Why do you act like this? You seem angry. Are your intentions to prove everyone wrong or to further along your base of knowledge?

Causation is the key to the existence of God.

I can respect this statement. Not exactly sure that I agree with this though because it leads to infinite regression. It seems that you understand the whole something from nothing, or was existence always here concept.

Would you be willing to question this said statement about causation? Everyone seems to be pointing out infinite regression to you about your theory. I'm not sure why you're bypassing these arguments by everyone. There's some intelligent people in this thread.

A theory that isn't based on causation seems to be a reasonable next step. If you really comprehend what you are saying, you shouldn't have to say:

1) If this were true (causation) it leads to infinite regression
2) Infinite regression doesn't make sense
3) If god were true, causation makes sense

How about re-questioning the premise of 1. Because this proof above, though it seems to make sense to you, does not for the rest of us. What the rest of us think, sense you don't seem capable of getting through to us, should at least make you question your comprehension on the subject. Usually if you really know something well, you will be able to teach it to others.

Just something to think about.

Dear MakingMoves, let you explain what is infinite regress, for we cannot get connected unless we have the same idea of infinite regress however false, nonsensical, and self-defeating it is.

To know what is my idea of infinite regress and how I have explained it that it is false, nonsensical, self-defeating, use the search function of this forum and look up all the instances of my mention of the term infinite regress, read and think on all the words within a radius a 100 words if there be 100 words in all directions up and down and left and right from the mention of the term infinite regress.

Now, dear MakingMoves, you explain what you understand by infinite regress, okay?


For the rest of you wastrel guys here, I will not anymore explain 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.

Now is your turn to present your proof for the non-existence of God, but first state forth your concept of God.

Or you would rather now repeat endlessly that the universe is all there is of existence, period.

Pray, are you knowledgeable about what scientists have found out, that man's knowledge of the universe covers only some 4% only of the universe?

So, good for us both, we need only for me prove and for you disprove that God exists, in the 4% of the universe scientists admit to knowing, only.

Do it this way, as I do, only in the opposite direction:

From me:
I exist, therefore God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

From you:
I [you wastrel guys here] don't exist, therefore God does not exist, (here, set forth your concept of God).



Happy thinking and writing!

An infinite regression is a proposed chain of causation in which each purported cause itself requires another event of exactly the same type to cause it.

You counter this by saying god created it all. But nothing created god. It seems that we should agree on this.

Proving the non-existence of God I can not do. I do not where existence came from.

That's like asking me, prove there isn't 10 other planets with humans on them. Seem's reasonable that it could be true, but I don't have enough information to say it is. Now saying that it is true with no information seems foolish without a very strong logical proof.

Instead of making a strong logical proof, now you're saying to your opponents of the argument, show me proof it isn't true. Very foolish.

A statement like, prove the non existence of god, in a discussion like this is pretty frustrating to deal with. If you can not realize this, I see no value in proceeding this discussion with you.

Dear MakingMoves, and everyone here, thanks for your presence.


Now, dear MakingMoves, about not being able to prove God does not exist, you say that it is impossible [because it is impossible to prove a negative].

Tell you what, you limit yourself to the nose in our face, that is pretty small a place to prove that God does not exist there, of course with your concept of God.

So, before you start thinking how to prove does not exist in your nose, first present your concept of God, okay?


Now, in regard to your concept of infinite regress, please refer it and restrict it to the infinite regress of God, in my concept of God, as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, because that is the issue here, God existing or not existing, in my concept of God; and the wastrel guys here are into telling mankind that it is not an impossibility that God is created by a previous God and then by another previous God, etc., on and on and on: so, they are and mankind are still waiting to come to the last no longer regressing creator God... and in the meantime we cannot conclude that God exists until the end of the infinitely regressing God Creator causing God Creator comes to completion.

Tell me, is that concept of God creating God into infinite regress, is that a true, valid, constructive concept at all, or it is a false, nonsensical, self-defeating concept that only insane thinkers take seriously as to in effect deny the existence of God.


So, you have two items to take up in your reaction to my post here.

1. Prove that God does not exist in your nose; if you say that you cannot prove it, then explain why, but before you start to write, please present your concept of God.

2. Tell me if the thought erh concept that God Creator is infinitely regressing into God Creator and further into God Creator, on and on and on... into infinitely regressing un-ending line of God Creators, that is why it is an infinite regress: Tell me if you maintain that it is a true, valid, constructive thought in your mind, erh, concept, WHY? or in other words, explain your reasons for holding that an infinitely regressing God Creator of God Creator of God Creator, on and on and on... is a true, valid, constructive thought in your mind, erh, concept.



