You didn't get a single bite. Even Susmario ignored you.

[paraphrase] I am certain that god exists, therefore god exists, and everyone who disagrees is lying to themselves so I am going to disparage and insult them[/paraphrase]

uh read the thread, hook Line and sinker for ages

Note from a silent majoritan: I enjoyed the uke-trolling.

Dear everyone, thanks for your presence.


The account of the toothbrush carelessly dropped down in the toilet bowl and stuck in the elbow throat of the bowl, how to fix the trouble, so as not to leave any so much as a scratch on the porcelain surface of the bowl, that is a historical event.

So, I am inviting the wastrels here to do some real thinking, on a matter that can occur in your home.

Then you can realize whether you can think at all, on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, to reach the best solution how to fix the trouble now plaguing the toilet bowl.

Yes! If you ever have the habit of thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas in everything that is a trouble in your life and family and home and at work and in social mingling, then you should come to the best solution to the now dysfunctional toilet bowl.

The best solution must be easy, costless, and inflict no damage whatsoever to the toilet bowl, not even a scratch on its porcelain surface.


When you succeed with the trouble in the toilet bowl, then I assure you, oh wastrels here, that from five words you can come to God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning: say these five words following below, and think on them grounding yourselves on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

"I exist, therefore God exists."

Grandma had the easiest and cheapest solution. She just yelled at Grandpa to fix it. She has no idea what Grandpa did, she just knew that when he came out of the bathroom, it was fixed. And never once did Grandpa smash the toilet bowl.

And thus, they learned that they had a nose on their face.

Aaron, again you are lost on the instant issue, as usual.


You know, Aaron and your fellow lost colleagues here, you give me the impression that you are under some kind of vandalistic, or iconoclastic, or Tasmanian devilish, or predatory piranha mania to throw into this thread things which are indicative of your lost status, even though you belong like every human to the all super one stop shop scil., the transcendental default status of the totality of being which is existence.


Seriously, though, please present something relevant to this thread which is about God existing or not, which you would want me to concur with you on, so that readers of this thread will profit somehow from your otherwise lost status here.

Or you bring your grandpa to take your place here, as he has the intelligence to fix a stuck toilet bowl without leaving even a scratch on its porcelain surface; that is proof he is up to NOT appearing lost when something goes wrong in the house, and thus I predict he can take up with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, as to contribute to something profitable to readers here.


Happy thinking and writing!

I said them, and thought on them, grounding myself on truth facts logic and the history of ideas. It still doesnt make sense, logically

P) I exist
therefore
C) God exists

(C) cannot be logically deduced from (P) alone. You have missed out some premises, or some steps in your logical deduction. You need to show them in order to show the truth of your syllogism

Dear Neeeel, if memory serves, were you not the poster who brought in tautology and insists that my sentence, The default status of things in the totality of being is existence, is meaningless to you?

And dear Aaron, if memory serves, were you not the poster I asked whether you are a logician? You neither confirmed nor denied, you just said or asked in return What does that have to do with what you were concerned with then?


Now, Aaron, you say that you are a mathematician, while I tell you that I am not a mathematician.

At this point, tell me, Neeeel, what are you: mathematician, logician, or plain thinker like yours truly, Susmario; and I think with my heart and mind grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

The truth and fact and logic and the history of ideas tell us that the nose in our face exists. That is certainty for me.

Suppose, dear Neeeel and Aaron, you tell me, assuming that you two do think also on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, tell me that you cannot get it that the nose in our face exists?

I want you to concur with me that the nose in our face exists, but you seem to be hell bent into getting lost in facing my request.


So, now, suppose you two propose something that is the truth, the fact, the logic, and is in the history of ideas with mankind, and you ask me to concur with you on it, okay?

But please, with this caveat, I am not a mathematician and not a logician, but a plain thinker, with my heart and mind grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas with mankind.



Happy thinking and writing!

I have already agreed, at least twice, to your proposition that the nose on our face exists.

Ok just stop. It's nose ON your face. This is basic stuff.

This is like when people say Trump says things how they really are. Your mind so far has not been shown to be grounded in truth, facts, logic, nor the history of ideas with mankind.

