Dear guys here, no long no see!

Now, allow me to propose to you this idea, how to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

First, let us think that the default status of things in the world is existence: yes? no?

I answer yes, that the default status of things in the world is existence, because before anything else there has got to be existence before you can proceed to anything else at all, whether it has to do with acting and/or then with thinking, which thinking is also acting, by acting I don't mean like in the stage, but operating i.e. doing something at all.

Think about that, and if you disagree with me, then explain why you think and come to the certainty that the default status of things in the world is not existence.


Susmario

Move to RGT forum as more appropriate and better place for full discussion.

Things that are old are once again new.

Its not clear what you mean. What is "default status"? How would you know whether something is "default status" or not?

If you mean, "existence exists" then yes, that would seem to be an indisputable fact, but theres nothing further you can deduce from that fact alone, including whether existence is the default status.

Supposition granted. Now how do you get to a god? In particular, how do you get to one who cares who you ****?

Default status is a concept, it is no different from this phrase, the default status of human males is with two balls hanging from their lower torso.

Only now with 'the default status of things in the world', we are dealing with the most broadest of categories, under which category everything that exist falls within and under.

You can tell me that my sentence does not add anything new to your knowledge.

You are correct of course; now, there are many sentences which do not add anything new to your knowledge, but they serve to tell you to think of their implications.

For example, coming back to the default status of human males is two balls hanging from their lower torso, it does not add anything to your knowledge, but if you are conscious of them, then you take care when you are into a situation of risk to them, of losing them or injuring them, you put on them as to cover them, a steel testicles-penis pouch - have you seen in old paintings from Europe of men sporting such a piece of external fashion?

That's every good.

Have you started to think about the implications of the sentence, "The default status of things in the world is existence"?

Have you started to think on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas with mankind?

From your knowledge of truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas with mankind, you remember that things existing can be divided into two big classes: 1. Things existing from themselves, 2. Things existing from other things.

From that division of all things existing, you come to the logic that there has got to be an entity existing from itself, that is in concept unavoidably first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Otherwise known as God in the monotheistic religions of Christianism, Islam, and Judaism.

So, do you grasp now how the default status of things in the world being existence leads you to the enlightenment that God exists, in concept as first and foremost: the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?

What about God caring for mankind?

This is fundamental philosophy, for that you go to theology also called theodicy or philosophy of Western theism.


Happy thinking and writing!

The default status of the human male is identifying as a human male to then be identified as a human male from a secondary source, like another person.

Balls indicate a default status of a biological sex of animals that have balls.

Did I grasp default status?

Oh, and imagination exists and is real. How else would God be imaginable?

i grant Susmario all assumption, but when we get to the key dedication I am lost. Explain - precisely - the logic that allows you to jump from this division to this remarkably conclusion.

I agree with the (often touted) sentiment that if there is a "something outside", it might not fit our concept of "exist".

This, however, doesn't really justify big leaps of faith. We would still have to depend on our own reason to understand the world around us.

you use the default status in the case of the male, because you have multiple examples to choose from. Most males have balls, therefore you deduce that having balls is the default status of a male. How do you do the same with regard to existence?

Also, here you are say that balls are the default status with regard to something ( men). You are taking a category (men) and identifying a characteristic( balls)

existence is the default status with regard to ?

I dont think your analogy works

Dear Spank, the way for two persons to know that they are talking about the same thing, in the present context, the idea of what is the concept of default status of a thing, and thing is understood as anything at all that exists, even just in our mind: it is by each party giving an example at least one example of the concept concerned from his own experience of things even just things in his mind, but in particular of things outside his mind and existing independent of his mind.

Now, I have given an example of default status with my presenting to readers and of course to you, that existence is the default status of things in the world.

And also I give the example of balls, read that testicles, is the default status of the human male.

Now, please, Spank, you give to readers including yours truly, an example of your concept of a default status of something.

Then I will know whether you get my thought correctly, namely, what is the meaning of 'default status of something'.

You see, Spank, and I hope you will agree with me, that unless we get to agree on what we are talking about, then it is impossible for us to be talking about the same thing, and that is the trouble with a lot of endless argument: humans talking about different things but not realizing at all that they are into different things, and insisting that each one is talking truth or fact or logic or history.

That is why, dear colleagues here in this thread, when we talk, you and I, we must always see whether we are talking about the same thing, by asking ourselves reciprocally, "What is your concept and example(s) of what you are talking about?"

But there are dishonest talkers who intentionally insist on their own concept of the thing that is the subject of discourse in a group, in order to muddle up the issue, like whether God exists or not.

Let us see how this thread will turn out, namely, how honest are the participating posters.

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?

Existence is the default status of things that exist?

yes, and it doesnt work

Dear Tame, I understand that you are focused on what is our concept of existence.

You say: "We would still have to depend on our own reason to understand the world around us."

Very good.


We both use the word understand.

What is it to understand something?

What about that to understand something is to be able and to actually explain that something exists [that word exist again] at least in our mind, but most in particular that it exists independent of our mind, still we know it to exist by using our mind to think on it and thus come to the conclusion that it exists.

