How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic... - Page 14 - Religion, God, and Theology

Claiming that experience tells us nothing at all about anything is sort of a bold move, epistemologically speaking :P

And you did indeed mean phenomena. Noumena (at least in Kant's usage, which is I think what you're referring to) refers to the actual "what it is", i.e the part you think is inaccessible from experience.

Quote

09-11-2016 , 06:25 AM

#327

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

Dear everyone, thanks for your presence here.

I have been thinking that I am not being nice with calling our colleagues here: Neeeel and Aaron and Uke and their fellow kinds wastrels: for acting ignorant, witless, stupid, and now also liars if they are in bad faith with their malingering as ignorant, witless, and stupid.

You see, dear silent majority here, it is because they conduct themselves as ignorant, witless, and stupid with simple English words like: "The default status of things in the totality of being is existence."

I came to that conclusion because I have noticed that no amount of explanation could make them understand those simple English words, which college level multi-discipline readers of current print materials in the media in particular in the internet comprehend.

I realized that in effect I was wasting my time and labor with them and could not press ahead with the exposition of the theme of this thread which is: "How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas."

Resolution: No more wastage of time and labor with these wastrels for they are ignorant, witless, and stupid if in good faith, if in bad faith they are liars and bad liars at that.

So, it has been my idea that perhaps by naming them to be ignorant, witless, stupid, and even liars, I could succeed with shaming them, as to awaken their default status of schooling, so that they will employ their yes read and yes write mastery of common English terms, as with with college level multi-discipline readers of print media.

Or, it could be that you are the one that is wrong, and we are trying to point that out to you.

Quote

09-11-2016 , 06:43 AM

#328

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Dear Neeeel and Aaron and all Oh ye emulators of Neeeel and Aaron and their similar kinds:

Please, when you want to inquire from me or question me on the worth of my 15 paragraphs in exposition (see below): on how existence being the default status of things in the totality of being leads us to the certain knowledge of God existing, please as I already told you, choose just one paragraph per post, and cite faithfully the chosen paragraph with its number; then very important for us to get connected: rewrite in your own words how you understand the paragraph.

In this way I will know you get me correctly, or you are into your good faith ignorance, witless-ness, and stupidity, or you are in bad faith with your fraudulent malingering i.e. lying about your being ignorant, witless, and stupid - wherefore you could not understand my words in the your chosen paragraph.

And no need to comment uselessly on whatever you want to comment on, just keep to your chosen paragraph, reproduce it with the number, and then rewrite it in your own words, to tell me and readers what you understand of my thought in the your chosen paragraph.

If you prefer to proceed without adhering to my instruction, then I will use my free choice to not bother with you completely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario on 09-09-2016, 03:15 PM #320

Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.

Now I will continue or resume expounding on the default status of things in the totality of being which is existence.

How do we, Oh dear silent majority, know that there is existence?

Simple, from our experience of things in existence, like as I say again and again, the experience of the nose in our face, the balls with us guys hanging from our lower torso, the nipples on our upper torso, and the fart exiting from our a-hole: all are examples of the common and communal experience of mankind, and also of course things which are part and parcel of the environment we live in, which all, we and our body parts and processes and all the part and parcel of our environment, they all make up the universe studied by scientists.

There, experience is the proof of the existence of things and the justification of the truth, the fact, the logic, and the history of ideas, that existence is the default status of things in the totality of being.

What about humans who deny that experience is the ground for our certainty that we exist?

Don't talk with them, period.

Next, experience tells us that everything in the universe we experience has a beginning. and wherefore simple logic tells us that things with a beginning have a cause, which cause can be and usually is a link of causes ending of course ultimately in a final first cause.

That kind of thinking is what we call and know and practice with using our reason and intelligence, we call as the method of thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas to arrive at certainty of our knowledge of things existing independent of our mind.

So, from the experience of things existing with a beginning we infer to the existence of things with no beginning, meaning they simply, just, purely exist, period.

This means that from logic which is correct thinking, things in existence in the ultimate terms are of two classes, namely: things existing from others, and things existing from themselves.