I've shown systematically that your logic is flawed. I've given a very simple explanation of the word "default" and how it is impossible to determine the "default" status of the universe via observation.

With those who have granted your various assumptions, you still have yet to demonstrate anything in particular with your logic.

You've also demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the history of ideas when you've appeared to be ignorant of the standard types of arguments that are raised against the type of position you've raised.

I think your toilet analogy is pointless, and you have yet to begin to elucidate on your attempted meaning.

So I object to your classification of yourself as a "thinker." You've so far only demonstrated that you like to repeat yourself endlessly, and it's far from clear that after this many posts that you've actually had a new thought in your head the entire time.

See, dear readers here, these guys are always playing ignorant, witless, and stupid in regard to the thread here, which is in its core, God existing or not.


Okay, every wastrel here, just in 20 words or less, give me one thing you want me to concur on with you, and don't abuse words with your smart-behind way of writing as to appear innocent with your ignorance, witless-ness, and stupidity.

Here, this is a test on verbal comprehension for college level students conversant with multi-discipline reading.

Rewrite in 30 words or less what you comprehend in this sentence:

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

I say sentence, not one word or two words in the sentence.


And take notice, you wastrel guys, I still await to work as to concur with you on one thing that you are certain to exist, then we will work further together to come 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.


Dear readers here, I am asking these wastrel guys to do two things:

1. Write their comprehension of the sentence, "The default status in the totality of being is existence," in 30 words or less.

2. Give something you wastrel guys are sure to exist, for me to work together with you to concur on, and then we will work further to come 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.



Happy thinking and writing!

I believe Susmario means that the status of things is existence. Not an objective/subjective way of thinking about or seeing something.

Can anyone here argue against existence being true?

Some logical theory of nothing being real.

Life seems real to me.

Susmario, I'm not sure what you're supposed to say when others deny existence. You can't even get going explaining the way to your theory.

I believe I exist. Where do I go from there to get to what you believe?

I've read the thread but am still unsure what to think next.

The statements "the status of things is existence" and "the default status of things is existence" are logically quite different.

To make an analogy, the first is like the statement "Tigers exist." We can demonstrate the truth of this proposition by pointing to a tiger. The second statement is closer to (but not exactly like) the statement "it is necessary that tigers exist." We can't demonstrate that claim merely by showing that tigers do in fact exist. To do so would be to pretend that the word "necessary" was entirely redundant and has no meaning. To demonstrate necessity requires demonstrating that no world could possibly exist without tigers.

What "necessity" in this logical sense has in common with the notion of a "default status" with regard to ontology is that they are modal operators. They deal with questions about "possible worlds", possibility and necessity, rather than just questions about actual facts. Modal logic is popular in philosophy of religion for the historically quirky reason that medieval and later theologians believed that a truly perfect and supreme being must also be logically necessary. Hence the ontological arguments.

It's a rather arcane part of philosophy, and it's arguable that the question about a "default status of existence" is useless or meaningless to begin with. As uke_master has taken great pains to point out, susmario's assertions don't really lead anywhere even if you grant the premise. But, even though he hasn't actually elucidated an argument, it seems clear that susmario wants the word "default" to be doing some work. I don't think it's reasonable to just remove the word when he insists repeatedly on using it.

A less philosophical example of the meaning of the word "default" can be seen in configuration options for software. Consider some forum software in which users have the option to create signatures (text which automatically appears after every post), as well as the option to either display other people's signatures after their posts or hide them. I can ask two distinct questions about this second option:

1) Is signature viewing enabled on my account?
2) Is signature viewing enabled by default on accounts? That is, if I create a new account, will this option be enabled or disabled prior to my ever viewing it or changing it.

I can answer the first question by going to my account profile and looking at the option. It's equivalent to touching my balls to be sure they are there or not. I can't answer the second question by doing this, I'd have to look at the source code. The question about the "default status" of existence may be meaningless precisely because there is no context in which to answer it. That is, there is no "source code" available to look at.

For example, you can read a few pages from this book about Leibniz, his version of the ontological argument, and the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Note in particular:

This is similar in spirit to Susmario's thinking, I suspect. Maybe it makes the meaning of "default" more clear. Or maybe not :P

I see your point. Well said with the rest of your post.

