I like to talk with atheists philosophically. - Page 8 - Religion, God, and Theology

Well, there is no intention to insult you anyone at all, just the intention to ask you to do systematic thinking when there is a system I present to you for us to prove God exists or does not exist.

You are saying you didn't intend this to be an insult:?

Quote:

Do you notice that you are not accustomed to and skillful in systematic critique of what you read.

That is the trouble with atheists: they do not think systematically and thoroughly, shall I use the word integrally but first step by step orderlily.

Don't insult our intelligence by pretending this is anything other than an obvious insult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

Okay, please examine step dp1, in bold below..

If you don't care to give me your critical comments on step dp1, then I will assume that you already accept that my system proves God exists: as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Nonsense. You simply are not addressing the objection. I have stated it many times, and you have yet to actually interact with it.

To repeat, I accept for the sake of argument your definition, your concept, of God. I think your "discussion phase" contains silly definitions but it doesn't actually matter. I accept them for the sake of argument. What I don't believe you are going to be able to do is argue the "expedition phase". That is, I don't believe you can provide any argument or reason why we should believe that this concept actually exists. Why do you? Can you provide that argument?

It would help to state your argument formally:

Definition: God is the creator of the unvierse
P1: The universe exists
.......
C: God exists.

How do you get to your conclusion? Because it obviously doesn't follow from the fact that the universe exists.

Quote

10-26-2014 , 04:33 PM

#177

Bill Haywood

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,152

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westley

I'm beginning to think more and more that this is all some weird troll.

Not a troll.

My proof:

OP is originator of the thread, the first cause of all discussion with a beginning and no end.

Seriously, there's an obliviousness to dialog that I find genuine, like a pedantic old Sunday school teacher force-feeding tedium. And a modern troll could not capture the unusual syntax of the shut in, and would have more than one argument.

Will consider counter arguments provided that respondents first accept the concept that a troll is self-aware. After we agree on the definition of a troll, then we will systematically examine the evidence and come to a logical conclusion.

Quote

10-26-2014 , 05:15 PM

#178

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Haywood

Ah yes, but what if the troll is everywhere? Then this thread proves the troll exists. Maybe we are all trolls?

Spoiler:

Quote

10-26-2014 , 05:31 PM

#179

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15,911

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Haywood

A good call on the syntax. It is a long established trend that people who stick to highly unorthodox posting styles are usually terrible posters but genuine in their terribleness.

Quote

10-27-2014 , 02:22 AM

#180

redbanjos

newbie

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

If you don't care to give me your critical comments on step dp1, then I will assume that you already accept that my system proves God exists: as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

[ This post edited on 10/27/2014 at 0137hrs. ]

Then congratulations, you have proven that God exists as no one seems to be able to provide any critical comments that you deem semantically sophisticated enough to be worthy of discussion. How simple and clever it was to just declare the assumption as proof. How tedious of us to have wasted so much time and effort studying and discussing philosophy and theology.

Quote

10-27-2014 , 03:24 AM

#181

BeaucoupFish

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 4,575

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

Have you ever seen anything have a beginning? I havent. I have seen things change form, or grow and fade away, but I have never seen anything begin from nothing. So I cant verify that every instance of existence has a beginning. You also need to define "entity". Is "wind" an entity, wind can appear to make things exist (eg waves, rock structures, clouds etc).

I also see this as a problem - examples tend to be things that are just rearrangements of existing material. But, what about consciousness? I mean each individual as a person with identity (so not their material form). It is the only thing I have been able to think of that matches the "has a beginning" phrase. But then again, does it 'exist' in the same sense as what is being argued? Perhaps it is a category error?

Quote

10-27-2014 , 03:53 AM

#182

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish

Consciousness has never been reported without a working neural net (a brain basically), so there is nothing that indicates it is any less material than say... sweat.

And sure, how can matter feel both whole and confined is a good question. But is it any more difficult than how two pieces of matter can sweat differently?

I think we elevate consciousness as something grander than other phenomena, and I think it is a dead end to do so.

Quote

10-27-2014 , 04:34 PM

#183

mrmr

adept

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 863

Another apparent weakness (imo) in the KCA is explained by way of analogy:

Every single marble in my collection is round, translucent, and made of glass. Therefore, it stands to reason that the bag that marbles are kept in is round, translucent, and made of glass.

Right?

Unless we allow that the properties of elements within a bag of marbles / universe do not hold in an intuitive direct way to the bag of marbles / universe itself.

Quote

10-27-2014 , 07:47 PM

#184

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Okay, let us all theists and atheists and others try the system I am presenting for humans to ascertain that God exists or not.