And further on with logic, things existing from others because they have a beginning, they owe their beginning to things existing without a beginning, meaning these latter things simply, just, purely exist, period.

Do you notice, dear silent majority, that from experience we come to the certainty of existence, and from the experience of our having a beginning as also everything we experience have also a beginning, we infer to the existence of things without a beginning, meaning they simply, just, purely exist, period.

Further on with logic, we infer to the truth, and fact, and logic, and thus a crucial piece of the history of ideas with mankind, that things with a beginning owe their existence to things without beginning for these latters simply, just, purely exist.

The things with a beginning from logic we call things existing from others, and the things existing simply, just, purely, without beginning, we call them things existing from themselves.

What about God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?

He is the Number One among the things existing from themselves simply, just, purely, without beginning; and I call Him with the name in English, God.

Now, dear silent majority, do you see something questionable with my exposition?

I will now put numbers to each paragraph above, so that you can refer to them by their numbers, to tell me which one you find questionable.

Please, only one per post.

1. How do we, Oh dear silent majority, know that there is existence?

2. Simple, from our experience of things in existence, like as I say again and again, the experience of the nose in our face, the balls with us guys hanging from our lower torso, the nipples on our upper torso, and the fart exiting from our a-hole: all are examples of the common and communal experience of mankind, and also of course things which are part and parcel of the environment we live in, which all, we and our body parts and processes and all the part and parcel of our environment, they all make up the universe studied by scientists.

3. There, experience is the proof of the existence of things and the justification of the truth, the fact, the logic, and the history of ideas, that existence is the default status of things in the totality of being.

4. What about humans who deny that experience is the ground for our certainty that we exist?

5. Don't talk with them, period.

6. Next, experience tells us that everything in the universe we experience has a beginning. and wherefore simple logic tells us that things with a beginning have a cause, which cause can be and usually is a link of causes ending of course ultimately in a final first cause.

7. That kind of thinking is what we call and know and practice with using our reason and intelligence, we call as the method of thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas to arrive at certainty of our knowledge of things existing independent of our mind.

8. So, from the experience of things existing with a beginning we infer to the existence of things with no beginning, meaning they simply, just, purely exist, period.

9. This means that from logic which is correct thinking, things in existence in the ultimate terms are of two classes, namely: things existing from others, and things existing from themselves.

10. And further on with logic, things existing from others because they have a beginning, they owe their beginning to things existing without a beginning, meaning these latter things simply, just, purely exist, period.

11. Do you notice, dear silent majority, that from experience we come to the certainty of existence, and from the experience of our having a beginning as also everything we experience have also a beginning, we infer to the existence of things without a beginning, meaning they simply, just, purely exist, period.

12. Further on with logic, we infer to the truth, and fact, and logic, and thus a crucial piece of the history of ideas with mankind, that things with a beginning owe their existence to things without beginning for these latters simply, just, purely exist.

13. The things with a beginning from logic we call things existing from others, and the things existing simply, just, purely, without beginning, we call them things existing from themselves.

14. What about God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?

15. He is the Number One among the things existing from themselves simply, just, purely, without beginning; and I call Him with the name in English, God.

Now, dear silent majority, do you see something questionable with my exposition?

Please, choose only one per post.

Happy thinking and writing!

Quote

09-11-2016 , 07:53 AM

#329

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Dear silent majority, I need your opinion on this insight of mine, namely, that scientists today are breaking up things in the universe into the most minutest part and parcel in term of size, and in term of the roles they play in the existence and operation of the universe.

But have you noticed that they are lost completely when they try to put all the ultimate components together, as to say, build up just in their mind's speculation, the nose in our face?

And tell me, do you concur with me that the nose holds all the kinds of part and parcel that make up the whole gigantic universe?

So?

So the experience of the nose in our face is an experience of the whole universe in its core components: Yes? No?