Happy thinking and writing!

it's ON your face. Come on now, Susmario, if you can't learn that, you won't be able to learning anything.

After much searching, I have determined that I cannot touch God's nose inside of my nose, and so God must not be there.

Susmario:

I like your concept of god. As first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe This can not be fought with an infinite regression theory based on your wording. It's one hell of a claim to draw that conclusion though based on the knowledge that there is a nose on/in your face.

Because there is existence does not mean there is god. It could. But it also could not. It seems like a reasonable theory, maybe the best one right now since causation isn't able to make sense of existence being here. Some day there might be a better theory. Some day we might know for sure.

Dear wastrels here, like Neeeel, Aaron, and Uke, you are definitely in league with the other wastrels in the forum world, because you do not reply to the two items I ask you to do so.

Dear readers here, that is the strategy of the wastrels here, like Neeeel, Aaron, and Uke; they definitely do not want me to continue working on expounding on God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

So they keep on and on and on into infinite regress trying to wear me out, and expecting me to leave this thread and the forum altogether - trying to wear me out with appearing lost, lost as in not being able to understand, unlike what any college level reader with exposure to multi-discipline reading can, namely, on their part, these wastrels are not able to understand this sentence:

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


Dear wastrels, you have not answered to my two items, that is your way of adopting the strategy of the wastrels everywhere, appearing lost.

Here, try again to reply like a college level multi-discipline reader of anything and everything turned out by also college level at least effectively college level writers who do multi-discipline thinking, on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, to expound on their own original and personally thought out opinions on issues with mankind.

1. Prove that God does not exist in your nose; if you say that you cannot prove it, then explain why, but before you start to write, please present your concept of God.

2. Tell me if the thought erh concept that God Creator is infinitely regressing into God Creator and further into God Creator, on and on and on... into infinitely regressing un-ending line of God Creators, that is why it is an infinite regress: Tell me if you maintain that it is a true, valid, constructive thought in your mind, erh, concept, WHY? or in other words, explain your reasons for holding that an infinitely regressing God Creator of God Creator of God Creator, on and on and on... is a true, valid, constructive thought in your mind, erh, concept.

Here, start with item #1 by presenting your concept of God; if you will not then please go away, because you are not talking about anything that has to to with the existence of God or not - and this thread is at its core focused on the issue God exists or not.

And also as with item #2, start with presenting your concept of God; if you will not then please go away, because you are not talking about anything that has to to with the existence of God or not - and this thread is at its core focused on the issue God exists or not.

So, dear wastrels here, when you write again to react to my post here, I want to read the following words in your reply to my two requests, namely, as follows:

To item #1: My [your] concept of God is (here present your concept of God, then you can continue on to talk whatever you care to, on the issue God exists or not).

To item #2: My [your] concept of God is (here present your concept of God, then you can continue on to talk whatever you care to, on the issue God exists or not).


Now, dear readers here, have you ever come across this sentence in your reading: Drastic times call for drastic measures?

That is what I believe I should do with wastrels here who are into playing ignorant, witless, and stupid, while if they have some intelligence at all, they should just leave this thread as they do not have any position except to deny God existing, but knowing that it is a lie with them, that God does not exist: because when they think on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, it cannot be otherwise than God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning: so they take to appearing lost, i.e., ignorant, witless, and stupid, to explain their presence here.


Dear silent majority here, please read any piece of writing from any human being at all, denying God exists, but take care to search for any concept of God he is cognizant of and he presents it clearly to readers.

Bring it here if there is a concept stated clearly by the author of that piece of writing against God existing, and we will examine the concept to see whether the writer is into constructive writing or into wastrel writing.



Happy thinking and writing!

Surely, I am the worst of the worst because I did not reply to the two items you asked me to. Instead, I merely responded to the two items you asked me to.

...

As a college professor, I can say that your writing wouldn't pass off as college level writing. Aside from your grammar and English language* skills being quite poor and the fact that you have a propensity for writing run-on sentences, the content of your writings is terribly short of depth. It's not enough in college-level writing to merely make assertions. You must provide supporting argumentation. Furthermore, successful college writing must also be able to address counter-arguments, which demonstrate that you not only have a depth in your position, but that you have an awareness of other positions.

In fact, I would say that your writing probably comes in at around "emerging" as measured by this 7th grade writing rubric from the Boston public school district:

http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/s...t%20rubric.pdf

* Even if English is not your first language, college doesn't care. If you're in an English-speaking institution, you are expected to communicate effectively in that language (unless it's a foreign language class, of course).

