Before I forget. Who is going to judge what objections are serious objections?

I am the one to judge because I have presented my proof for the existence of God.

When you have presented your proof to the non-existence of God - but of course first present your concept of God, then you and I, we will work out how your objection can be taken seriously, seriously detrimental to my proof, by examining together you and I, your proof against God existing.



Happy thinking and writing!

I have a serious objection in concept as judge and with everything that you've said.

Is the "personal reason" that you finally realized after weeks that you were being trolled and that the sycophantic dillettante character was just a troll to see whether you were capable of actually addressing a single point* when someone a) continually praised your intellect b) played the fool and c) granted every single suppostion and definition except the one point being played at? Or have you STILL not realized that? Or are you just an expert at poe's law. All fascninating questions in my mind.

* pro tip: you weren't.

Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.


Now, do we all see that it is Aaron and Uke at this point in time who are still around?

So, let me address them with the following question:

Dear Aaron and dear Uke, suppose you tell me and readers here what is the conclusion you have in heart and mind to advance, with your contribution of posts in this thread?

Please don't again proceed with acting lost as regards what I am proposing to you to do now, namely: tell readers what is the conclusion you want to arrive at with your participation here.

I will address my own question.

The conclusion that I have always wanted to reach, from the beginning with any threads that I have introduced in any forums where I take to, with the topic of God existing or not, is that the one conclusion I have already reached, and I want my readers and corresponding posters to reach, is the following:

God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the world and man and everything with a beginning.


So, dear Aaron and dear Uke: there, you have an example of what is a conclusion; please don't go about from this point again into acting lost.


Now, dear readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath what Aaron and Uke will do, from this point onward.




Happy thinking and writing!

I will be around until 7:00 a.m., it is in my spot of the earth now, 3:09 a.m. Sunday, August 28, 2016.

I don't have a specific conclusion I am attempting to reach. It's far less of an exploration of ideas if there is only one specific goal that one wants to attain. In particular, by holding that goal unrelentingly one often overlooks flaws and errors because failing to reach the goal is too much of a loss to bear.

So with this in mind, I am choosing to examine closely the question you initially asked:

You have not established this point in any way. Noting that my nose exists s a thing in the world does not imply that the default status of my nose is existence.

Im still around, but for some reason you are ignoring my questions, yet you are responding to other trolls

Dear Aaron, you can dispense yourself from this thread.

Neeeel, you also, you can dispense yourself from this thread.

Nah. I'd rather dispense myself into this thread.

Now, dear readers, let us wait with bated breath for Uke to present what is the conclusion he wants to arrive at in this thread.

Or if he will again flee from that request, then let us see whether he will tell us what is his agenda; but please, dear Uke, not another declaration with a question about how I come to God existing from the existence of things and that things existing are either from others or from themselves.



You see, dear readers here, he has been repeating that declaration question into infinite regress, even though I have already shown that as he accepts the two premises of things exist and that things exist from themselves or from others, it follows that God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.


Dear readers, please look up this link:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=184.



See, dear readers, these stubborn wastrel tenants here should already go away, because they are into nothing of any profit to mankind in regard to the enhancement of our knowledge, on the issue God exists or not, but into unremitting attempts at distracting mankind from considering the issue with our heart and mind grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

It is a certainty to me that these posters: Neeeel, Aaron, Uke, and others of their ilk are up to no good, but to frustrate the objective of this thread.


In my country, in a court setting witnesses or anyone having a role to play in court, acting the way these persons do, namely: Neeeel, Aaron, Uke, and others like them, are charged with contempt and dispatched pronto to the detention cells in the basement of the court building.

Here, I can only just avoid them studiously.

Dear readers, it's getting to 7:00 a.m. when I have to go, but I will be back later in the evening.


As you are so silent up to date, please do some thinking on this statement from yours truly:

We and everything we are cognizant with, we are permeated in existence, existence is the medium in which we have our being, and we live and move in it.

That is why ancient thinkers already come to the certainty that God is pure existence, and everything else not God is dependent for their being on God.

The issue now as I said in my proof for God existing, is to show that God is one and not a plurality, and not even a collectivity.

That takes a lot of thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.



Happy thinking and writing!

I asked my question on post number five, and have repeated over and over and over for weeks. You have made an argument. I think your argument is nonsense. I think it is a poorly phrased, poorly argued derivative of the standard cosmological argument to which you are both unaware you have stolen the argument but are entirely unaware of any and all standard historical refutations of that argument. Some of those threads are mildly interesting, but that isn't what my agenda is. The problem, of course, is that I have zero faith that the character - whether authentic or otherwise - of Susmario is capable of having a meaninful discussion on this vein. Hence why it was far funnier, in my view, to pretend to be a dilettante praising your intelect to see if when doing that you would be capabale of actually for once answering a question*. A troll, by the way, that everybody else in the thread immediately recognized. Or perhaps most broadly, my agenda is ****s and giggles? As long as you fail to answer the question, however, it is all a bit moot.

* you proved incapable.

The only person in this thread who isn't trolling is Aaron - and I can't understand why ...

Triple range merging.

No, I like badgering dishonest posters until they answer the question or get annoyed

Lol Aaron is doing his own preferred style of playing with the fish

Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.


Now, dear silent majority, tell me what do you think, are you not permeated with existence, if not then with what, pray?


I will be here up to 7:00 a.m., it is now in my place 04:39 a.m., Monday 2016.


Please dear silent majority, investigate existence, it is the greatest broadest immediately relevant to us who are sure of our existence, as part and parcel of the default status of the totality of being, which is existence: so broad, so high, so deep, that it is THE transcendental category of being.