Here is the system from me, again, and please (no insult here) read critically with an open mind, not with the intention to suppress your thinking with manipulations of words in order to prevent yourselves and readers to think and to act: to get to the fact in the realm of existence that God exists (or does not exist), i.e., by taking into critical account facts and examining the facts on logic.

Okay, forgive me, here is the system for finding God existing or not, my proposed system:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

10-24-2014, 08:28 PM Post 151

[...]

You and I and everyone keen on proving God exists or God does not exist, first we go into a discussion phase to get concurred on things needed for the resolution of the issue; when we have achieved concurrence on our premises, then we go into the expedition phase to look for God existing in actual reality or not.

Discussion phase:

Discussion phase 1 (dp1), all concur that God in concept is [ in concept ] the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Discussion phase 1a (dp1a), you concur with me that the universe has a beginning..

Discussion phase 1b (dp1b). I concur with you that the universe has no beginning it has always existed.

Expedition phase:

Expedition phase 1a (ep1a), all proceed to the realm of concrete actual reality to verify that every instance of existence has a beginning, and even the universe itself as a whole has a beginning; wherefore an entity is needed to give beginning to the universe and everything with a beginning, like God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning..

Expedition phase 1b (ep1b), all proceed to the realm of concrete actual reality to verify that every instance of existence has always existed, including the universe as a whole; wherefore no entity is needed to give a beginning to them, like for example God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

So, we have the following steps above by which theists will prove to atheists that God exists, and also most important to atheists, they will prove to theists that God does not exist; but please don't neglect to keep in mind that both theists and atheists are concerned with God in concept as the creator and operator of the universe, not any God like a spaghetti, or unicorn, or teapot, or Santa, or tooth fairy, which is the stratagem of atheists to fool themselves and their readers, by heaping demeaning metaphors on God.

Please refer to the system above as I use the abbreviations dp1 etc. to refer to the steps:

For atheists, yes atheists, this is how you atheists can and will prove to theists that God does not exist.

First start with dp1, and continue with dp1b, and lastly sum up with ep1b.

Okay, I will give you atheists the steps involved:

Quote:

Discussion phase 1 (dp1), all concur that God in concept is [ in concept ] the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Discussion phase 1b (dp1b). I concur with you that the universe has no beginning it has always existed.

Expedition phase:

Expedition phase 1b (ep1b), all proceed to the realm of concrete actual reality to verify that every instance of existence has always existed, including the universe as a whole; wherefore no entity is needed to give a beginning to them, like for example God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

So atheists, do you see how you can use facts and logic to get theists to see that God does not exist, if you can just convince theists that their concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning is not a valid concept, it is pure vacuity.

Now for us theists, here is the way to use my system to come to the certainty that God exists in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Quote:

Discussion phase 1 (dp1), all concur that God in concept is [ in concept ] the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Discussion phase 1a (dp1a), you concur with me that the universe has a beginning..

Expedition phase:

Expedition phase 1a (ep1a), all proceed to the realm of concrete actual reality to verify that every instance of existence has a beginning, and even the universe itself as a whole has a beginning; wherefore an entity is needed to give beginning to the universe and everything with a beginning, like God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning..

Do you see atheists and dear fellow theists, how we can use facts and examine them on logic and come to the existence of God or not, on condition that we all agree on the concept of God [in concept] as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

If atheists don't want to concur on God in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, then they have to present a concept of God and convince theists to accept their [atheists'] concept of God.

Do you how see everyone, no insult here, how discussion is very important to get to concur on the concept of God?

As an illustration, suppose the issue is whether there exists a pink panther, don't both camps the pros and the antis have to first concur on the concept of a pink panther, that is the discussion phase; afterwards they can proceed to the expedition phase to look for the pink panther.

Now, I see atheists to be very busy with dodging and muddling up the issue by bringing in a lot of repetitions of the same quasi or pseudo i.e. fake objections, like If God exists who or what created God? or Can God make a stone so huge He cannot carry it, or How come God does not heal a legless amputee, etc., etc., etc., and of course the old time charge of (fake) circular reasoning.

But all these are just dodging the issue or muddling up the issue.

See you guys again tomorrow.

Forgive me, before I leave, just everyone atheists and theists, please be systematic by first thinking critically and then presenting your critical comments for or against:

Discussion phase 1 (dp1), all concur that God in concept is [ in concept ] the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Quote

10-27-2014 , 07:55 PM

#185

Louis Cyphre

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 11,025

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre

Susmario,

do you understand that

a) your argument is circular?
b) circular arguments are technically valid, just worthless, as it doesnt show anything new, or add any new information?