Quote

09-11-2016 , 08:46 AM

#330

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

weve been over this before, at least twice, where, rather than address my point you just resort to insults, but I will try again

Quote:

3. There, experience is the proof of the existence of things and the justification of the truth, the fact, the logic, and the history of ideas, that existence is the default status of things in the totality of being.

and my paraphrase

"There, we can be sure that experience exists. Experience shows us that things that exist in the totality of being, exist in the totality of being"

As you know, I have problems with your use of the word "default". I dont think it can apply here, in that theres no way we can know what the default status of things are. You keep saying "having balls is the default status of man" ( which I also disagree with, there are men without balls, once you are dead you have no balls, most of the time in which the atoms that make up your body exist, these atoms to do not form balls) ,the word "default" is doing some work for you here, that I dont quite get, or dont agree with. When I have asked you for clarification, you just ignore my question, or go off on a bunch of insults.

Quote

09-11-2016 , 05:57 PM

#331

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Dear Neeeel, yes you have comprehension of English, thanks.

Now, you and I have an impasse which in our case is the default impossibility in practical imports between us in our respective understanding of the word default.

I will no longer debate with you on the meaning of default: let you just use your meaning of default, and that will be to your satisfaction that at least people understand your meaning of default whatever it is, when you use it, as contrary to or different from my understanding of default, as when I use it in the following English sentence:

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

Happy thinking and writing!

Quote

09-11-2016 , 06:57 PM

#332

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

I will no longer debate with you on the meaning of default

Was there ever a debate?

Quote

09-11-2016 , 07:49 PM

#333

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Okay, dear silent majority here, let us return to our present concern on my exposition of God existing, from the default status of things in the totality of being which is existence.

Scientists today tell us that the standard physical cosmology is that the universe began its existence at a distant point called the big bang, at which point from the default status of things in the totality of being which is existence, a singularity occurred which expanded into what we now called the universe.

That is the universe, a part of which is you and me and the nose in our face.

So, the nose is composed of all the components of the universe, and we can just scratch off a very tiny small bit patch of the skin in the nose, to examine its components by breaking up the piece of skin into its constituent cells, and from there to the molecular compounds making up the just one particular cell.

When we have broken up a living cell into its particular kinds of molecular compounds making up the living cell, it dies, that means it no longer has the peculiar existence of a living thing, its life is extinguished: there is no longer the existence of life in that cell, it has stopped existing as a cell.

Now there remain only molecular compounds, at which point chemists can take over to examine what are the elements making up the molecular compounds.

What is my point here?

My point here is that there is such a thing existing as a life reality which can be extinguished, i.e. destroyed as to no longer be into existence: so that it is no longer one of the default status of all living things in the totality of being, in this particular sector and level of existence called biological existence.

Now, the chemists can put back together all the elements into compounds making up erstwhile the living cell, one of them cells in our nose; and then pass these compounds back to the physicists, with the request to do with them as to restore them the compounds into the identical cell structure the way it was insofar as the physical structure of the cell is concerned,

The physicists set themselves to work and succeed in like putting together all the cut up pieces of a jigsaw puzzle; then they wait for the restored cell structure to come to life.

One day a chemist visits the physicists who restored the molecular compounds back into all the integrated physical structure of a cell from the bit of skin in our nose; this chemist is one of them who broke up the material structure of the cell into molecular compounds, and then into chemical elements, all making up erstwhile the living cell, insofar as material structure is concerned.

He asks the physicists: "Has it come to life?"

The physicists answer: "Not yet."

The chemist continues: "Not yet !!!???!? Why !!!???”

The physicists answer: "Because the randomness occurrence is not yet due."

The chemist persists: "Didn't you guys work with your mathematics to arrive at when randomness is due, that is the randomness occurrence?"

The physicists assure the chemist: "It is due in infinity time."

The chemist gets irked already and demands: "Speak English!"

So the physicists tell the chemist in English: "Never."

Happy thinking and writing!

Quote

09-11-2016 , 07:56 PM

#334

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

Okay, dear silent majority here, let us return to our present concern on my exposition of God existing, from the default status of things in the totality of being which is existence.

None of your exposition addresses the default-ness issue.

Quote

09-12-2016 , 02:22 AM

#335

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

You are missing the point entirely. It doesnt matter whether we use my definition, or your definition, it doesnt make sense.