For example, let us take the nose in our face, a child might ask us who are thinkers, "Sir, I can't understand the nose in our face."

So, we ask the child, "Do you mean whether you can be sure that there is a nose in your face and why it is there - if it is in fact there?"

I hope, Tame, you do see that when we ask what is the meaning of the verb to understand something, we are concerned with the certainty of its existence and why it exists.

To understand something means to be able and to actually explain to ourselves and to others asking us, that that something exists in reality and the why it exists.

Please don't get tired, because we are now into thinking, and people ordinarily prefer to not think but to just keep to feeling instead of thinking.

To explain something is to use simple plain ideas to describe that something.

So, how do we understand existence or explain existence so that we understand it: because we can and do explain to ourselves and others i.e. by using simple and plain words/concepts and demonstration?

Here is how to understand i.e. explain existence:

1, In regard to for our present example, the nose in our face, to show that it exists, let us each one of us pinch our each one's respective nose and the noses of everyone else; that explains the existence of the nose in our face - if you need more convincing demonstration, then slit a small nick in one of your nostrils, and it bleeds, then you are now more sure that it exists.

2. Now, what about the question Why it exists? Simple, so that we can and do breathe easily and comfortably.

So, do we now understand what is existence?

I must apologize for the in a way long-winded explanation of what is existence.

Dear Neeeel, you say: "I dont think your analogy works."

That is a very sweeping statement.

Please choose one particular way by which you see my analogy does not work, in particular, what is your concept of an analogy and its purpose in the task of explanation of things to fellow humans.

The default status of human individual identity is individual. The state of individually existing.

The default status of human social identity is both social and individual.
The state of individually co-existing.

The default status of the world is spinning. This is not the only default status of the world.

The default status of everything?


So, back to God. Like, which one?

Dear Spank, I think you have the same concept of default status of a thing as I have.

Now, you are asking:

"The default status of everything? [ Again?! ]
So, back to God. Like, which one?"

I already told you that the default status of things in the world is existence, see my OP, reproduced below, the text in bold.

As regards your second question, "So, back to God. Like, which one?"

I have also said that in the monotheistic religions of Christianism, Islam, and Judaism, God is the one that in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, see my post #7:

From that division of all things existing, you come to the logic that there has got to be an entity existing from itself, that is in concept unavoidably first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
Otherwise known as God in the monotheistic religions of Christianism, Islam, and Judaism.

That is what in Christianism, Islam, and Judaism makes up the default status of God.

Now, we two can have an enjoyable exchange of thoughts when you tell me, what for you is the default status of God or god or whatever you have for an entity that corresponds to or what you would think corresponds to the entity that I call God, Who is in concept first and foremost etc.


Happy thinking and writing!

What does default status mean?

Because the universe/earth didn't exist at one time now it does, they say. Seems the default status should be both non existence and existence. Since both have happened.

Thats if we dont included that they also say the universe will end. Which means the default status then and for eternity (if we cant get out of the trap) will be non existence.

Dear Batair: you say that the universe has a beginning; therefore the default status of things in the world should be existence and non-existence.

Of course you know that things in the world cannot be in the same place and at the same time and in the same aspect of consideration existing and non-existing.

What you want to say I am sure if you were thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas with mankind, is that there has always been existence, even when there were no time and no space until the universe started to exist together with time and space.

Do you accept that truism, that there has always been existence, but in the default status of existence there are things which come into existence whereas they were not existing previously.

And that is why I am telling everyone here, that things are divided into existing from themselves and existing from others.

So, when I say that the default status of things in the world is existence, I am referring to the collectivity of things existing from themselves and things existing from others.

Please exert some effort of thinking to comprehend that though what you say is also correct that there is existence and non-existence; still things in the word is understood as representing all things, including those which did not exist before and then they exist now, and certainly as they have a beginning from things which exist from themselves, one day these things will also go out of existence, when the things existing from themselves put them out of existence.

Let me illustrate what I mean with this sentence, While you live, the default status of cells in your body is living as opposed to dead or dying - even though there are dead cells and dying cell all the time in your body.

That analogy is not completely in congruity with my sentence, namely: The default status of things in the world is existence; but you must know that an analogy is only a partial representation of the idea it is an analogical representation of, of the what I might call the principal.

Anyway, I welcome you most heartily, sincerely, and honestly to engage we two together and also anyone else keen on sorting out ideas and issues, to work out the points of concurrence among us all here, and also the points of diversion.

Please try to read as much posts in particular, modesty aside, my posts, as you should want to know what came before you arrived here.


Happy thinking and writing!

I have already explained in a previous post, why I think your analogy doesnt work.

Still dont know what default status mean.

are you a william lane craig fanboy OP?

i grant every definition and assumption, up to the point where you deduce a single entity. Could it be two entities? Could it be "something" but isn't an "entity"? And why do you think this "entity" is a "God"?

your poorly argued regurgitation of the cosmological argument has gotten you nowhere at the key step

A traditional view necessitates the world have such a traditional default status to rest the view upon.