Still waiting for an answer.

Quote

10-27-2014 , 08:09 PM

#186

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

You are effectively giving a (rather poorly executed) variant of a cosmological argument, in particular the kalam cosmological argument

This appears to be correct although the talk about concepts seems vaguely reminiscent of the ontological argument as well.

Quote

10-27-2014 , 08:20 PM

#187

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

Discussion phase 1 (dp1), all concur that God in concept is [ in concept ] the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

I am happy to accept this concept as being a definition of god. this does NOT mean that I accept that it actually exists.
So now we have agreed on the concept of god, when are you going to go on and show that that concept actually exists?

Quote:

Expedition phase 1a (ep1a), all proceed to the realm of concrete actual reality to verify that every instance of existence has a beginning

There is no way to verify this. I have never seen existence begin, so there is no way in actual reality to verify that every instance of existence has a beginning.

Quote

10-28-2014 , 03:46 PM

#188

duffee

banned

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,218

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

Otherwise we are doing nothing different from assigning "santa claus" to mean "man who delivers presents on christmas eve"

You’re not thinking systematically enough, viz.:

Discussion phase:
Discussion phase 1a (dp1a), you concur with me that good little girls and boys have toys.

Discussion phase 1b (dp1b). I concur with you that good little girls and boys don’t have toys.

Expedition phase:
Expedition phase 1a (ep1a), all proceed to the realm of concrete actual reality to verify that good little girls and boys have toys; wherefore an entity is needed to bring toys to good little girls and boys, like Santa Claus in concept the bringer of toys to good little girls and boys.

Expedition phase 1b (ep1b), all proceed to the realm of concrete actual reality to verify that good little girls and boys don’t have toys; wherefore no entity is needed to bring toys to good little girls and boys, for example like Santa Claus in concept the bringer of toys to good little girls and boys.

Quote:

If (a) the universe began to exist and (b) the universe encompasses physical reality and (c) there is a reason ‘why’ the universe exists, then (d) the existence of an immaterial cause is a necessary condition for the existence of physical reality.

I regard to (c), (a) and (b) can be true but if the universe just popped into existence uncaused sometime ago, then the existence of physical reality is a brute fact and as such an immaterial cause isn’t implicated. At any rate, I think the above is valid and (a), (b) and (c) are reasonable beliefs, so (d) is one as well. Reasonable in the sense that to me (a) is a slight favorite over (not-a), (b) a slight favorite over (not-b), and (c) is a slight favorite over (not-c). So while hardly conclusive, (d) has an edge over (not-d), imo.

Quote

10-28-2014 , 05:33 PM

#189

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by duffee

You’re not thinking systematically enough, viz.:

Discussion phase:
Discussion phase 1a (dp1a), you concur with me that good little girls and boys have toys.

Discussion phase 1b (dp1b). I concur with you that good little girls and boys don’t have toys.

Expedition phase:
Expedition phase 1a (ep1a), all proceed to the realm of concrete actual reality to verify that good little girls and boys have toys; wherefore an entity is needed to bring toys to good little girls and boys, like Santa Claus in concept the bringer of toys to good little girls and boys.

Expedition phase 1b (ep1b), all proceed to the realm of concrete actual reality to verify that good little girls and boys don’t have toys; wherefore no entity is needed to bring toys to good little girls and boys, for example like Santa Claus in concept the bringer of toys to good little girls and boys.

Not sure if you are taking the piss out of me or susmario

Even if we accept the concept of santa as being the person who brings good boys and girls toys, and we go and verify that good boys and girls have toys, this still doesnt prove that the concept of santa exists ( not sure if thats what you are saying or not)

Quote:

If (a) the universe began to exist and (b) the universe encompasses physical reality and (c) there is a reason ‘why’ the universe exists, then (d) the existence of an immaterial cause is a necessary condition for the existence of physical reality.

Possibly, althought (c) being slight favorite seems slightly dodgy, begging the question almost.

Quote

10-28-2014 , 05:35 PM

#190

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15,911

Lol at just repeating and repeating your same post without even attempting to interact with anyone else.

As I said, I accept for the sake of argument your "discussion phase". Let us accept your definition of God and the fact that the universe exists. Now what you need to do is justify your "expedition phase". You have your concept now WHY DO YOU THINK YOUR CONCEPT ACTUALLY EXIST? Justify ep1a.

Don't just requote yourself. Lay out a formal argument with premises and conclusions.