Like, you could say "the default colour of the sky is blue". But how do we know? Yes, sometimes its blue, but sometimes its not. Is blue the default colour, or is black? Or is white clouds? Does default mean "most of the time"? or something else?

Quote

09-12-2016 , 11:30 AM

#336

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 16,015

Susmario, you're doing it again. It is nose ON your face. Are you incapable of learning anything ITT?

Quote

09-12-2016 , 02:26 PM

#337

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Dear Neeeel, we are talking about existence, not the color of the sky or anything else.

How do we know that the default status of things in the totality of reality or being (new addition, or being) is existence?

By experiencing that everything exists, and not experiencing ever something that does not exist.

That is why I am asking you, Neeeel, to give an example of something that does not exist at all.

If you give an example of something that you experience to not exist, then tell me what it is.

You can say that you experience no money, or no balls when you do have lost your balls, but that is not proving that non-existence is the default status of things in the totality of reality or being.

You are not into knowing but into stubborn irrational perverse attitude of muddling up the statement, that is self-obvious to anyone with experience of instances of existence, and never experiencing all things whatsoever to be non-existing.

But what exactly is the conclusion that you are driving at?

That God does not exist?

If that be the conclusion you are driving at, then first present your concept of God.

The idea that existence is the default status of things in the totality of reality and being is so common and so simple with mankind and thus so obvious, that is why it is almost impossible to with words/concepts to convince someone like you, Neeeel, motivated by an irrational perverse attitude of muddling up the issue, like comparing the color of the sky with the default status of things in the totality of reality or being which is existence.

When an idea is so common and simple with mankind, it is almost impossible to explain and prove the existence of the thing represented with the idea, except by recourse to experience.

Why are things so common and so simple with mankind almost impossible to prove their existence with words/concepts, to folks who are ignorant, witless, and stupid?

Because to explain something is to bring in more common and more simple words/concepts to show a learner what the thing is all about, by bringing in more common and more simple, in particular more familiar things with the learner, but these things have something in common with the thing to be explained; for example, you tell a child that a wolf is like a dog but bigger and usually unfriendly to people, it can and will bite you to death and eat you up.

And the most common and simple thing with everything in existence is existence itself.

That is why the sentence, "The default status of things in the totality of reality or being is existence," is the repetition of the concept of existence at least four times, namely: things, reality, being, existence.

Dear Neeeel, you have succeeded as per your perverse intention to make me waste time and labor with your malingering ignorance, witless-ness, stupidity, and liar’s heart and mind, but to what end, pray?

Dear silent majority here, I guess I have to resume my silence toward wastrels like Neeeel, Aaron, and Uke, and their emulators.

Quote

09-12-2016 , 02:35 PM

#338

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

but that is not proving that non-existence is the default status of things in the totality of reality or being

I am not trying to prove that non existence is the default status of things. I dont know where you get that idea from. Just because I am questioning you on what you mean by "default status" does not mean that I hold the opposing side of the argument, or that I believe the opposite of what you believe. I simply want to point out that "default status" doesnt make sense.

Of course, you totally miss what I am trying to say, and go back to your usual insults.

If you want to say that everything that exists, exists, I would agree with that. Not sure how useful that is though.

Things that exist, exist

Things that dont exist, dont exist.

great, now what?

Quote

09-12-2016 , 02:50 PM

#339

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.

Now, dear silent majority here, let you and me do this drill again to prove God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

1. We exist as transient beings, i.e. we have a beginning and an ending.

2. Everything with a beginning has a cause.

3. Therefore we have a cause, and we call our cause with the already traditional name, God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Here is a question from ignorant, witless, stupid fools if in good faith, or liars if in bad faith with malingering their being ignorant, witless, and stupid fools, namely, and who created God?

Answer: Go ahead, Oh ye ignorant, witless, stupid fools and most likely liars, go and answer your own question any way you care to.

We who think on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, we have already proven to certainty God exists, in concept as the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, by irrefutable evidence, namely, by our own existence as transient beings, with beginning and ending: we are the evidence for the existence of our cause, God, we call Him, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

For you, Oh ye ignorant, witless, stupid fools if in good faith, or even liars if in bad faith, you can go on with idle useless questioning like who created God and on and on and on...