Dear readers here, do you remember that I said or asked MakingMoves, to see the big difference between a mathematician's and a logician's thinking on the one side, and my way of thinking as a plain reasoning human, using my intelligence, and with my heart and mind grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas?

I said that mathematician's and logician's thinking is so very abstract, that it cannot be otherwise than it is into paradoxes; but paradoxes exist only in concepts, not in the reality of the nose in our face - and please wastrels here, at this point put your nose to your balls and sniff.

In the realm of the nose in our face, the balls hanging with us guys from our lower torso, and the nipples in our upper torso, and also with the stench in our farting from our a-hole, there cannot be any paradox like the one of Zeno: that as long as Achilles grants so much as one foot even one inch head start to the tortoise, he Achilles will never catch up, just catch up with the tortoise, not to talk even about outstripping the tortoise.

And Zeno explains why not: because Achilles will never ever into infinity close the gap that will always remain, into infinity remaining, however small and smaller it will become with every distance covered by Achilles' two feet.

That is an illustration of fallacious thinking in the abstract, the rebuttal to that is the Latin axiom, Contra factum non est argumentum.


Happy thinking and writing!

You're doing it again.

Failing.

Failing to learn.

Failing to recognize basic errors.

Failing to progress.

It's nose ON your face.

If you can't get this, what can you get?

You might not know this, but at least two people in this thread have math phds.

Susmario:

Are you claiming you have a theory that god exists, or that god for sure exists?

I'm wondering what you think of my last post.

No. I have no recollection of you making this claim.

I also don't think the claim is actually true. For you have yet to demonstrate thinking at all (plain reasoning human or otherwise). Instead, you merely repeat yourself endlessly as if by repetition you might create reality.

Here's another Latin phrase for you: Non Impediti Ratione Cogitationis.

I dont even know what this means. God exists in my nose? Hes part of my nose? or all of my nose? Or my nose is made up of god? Or hes hiding somewhere in my nose? Im not sure how I could disprove this, but Im not sure how you could prove it either.


I havent brought up infinite regress, so dont see why I should respond to this. also dont know what you mean by "true valid constructive thought". or why you keep saying "erh"

Shouldn't it be the facebump on your face. My nose is my face afaik...how come the face doesn't include the nose, its right in the middle...

Dear folks here, thanks for your presence, even the wastrels here, for they do play a role, to contribute to keep this thread at the top of the list.


Now, let us all take up this matter of what is the origin of concepts, as distinct to and from objects.

Infinite regress is a concept; though it is a false, nonsensical, and self-defeating idea, it can exist in our mind - credit that to the versatility of our God-created mind, still however not in the reality of objective existence - notice the word objective, there is object in objective existence, while the idea of concept is that it is in our mind; nonetheless, with concepts the rule is that concepts should have objects corresponding to them in objective reality, if not then they are false, nonsensical, and self-defeating ideas.

I must add that concepts are valid or invalid, invalid ones are what I describe like in the matter of infinite regress: false, nonsensical, and self-defeating thoughts in our mind.

Valid concepts are what we have in our mind which we can examine and find them to be at least endowed with potentials for us humans to work on, to search for objects in objective i.e. independent of our mind, existence.

OR we can invent objects which do correspond to the valid concepts in our mind, and if we cannot then God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, God can create them if they are valid concepts.

So, the big core distinction is between valid concepts and invalid concepts.


Now, how does a concept at all get into our mind?

By and from our experience of reality, i.e. of objects outside our mind, i.e. but from the default status of things in the totality of being which is existence.

Capisce!? Oh ye wastrels here?

Take the fart which issues forth from our anus, when a guy is not conversant with English enough as to know what is the meaning of the word fart which he might think to be connected to art - not exactly correct, but he knows what is air and what is bad and what is smell and what is a-hole or anus; do this experiment, Oh yet wastrels here:

Next time you are with that guy from a non-English speaking country and struggling to master English, and you want to teach him the meaning of fart. when you are experiencing a fart that is due to exit from your a-hole, you point to your a-hole and point to his nose and then again point to your a-hole, with such sign language as he is not an imbecile for having gotten into your country, he knows already that you want him to get his nose to near close to your a-hole body orifice; and as his nose is now in the immediate vicinity except for the clothing patch covering your a-hole, you let go with an explosion the bad smelling air from your a-hole, and say to him:

Fart, fart, fart.

Now he knows a new word fart, similarly also balls if you care to teach him what are balls, the ones hanging from guys with balls, but of course wastrels here might not know about balls because they might not have the cognitive initiative to know about how balls belong to the default status of things in the totality of being which is existence.