Quote

10-28-2014 , 05:38 PM

#191

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

With the Santa Claus example ep1a/b seems like affirming the consequent

Also applies to the "immaterial cause" wording unless you establish first that there is no other explanation for existence, but duffee implicitly backs away from the fallacious syllogism version by speaking in terms of probability, but it does leave the question as to how you gauge which of the various explanations is more probable

Quote

10-29-2014 , 07:00 PM

#192

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario
10-24-2014, 08:28 PM Post 151
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=151
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=184

[...]

You and I and everyone keen on proving God exists or God does not exist, first we go into a discussion phase to get concurred on things needed for the resolution of the issue; when we have achieved concurrence on our premises, then we go into the expedition phase to look for God existing in actual reality or not.

Discussion phase:
Step 1 Discussion phase 1 (dp1), all concur that God in concept is [ in concept ] the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Step 2 Discussion phase 1a (dp1a), you concur with me that the universe has a beginning..

Step 3 Discussion phase 1b (dp1b). I concur with you that the universe has no beginning it has always existed.

Expedition phase:
Step 4 Expedition phase 1a (ep1a), all proceed to the realm of concrete actual reality to verify that every instance of existence has a beginning, and even the universe itself as a whole has a beginning; wherefore an entity is needed to give beginning to the universe and everything with a beginning, like God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning..

Step 5 Expedition phase 1b (ep1b), all proceed to the realm of concrete actual reality to verify that every instance of existence has always existed, including the universe as a whole; wherefore no entity is needed to give a beginning to them, like for example God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

So, in Step 1, we are agreed for the sake of the exercise to accept the concept of God as in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning; but we are perfectly also on agreement that accepting Step 1 does not mean that you accept already the fact of the existence of God, it is just that with the acceptance we can move forward – otherwise we will never get further on in the system.

If you will not for the sake of the exercise accept Step 1, then please understand why I will not attend to your posts here where you will not accept Step 1, because you are not going to be useful to yourself, but worse a hindrance to everyone else to move forward.

Okay, here I will reproduce Step 1, you tell me whether you for the sake of the exercise moving on accept it – if not then I will count you out of my attention span (but you can start your own thread on the existence or non-existence of God in your own concept of God).

Step 1 Discussion phase 1 (dp1), all concur that God in concept is [ in concept ] the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

So, tomorrow, I will attend only to posters who have accepted Step 1, and we all who concur on Step 1 for the sake of the exercise moving forward, we will move forward.

Quote

10-29-2014 , 07:23 PM

#193

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!

seriously?
I mean, really?

Can you read? Have you been reading any of the responses?

We have all accepted your concept of god, now please move on to the next stage.

Quote

10-29-2014 , 07:47 PM

#194

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15,911

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Don't just requote yourself. Lay out a formal argument with premises and conclusions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

I will just reproduce again my system for us all to prove God exists or does not.

Sigh. What do you do? Nothing but reproduce your system and insist we focus on Step 1. Well if you actually internalized anyone else's posts you would quickly realize that WE HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED YOUR ****ING DEFINITION. Don't think such emphasis is necessary? Here, let me quote it, so you can see how frustrating it is to repeatedly say something and have you ignore it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Yes, let's just accept the definition for a moment and let's see your evidence or arguments for why such an object exists....Let's accept that and move on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

To repeat, I accept for the sake of argument your definition, your concept, of God. I think your "discussion phase" contains silly definitions but it doesn't actually matter. I accept them for the sake of argument. What I don't believe you are going to be able to do is argue the "expedition phase". That is, I don't believe you can provide any argument or reason why we should believe that this concept actually exists. Why do you? Can you provide that argument?

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

As I said, I accept for the sake of argument your "discussion phase". Let us accept your definition of God and the fact that the universe exists. Now what you need to do is justify your "expedition phase". You have your concept now WHY DO YOU THINK YOUR CONCEPT ACTUALLY EXIST? Justify ep1a.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Oh do get on with it already. You have your concept. Great. Now why on earth do you think that your concept actually exists?

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Definition: God is the creator of the unvierse

I and others have repeatedly accepted your concept of God. Six times thus far for me. I have even accepted for the sake of argument your "Step 2", that the universe began to exist. Now provide your argument or evidence for why this concept you have actually exists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

So, tomorrow, I will attend only to posters who have accepted Step 1, and we all who concur on Step 1 for the sake of the exercise moving forward, we will move forward.

Tomorrow I will only attend to posters who move past Step 1.

Last edited by uke_master; 10-29-2014 at 07:58 PM.

Quote

10-29-2014 , 11:42 PM

#195

batair

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 16,802

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

So, tomorrow, I will attend only to posters who have accepted Step 1, and we all who concur on Step 1 for the sake of the exercise moving forward, we will move forward.