And sooner than later come to death and thus end with your idle useless questioning.

On our part we have proven to our satisfaction, God exists and the evidence is our existence, period.

Happy thinking and writing!

Quote

09-12-2016 , 03:04 PM

#340

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

We who think on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, we have already proven to certainty God exists!

No you havent

Quote

09-12-2016 , 03:08 PM

#341

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

Now, dear silent majority here, let you and me do this drill again to prove God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

1. We exist as transient beings, i.e. we have a beginning and an ending.

2. Everything with a beginning has a cause.

3. Therefore we have a cause, and we call our cause with the already traditional name, God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

A different argument! Of course, this one isn't any better. Statement 1 doesn't seem to have any particular ramifications for the structure of the argument.

Quote:

We who think on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, we have already proven to certainty God exists, in concept as the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning...

A definition change! God is now "in concept as the CREATOR CAUSE and OPERATOR CAUSE" and no longer "in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe."

Of course, this rescues nothing in the argument itself.

Quote:

...by irrefutable evidence, namely, by our own existence...

I masturbate, therefore I am?

Quote:

...as transient beings, with beginning and ending: we are the evidence for the existence of our cause, God, we call Him, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Nobody has denied the fact that we are transient, and it doesn't even matter to your argument. You might as well have reminded everyone that 1+1=2 (but wait, mathematicians lie, so really 1+1=banana).

Quote:

For you, Oh ye ignorant, witless, stupid fools if in good faith, or even liars if in bad faith, you can go on with idle useless questioning like who created God and on and on and on...

And sooner than later come to death and thus end with your idle useless questioning.

Sooner or later, you will come to death and thus end with your idle useless observations.

Quote:

On our part we have proven to our satisfaction, God exists and the evidence is our existence, period.

I think it's interesting that you've switched to the plural. Maybe you suffer from multiple personality disorder, wherein all the personalities are basically the same? This would explain why you seem to just repeat yourself. Each time, it's as if a new personality steps in and tries to make the same argument for the first time.

Quote:

Happy thinking and writing!

Always!

Quote

09-12-2016 , 03:16 PM

#342

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Dear Neeeel, you say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neeeel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

but that is not proving that non-existence is the default status of things in the totality of reality or being

This is a very good work for us two to go into, namely, how you come to conclude that my phrase, default status, does not make sense for you.

To say that a phrase does not make sense to you, namely, my phrase, default status, you must have a thought in your mind on what is the sense you want to encounter which you are frustrated with in my use of the phrase, default status.

Pray, tell me what is that phrase which you want to read in place of my phrase, default status, which to you does not make sense to you.

If I may, also in two words only.

Happy thinking and writing!

Quote

09-12-2016 , 03:33 PM

#343

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

You see, dear silent majority here, with fools of the most ugly wickedness, they manipulate words/concepts to lie to themselves and to cheat and steal from mankind what mankind knows with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

One of their tricks is to play ignorant, witless, stupid, as fools in good faith, or as liars in bad faith.

When humans are not into ignorance, witless-ness, and stupidity, and conducting themselves as in one word, fools, because they are in good faith or their intelligence is not anything to qualify them for formal education, i.e., schooling, or they are liars pure and simple, then you will witness this perverse in itself behavior, which is against what Romans of old tell mankind, Sapienti pauca, in English expanded means to the intelligent few words suffice.

So, don't be dismayed with the astronomical low IQ of wastrels here in good faith, or with a liar's heart and mind if in bad faith, that is to be expected: just walk away.

That is what I should be doing, but for the amusement I will humor these fools.

Happy thinking and writing, though you wastrels here are fools in good faith or liars in bad faith.

Quote

09-12-2016 , 03:54 PM

#344

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Dear silent majority here, have you ever read something to the effect that there are truths which cannot be proven, but they are truths just the same.