So the question is whether or not there was something before existence? Assuming that existence is all there ever has been would be foolish just because you can't understand the alternative.

That would have nothing to do with whether or not you can feel your nose. Arguing present day existence is a different topic.

Susmario, without making the assumption of existence has always existed, can you reach your conclusion?

Thanks MakingMoves for your presence.

I am happy with you that you have not gone into the path of even claiming to not have certainty of your own existence.

There are inane thinkers who go into that direction and feel that they are oh so smart-behind; have you read what another thinker like you here says about these wastrels, that they should put their nose to their balls and sniff, so that they will ascertain their existence.

Experience, that is the infallible, irrefutable proof of our existence.


Now, please don't go away.

I say that in just five words, we human beings unlike our fellow beings of the what we might call of the animal kingdom, we can and do come to the existence of God.

But first, let you and me think about what entities in the animal kingdom are capable of in regard to existence or non-existence.

They know what is death, but not non-existence, on that matter there is for you and me another most absorbing investigation to engage our thinking prowess on, of course with our investigation never deviating from truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas as we think - but save that for another day.


So, let us we two exchange thoughts on these five words:

"I (place your name here, like for me, Susmario) exist, therefore God exists."

Who and what is the I that exist, namely, you and me?

You and me: with the most ancient of thinkers they already describe you and me and they themselves as rational animals, as distinct to and from, entities of the animal kingdom which is not described by them as rational animals.

Using our capacity to think on reason and intelligence, that is on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, we know that our life and existence is transient, we were not in the universe when it was a new born infant, and we will not be around when the universe comes to what scientists call heat death - unless I am mistaken though, of course not.

We come from our parents who also were transient, and they also came from their parents, and on and on all the way back to the first appearance of our species in the time lines of the animate world.

That brings us to the concept and fact of causation.

There, the I exist means I have come from a chain of causes going all the way back to the first cause.

Yes, there is a first cause, and the evidence of such a first cause is the truth and the fact that we are here, even though in a transient duration.

At this point, wastrel thinkers will pose the objection that infinite regress requires that we not come to a first cause, because they stubbornly insist that infinite regress has as much right to be taken seriously as first cause.

That is a gross error in their wastrel thinking, that is why they are wastrels because they waste their precious and peculiar human faculty of reasoning, by making up false, nonsensical, self-defeating concepts like infinite regress.

It is all in their mind, the concept of infinite regress; so let us leave them to their wastrel i.e. wasteful way of abusing their reasoning faculty, to ask themselves endlessly into yes, infinite regress, Who is the creator of the creator of the creator... until they die the death that is ordained to everything that lives: and that is the end of their infinite regress with their repeating question Who is the creator of the creator of the creator…

Besides, they cannot succeed to find an instance of anything that is into infinite regress when they go forth into the universe to look for one.

So, there is no infinite regress not in their mind because even before infinite regress gets anywhere but never to completion(?), these wastrel thinkers will have died already; and with their death their brain also lapses into extinction: so, no more brain which is the core machine central processing unit of their mind, and also their mind comes to extinction, with the extinction of their brain.

And no infinite regress in the universe either, proof of that is that the wastrel thinkers will not come to any evidence in the universe for the existence of an infinite regress thing.

But there is an infinite first cause which I call the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning; and yes, we have evidence of this first cause, namely, you and I and all sincere, honest, faithful thinkers: we are the evidence for the existence of the first cause, with our being the effect of the causation process.

There, dear MakingMoves, you have the proof for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.


I can talk on and on explaining with words and concepts why these five works, "I exist, therefore God exists," God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

But as I am certain, Oh MakingMoves, you are not a dull mind, no, you are not one of the wastrels hanging about here to distract readers' concentration and to annoy me but futilely, I am certain at this point you already have that flash of light by which you also have come to the certainty that God exists, as, you and I exist, meaning:

“We exist, therefore God exists.”


If you have any difficulty following my exposition, please bring it up when you write in reaction to my post here.



Happy thinking and writing!