Unlikely. People have been accepting step 1 since the first page.

Quote

10-30-2014 , 12:43 PM

#196

Doggg

veteran

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,121

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

Thanks everyone for your posts.

I will just reproduce again my system for us all to prove God exists or does not.

I will now request again everyone to keep to Step 1, if you react to any step but Step 1, I will have to abstain from attending to you: because you are just going to mess up my system with not keeping to the system according to the order of from Step 1 to Step 5 – which kind of unsystematic move from your part will -- perhaps you intend it also -- will just hold back everyone with sincere desire to grasp my system and move progressively from the beginning in Step 1.

So, in Step 1, we are agreed for the sake of the exercise to accept the concept of God as in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning; but we are perfectly also on agreement that accepting Step 1 does not mean that you accept already the fact of the existence of God, it is just that with the acceptance we can move forward – otherwise we will never get further on in the system.

If you will not for the sake of the exercise accept Step 1, then please understand why I will not attend to your posts here where you will not accept Step 1, because you are not going to be useful to yourself, but worse a hindrance to everyone else to move forward.

Okay, here I will reproduce Step 1, you tell me whether you for the sake of the exercise moving on accept it – if not then I will count you out of my attention span (but you can start your own thread on the existence or non-existence of God in your own concept of God).

Step 1 Discussion phase 1 (dp1), all concur that God in concept is [ in concept ] the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

So, tomorrow, I will attend only to posters who have accepted Step 1, and we all who concur on Step 1 for the sake of the exercise moving forward, we will move forward.

I laughed hard at this post.

Have a feeling this conversation is NEVER getting past "step 1."

Quote

10-30-2014 , 05:05 PM

#197

Bill Haywood

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,152

The sheer repetitiveness is making me doubt my previous certainty that it's not a troll. Now I'm thinking prop bet.

Quote

10-30-2014 , 07:08 PM

#198

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Thanks to everyone who have accepted Step 1.

Quote:

*[ Read the note at the end of this quote. ]

Discussion phase:
Step 1 Discussion phase 1 (dp1), all concur that God in concept is [ in concept ] the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Step 2 Discussion phase 1a (dp1a), you concur with me that the universe has a beginning.

Step 3 Discussion phase 1b (dp1b). I concur with you that the universe has no beginning it has always existed.

Expedition phase:
Step 4 Expedition phase 1a (ep1a), all proceed to the realm of concrete actual reality to verify that every instance of existence has a beginning, and even the universe itself as a whole has a beginning; wherefore an entity is needed to give beginning to the universe and everything with a beginning, like God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Step 5 Expedition phase 1b (ep1b), all proceed to the realm of concrete actual reality to verify that every instance of existence has always existed, including the universe as a whole; wherefore no entity is needed to give a beginning to them, like for example God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

*Please understand that we will organize ourselves into two groups, I will be with one group, the rest not with me will make up the opposite group.

Sorry for the repetition, but I just wanted to filter out posters who are into other concerns than starting with Step 1; forgive me, this exercise is like a field trip I am leading and handling, and right away some guys in the bus keep on insisting that I should take to this or that road for the starting point, but it is not in the direction that will bring us all to arrive at, which we are keen on getting to as the final destination of the trip.

Okay, now that we are through with Step 1, We are now at a point where you can choose to proceed to Step 2, or Step 3; I choose Step 2.

For posters who also choose Step 2 like myself, we will go to Step 4 and "all proceed to the realm of concrete actual reality to verify that every instance of existence has a beginning, and even the universe itself as a whole has a beginning; wherefore an entity is needed to give beginning to the universe and everything with a beginning, like God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning."

Now, for those who choose Step 3, you can logically continue to Step 5.

Tomorrow we will all the ones who get to Step 4 and the ones who get to Step 5, we will report on our respective ascertainment that God exists as creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, or God does not exist at all.

See you guys again tomorrow.

Quote

10-30-2014 , 07:34 PM

#199

DrChesspain

Guest

Posts: n/a

This thread is like participating in a really bad Turing test with a psychotic Siri.

Quote

10-30-2014 , 08:14 PM

#200

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

You are missing out the option where some things have always existed, and some things havent.

You are missing out on the fact that ( at the moment at least) we cant say whether the universe had a beginning

You are missing out on the fact that we cant verify in the realm of concrete actual reality that every instance of existence has a beginning

You are missing out on the fact an entity may not be needed to give beginning to the universe.

So at the moment I cant choose step 4 or step 5 , because neither makes sense to me

Quote

Page 8 of 39

First

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18 28

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 8 of 39

First

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18 28

Last