When you think about the dictum, you must understand that as the speaker is intelligent, what he means is that the truth is so obvious but you cannot prove it with words/concepts, you have to go out of words/concepts, into outside of words/concepts, into the transcendental realm of reality, being, existence, actuality, like this dictum, "The default status of things in the totality of reality or being is existence."

As there is existence and there is no such even just in concept, non-existence, then everything becomes clear, and you are immediately enlightened.

I use the word actuality, it is from the word act also a noun, and a verb.

Now, dear silent majority, I want to propose to you to think on this dictum from yours truly, which the ancient thinkers way back millennia ago have come to certainty with:

"To exist is to act." To act here does not mean what the wastrels here are doing, acting in a manner as to look ignorant, witless, stupid fools or even liars.

Quote

09-12-2016 , 03:59 PM

#345

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

This is a very good work for us two to go into, namely, how you come to conclude that my phrase, default status, does not make sense for you.

...

If I may, also in two words only.

It's ill-defined. (2 words)

Quote

09-12-2016 , 04:03 PM

#346

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

Some truths are both obvious AND can be proven with words. The truth of the terribleness of this argument is one such truth.

Quote:

"To exist is to act." To act here does not mean what the wastrels here are doing, acting in a manner as to look ignorant, witless, stupid fools or even liars.

I can see how a rock can be acted upon, but does a rock itself act? I think not. So rocks must not exist?

Quote

09-12-2016 , 04:08 PM

#347

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

I am still here, Oh ye silent majority.

Have you noticed that the wastrels here have never ever made any exposition in an integrated say essay of only just 500 words, to advance whatever these wastrels are into in this forum?

And you know why?

Because and this is an ad hominem, i.e. addressed to them as anthropos not as self-robotized mechanical words regurgitors, because they have got nothing inside their skull except perhaps 1's and 0's

Happy thinking and do write something, dear silent majority here.

Quote

09-12-2016 , 04:11 PM

#348

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

Now Neeeel, look up the dictionaries for these two words, default and status.

Quote

09-12-2016 , 04:13 PM

#349

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

I am still here, Oh ye silent majority.

Don't worry. Nobody thought you left.

Quote:

Have you noticed that the wastrels here have never ever made any exposition in an integrated say essay of only just 500 words, to advance whatever these wastrels are into in this forum?

That's because you often request word limits, and request very limited responses to your long posts.

Quote:

And you know why?

Because and this is an ad hominem, i.e. addressed to them as anthropos not as self-robotized mechanical words regurgitors, because they have got nothing inside their skull except perhaps 1's and 0's

Ummmm.. this isn't even what "ad hominem" means. Ironically, the word regurgitator is you, as you've probably used the word wastrel about 250 times in this thread alone. Someone who has some desire can probably run a program to count it up and share with us all the total word count.

Quote:

Happy thinking and do write something, dear silent majority here.

You can make requests into the void, but they often come back empty.

Quote

09-12-2016 , 04:31 PM

#350

Susmario

banned

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 432

So, the phrase you want to see which you don't that corresponds to "default status", is "It's ill-defined"?

You are a liar!

This is what I want you to tell me:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susmario

Pray, tell me what is that phrase which you want to read in place of my phrase, default status, which to you does not make sense to you.

If I may, also in two words only.

Please explain, how the phrase from me does not make sense to you, namely, default status, because you have wanted to read the phrase from yourself that should be taking the place of my phrase, default status, which you acknowledge to know - correctly:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neeeel

If you want to say that everything that exists, exists, I would agree with that. Not sure how useful that is though.

Things that exist, exist

Things that dont exist, dont exist.

[Later]

I am not trying to prove that non existence is the default status of things. I dont know where you get that idea from. Just because I am questioning you on what you mean by "default status" does not mean that I hold the opposing side of the argument, or that I believe the opposite of what you believe. I simply want to point out that "default status" doesnt make sense.

That is the trouble with wastrels, they are always missing the focus of attention on the issue at hand.

But in truth and in fact, they are into playing the fools if in good faith, but almost certainly they are bad liars.

Happy thinking and writing, dear silent majority here, do some writing.

That's all folks for this morning.

Quote

Page 14 of 25

First

4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 14 of 25

First

4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24

Last