinitely regressing thing outside your mind, in the realm of objective existence, like the pebbles in the shallow small river or the moon and the sun in the sky, not that these three items represent examples of infinitely regressing things, but that they are existing in objective reality independent of our mind.



Happy thinking and writing!

Please take notice that I have decided to not read some posters, you will know who these are when I don't react to their posts anymore - I have decided not to have to react to them anymore for personal reasons.