Wait, if you are keen on investigating what is mathematician’s thinking and what is logician’s thinking, and what is plain thinking based on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, I will give you a tip: mathematician’ thinking and logician’s thinking is so abstract, all in the mind of these most cloudy wastrels, they should have written something like “The Cloud of Unknowing.”

When people are always into cloudy abstract thinking all in their mind, they can come up with all kinds of nonsense and imagine themselves to be so smart-behind.

Think about that: plain thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, is keeping our mental feet always planted on the awareness of the nose in our face, or as one poster here with regrettably few appearances here, tells wastrels here to do as to ascertain their existence, to put their nose to their balls and sniff.

I take it back, the "default status" wording does appear to be entirely superfluous to this:

Susmario: Things you said in bold.

That brings us to the concept and fact of causation.
There, the I exist means I have come from a chain of causes going all the way back to the first cause.

Your theory: Causation with no first cause= god.

What your theory should be: Causation makes no sense because it leads to infinite regress. How can we explain existence without causation.

It's actually quite worse if you try to read consistent concepts from beginning to end.

From the very first post:

In this case, the word default appears to be the only word that does any work. One can far more easily assent to "the status of things in the world is existence" insofar as one accepts "in the world" in some sort of time-constrained formulation. For example, the status of my nose is existence right now, but if you go back 1000 years, my nose doesn't exist but you could also say that it's not "in the world" at that time.

But it gets kind of fuzzy from there.

In this instance, he uses "default status" to mean something that appears to be aspiring to be tautological by definition (male implies male genitals -- which may or may not work depending on the gender concept being considered).

And here, there are all sorts of problems. If you consider that some men have had a testicle removed (say, due to cancer), you clearly have male-ness being completely separated from male-genital-possessing. In this instance, the word "default" is actually doing some type of work, and introduces all of the observational problems that have been discussed.

Dear MakingMoves, you are lost with your words:

Please correct it; I have said it clearly that the fact of causation leads us to conclude to the existence of God, AND it causation cannot incur any infinite regress - are you perhaps also in league with the wastrels here, who have been told by an intelligent poster here, to put their nose to their balls and sniff, so that they will not continually fall endlessly into infinite regress?

Causation is the key to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

I am sorry for you, because you write those words above as though you are also lost like the wastrels here.


Anyway, I like just the same to request you to undertake thinking on these two items:

1. Write within 30 words what you comprehend in this sentence from me, which is repeated by me almost but never because it's impossible, to infinite regress:

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

2. Bring up one thing you are sure to be existing for me to concur on with you; from that point we can work on it to come to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator [cause] and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.



Happy thinking and writing.

Thanks everyone for your presence here, also and in most particular the silent majority here.

Please, dear silent majority, contribute your thoughts to this thread.


Now, with the wastrel hang-abouts here, please react to these two items which will lessen our work here:

1. Write your comprehension of the sentence, "The default status of things in the totality of being is existence," in 30 words or less.

2. Give something you wastrel guys are sure to exist, for me to work together with you to concur on, and then we will work further to come 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.

And everyone here, please abstain from name-dropping or even stereo-typical arguments.

Let you do your own original personal thinking, with grounding yourselves on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

If you have never done any true concentrated thinking on what is existence and how you come to the truth and the fact of existence, starting with the nose in your face, it is now time to do such an important endeavor, before you launch into issues having to do with the controversy over God - but it is no controversy except from wastrels here, whose way of exposition of their position is nothing, but flippancy and acting lost on what the debate of God existing or not, is all about.


Please react to these two items, they are my screening device to weed out useless posters.

1. Write your comprehension of the sentence, "The default status of things in the totality of being is existence," in 30 words or less.

2. Give something you wastrel guys are sure to exist, for me to work together with you to concur on, and then we will work further to come 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.

Happy thinking and writing!

Wastrel -- That's a fun word that I wasn't familiar with before.

1. "Things that exist must necessarily have existed." (7 words)

2. I'm fairly sure everyone has granted that you have a nose, despite the fact that nobody in the conversation other than yourself have touched it. I don't think anyone has ever disagreed with that. Get on with it already!

Obviously, I'm useful.

things exist. It cant be said that its the default status, because that has all sorts of implications, but things do exist.


The nose on my face exists ( at least the 3rd time I have agreed with you)