Anything and everything we can and do talk about, even though in concept it is already false, nonsensical, or self-defeating, like infinite regress, we can talk about it, because at least it has some kind of subtle existence in our mind, but in objective reality outside our mind, it has no existence - still yet, as God exists, we can and do postulate that God has a mind, and in His mind, all kinds of false, nonsensical, self-defeating concepts have existence also, when God wants to play like we humans in particular the lying to themselves ones, do with concepts: to lie to themselves in order to deny that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

If you do not understand my words, just let me know, but no playing the fool and acting the insincere seeker and speaker of opinions, all inanity and lying to themselves.

When you, oh silent majority, have an opinion which you have come to, from thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, bring it forth, and we will do thinking on it together, you and I, to come to concurrence on a mutually agreed on consensus of the resolution of the issue between us.

But no lying and playing the self-perverted deceitful jester in the court of ideas.


Tell you what, oh silent majority, you present me with a thought and propose that I work as to come to concur with you on your thought: because you, oh silent majority, might think that I am pressuring you all the time to impose on you to concur with me - no, you must also propose something for me to work to concur with you on.



Happy thinking and writing!

I guess the "silent majority" consists of all the voices in your head that aren't speaking?

Existence doesn't permeate me, I permeate existence. I can tell because when I touch my nose, I feel it.

Having investigated existence, the vocal minority have posited very clear reasons why observing existence is different from observing that the default status of the thing is existence.

This is an amazing run-on sentence. I thought it was going to stop, then BAM! More words! In fact, you more than doubled your word limit in that sentence alone. For that, you should be honored in some manner.

I tried to pseudo-diagram the sentence, but I was unable to parse it in a way that actually makes it coherent. So I've done the best I can below.

(1) Anything and everything we can and do talk about (even though in concept it is already false, nonsensical, or self-defeating (like infinite regress)) we can talk about it, because at least it has some kind of subtle existence in our mind

(2) but in objective reality outside our mind, it has no existence

(3a) still yet (as [it is assumed that] God exists) we can and do postulate that God has a mind, (3b) and in His mind, all kinds of false, nonsensical, self-defeating concepts have existence

(4) also when God wants to play like we humans (in particular [like those who are] the lying to themselves ones), do with concepts

(5) [Humans?] to lie to themselves in order to deny that God exists, ([where God is defined] in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning).

It's like reading mesclun.

There's only one fool here... well, maybe two.

I propose that the observed status on an object is not necessarily the default status.

Well you are certainly taking this discovery well.

Any chance you will - for once - actually answer the question you have evaded for weeks?

I doubt it.

Aaron, please go away.


Dear everyone, thanks for your presence, even the ones I have already dispensed from appearing here, because they do still serve a purpose, to keep this thread at the top of the list.


Now, in brief, when we use words and concepts to explain something that is immediately obvious to us to be existing, we could end up having to write volumes and volumes, and even mankind have to invest centuries into the task, and still not get dull minds to understand our thoughts.

However, normally with the average mind that is functioning, the certainty that something exists, and it is the truth, the fact, and the logic, also the consistent conclusion in the history of ideas, the existence of that something becomes immediately clear to us, in a flash that it is an irremovable part and parcel of the default status of things in the totality of being which is existence.

Take this account of some thinker in ancient Greece: one day he was going into his bath tub full of water for his refreshing self-drenching in water; as he stepped in, the water level got higher and water over flowed out of the tub.

You know what? He exclaimed, Eureka! Eureka!

Okay, dear silent majority, for your enhancement in knowledge, look up the word Eureka in dictionaries, and you will know what I mean that when something is obviously the truth, the fact, the logic, and the consistent conclusion of mankind in the history of ideas, it becomes obvious to you also like a flash, even when you happen to be engaged in an effort otherwise having nothing to do with the question you have in mind, on how to explain to yourself the question, and how to answer it as to satisfy your own demand for proof.

See if you can come to a Eureka flash in the following situation which you could face in your home.

An overnight guest dropped his toothbrush into the toilet bowl and thought he could just flush it away down into the house plumbing, and all the way to the city sewer network, nothing to worry about himself with his picking it up from the toilet bowl; but he didn't succeed, for as the toothbrush disappeared from sight, the water in the toilet bowl slowed its flow down the toilet bowl.

The guest was honest to inform you the home owner what he did, so that you would know not to use it for your major nature's call, until you fix the trouble he brought to the toilet bowl.

I ask you, how would you find a good solution with the no longer flushing toilet bowl? Try thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.



Happy thinking and writing!

Nah.

The average mind realizes that these words strung together are nonsensical.

Eureka! This clearly proves... something...

You never know what will happen when you look up a word in the dictionary. You might develop a migraine.

I can't wait to see where this one goes!

Dearest and most devoted Susmario,

To whom, exactly, do you think you are referring? I have mocked you by playing a character you were unable to detect and irrevocably proving you can not and will not ever answer a question even when every single definition and assumption is granted with a healthy dose of unwarranted praise thrown in. Aaron has mocked you by relentlessly and hilarious picking apart your "arguments".

Who else is there?

Is there some unseen audience?

so who are you in this analogy? The toilet bowl, the droppings of the guest or the flushing mechanism?

Uhhhhh, don't forget me. I'm the one who proved that God exists by thinking on facts and logic and the history of ideas to refute infinities of lines and things that come from themselves or from others and nobody has successfully challenged my argument other than calling it bad much to the dismay of those who insist on bringing a nonfunctioning mind to a thought fight.

Uhh you are a poor copycat of me