At his point, I want everyone here, starting with the wastrels here, to give me a concept that is not ultimately bound up directly or indirectly with an experience in life, assuming that all of us here have a life and are living.


I will be back tomorrow morning.



Happy thinking and writing!

A+

your mom

Dear everyone here, I like to talk more on concepts, their origin and their kinds, and how invalid concepts render wastrels in effect insane with their nonsensical talk.


But this morning I will just be very simple and easy to understand, by wastrels here.

Here is the answer as from an intelligent child whose mind works with flashes of irrefutable explanation, that makes wastrels look as they really are, ignorant, witless, and stupid humans, regrettably from our part that they are still of the human race.

1. Brilliant child: As you [the wastrel] and I exist, it is obviously clear that God exists, in concept first and foremost as the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

2. Wastrel: No, no, it's not obviously clear to me, because God must come from another God, and then this one from still another God, and on and on and on into infinite regress.

3. Brilliant child: Yes, yes, it's obviously clear to me and it should for you also; but first, it is obviously clear to me that you are an ignorant, witless, stupid wastrel; and second, that is why namely, because you are ignorant, witless, and stupid, you cannot even imagine that with any one of your postulated infinitely regressing Gods, that - choose any one God, that God has created the universe and man and everything with a beginning, and that God is the explanation why we are here, and we are therefore the evidence of any one of them Gods, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

4. Wastrel: Pray, tell me, which God would that be amongst the infinitely regressing Gods?

5. Brilliant child: Any one of them Gods, in particular that one God that has created me and you and all mankind, and the universe, and everything with a beginning: for as you postulate that God creates God and this one creates the previous one and the previous one creates still another previous one, and on and on: wherefore, as it is obvious that as you and I are here and talking to each other, there is the one God Who has created us, aside from creating a previous one, which previous one also creates another one... but excuse me, Oh ye wastrel, I don't want to waste more time with you - ignorant, witless, stupid, an utter embarrassment to your parents.

For the silent majority here:
Happy thinking and writing! Do write something, please.


Tomorrow morning we will analyze why infinite regress is an invalid concept and it is false, nonsensical, and self-defeating.

Is anyone here arguing for infinite regress?

This brilliant child sounds exactly like Susmario. Is this like a play within a play?

Not that brilliant, if he doesnt understand about logic and logical deduction.

You cant get from "I exist" to "therefore god exists"

Susmario: I'm just wondering where you stand on this idea of yours.

Are you claiming you have a theory that god exists, or that god for sure exists?

I'm wondering what you think of my last post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MakingMoves View Post
Susmario:

I like your concept of god. As first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe This can not be fought with an infinite regression theory based on your wording. It's one hell of a claim to draw that conclusion though based on the knowledge that there is a nose on/in your face.

Because there is existence does not mean there is god. It could. But it also could not. It seems like a reasonable theory, maybe the best one right now since causation isn't able to make sense of existence being here. Some day there might be a better theory. Some day we might know for sure.

Thanks everyone for your presence.


Now, I said yesterday that we are going to analyze the concept of infinite regress.

But first, I know for a certainty that infinite regress is a false, nonsensical, and self-defeating concept, favored by wastrels here because wastrels are ignorant, witless, and stupid.

In addition, wastrels are liars.

When wastrels are ignorant, witless, and stupid, then they are in good faith, that is why they cannot understand the parable of the brilliant child and the wastrel, on the matter of infinite regress being a false, nonsensical, and self-defeating concept.

When however wastrels are in bad faith with their malingering as ignorant, witless, and stupid humans, then they are liars.

So, wastrels here, what do you prefer, malingering yourselves as ignorant, witless, stupid but in good faith. from the part of kind folks who want to see you to be at least in good faith because you are ignorant, witless, and stupid; or you want to be liars because you are not ignorant, witless, and stupid, wherefore you know that brilliant child has licked you completely and perfectly with your unnatural love for infinite regress which blinds your working reason and makes you guys imbeciles?

From my part I see you wastrels to be both or all ignorant, witless, stupid, and horribly bad liars to yourselves, but you don’t fool brilliant folks like even a child with a brilliant grasp of truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.


Next, God exists is a certainty with me just as in term of existence, my nose exists.

So, that is clear, Oh ye wastrels, that God exists is a certainty for me, as certain as the nose exists in my face; so don’t continue to malinger in this thread playing the fool here, unless of course you are really a fool, in which case, go away!


See next post for my analysis of infinite regress.