Ye, you should read the posts more closely. It was Aaron who said "ill defined", not me ( although I suppose thats what I am getting at)


I have explained, at least 4 times now, why I think it doesnt make sense. Are you even reading my responses?

I have used your example, that the default status of the male is to have balls, to show why it doesnt make sense. Read back in this thread, and you will see it.

Before I leave for today, I have to contribute something useful, so that the powers that be here will not close down this thread, for it seems to them to be into useless bickering from the wastrels here.

Default now has the meaning also of being the original setup of a machine, a piece of software, etc., and this meaning is also taken up by writers on issues in all fields of human endeavors.

And status means most broadly, situation of things in a scene of existence where there are all kinds of interactions, among the part and parcel of the universe, inanimate and animate, non-humans and humans, etc.

So any educated human even just a grade school graduate should know from his mastery of grade school vocabulary what the phrase default status means in the sentence, "The default status of things in the totality of reality or being is existence."

In particular kids nowadays know what is the meaning of default, as they are using all kinds of gadgets like cellphones, and laptops, computerized toys, etc.

It is only fools like Neeeel who claim to not know the meaning of default status.



Happy thinking and writing!

Thus acknowledging that other things that have been posted are useless. (Why would you need to come back if things you had already contributed something useful?)

Nope. There's no reason to conclude that because something exists that its DEFAULT status is existence. We can say that its CURRENT status is existence.

And they would all recognize that the default status is usually not the observed status, as many of them have changed the status of their various apps and devices.

It's only fools like Susmario that makes the error of thinking that the observed status is the default status, especially after several hundred posts of people explaining it to him.

Dear Neeeel, I see you to be most persistent with your words here in my thread, but to what purpose, i.e. conclusion are you driving at?

You see, Neeeel, as you have no conclusion in your mental sight at all I see you to be like a headless chicken tautologically with your head cut off, paradoxically still exuding words but to no purpose at all.

So, this morning I will try to first assume that you still have a head on top of your upper torso, then request you most sincerely and persistently to consider and adopt a conclusion for you to arrive at with your words.


Dear readers here, at the instant juncture of this thread, my purpose now is to get Neeeel to get connected with me, otherwise I will never succeed to resist the temptation to see in him an ignorant, witless, stupid fool here if in good faith, or a liar here if in bad faith with malingering as an ignorant, witless, stupid fool.


Okay, dear Neeeel, first things first, examine your heart and mind, what exactly is the conclusion you are driving at, as you already proclaimed that you do not in fact have any, then try to examine your heart and mind and adopt one: otherwise I am at a loss how to connect with you as to achieve a concurrence with you on any issue at all that we might be into, which is a contribution to the realization of the conclusion I am driving at in this my thread, namely,

"How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

So, dear silent majority here, let us all sit back with bated breath and await to read Neeeel coming up with a conclusion that he is now clear in his heart and mind to be pursuing with his words here, and no longer behave like a headless chicken tautologically with its head chopped off but still exuding words no end, while running about in all random directions that the farmer cannot catch him - I mean it.

Dear silent majority, I will now reproduce the hits from google on my search phrase, namely: * "default status" *, see below.

You see, dear silent majority here, any literate even ignorant, witless, and stupid fools here can from the hits by google, immediately know the meaning of the phrase from me, "default status," as in my sentence:

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

So, it's a financial aid thing and the word "default" means something completely different than how you're trying to use it (ie, to default on a loan).

But when I search "The default status of things in the totality of reality or being is existence" I get the following:

So while the internet knows what "default status is" it has no idea what you're saying.

Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.

I will be back in an hour's time, I have to do some chores of the day.

In the meantime, please, silent majority here, think on this statement from me, and find out how to refute it.

I exist as a transient being, therefore I am the evidence for the existence of God - in concept as first and foremost the creator (cause) and operator (cause) of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Happy thinking and writing, please do write something.

Finally! A reasonable statement! It only took several hundred posts.

Of course, everyone has known the entire time that "evidence" for something and claiming that something is "obvious" are two entirely different intellectual standards. One can have evidence for something that's false, for example.

Well, Neeeel has not reported here yet.


So, I will be back again in an hour's time.

Im not sure I have a conclusion in mind. What I am trying to do , is point out that your argument is flawed, that you are using "default status" without it meaning what you think it means, that saying "existence is the default status of things that exist" is not proof of god.

Is that enough for you?

Okay, tell me, Neeeel, tell me what you think I think, with my use of the phrase default status, in the my sentence:

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

And dear silent majority here, tell me what you think I think it to mean with the phrase default status in my sentence, the default status of things in the totality of reality or being is existence.

And also anyone visiting this thread.

How does a human get to know what the human talking to him is talking about, or the latter in regard to the former?

This is how what every human with any working reason and intelligence gained from experience early in life, in most particular when the other human is a stranger, or both are stranger to the other.

First, everyone in a conversation must get to the same topic and stay connected.

Here is one case of no connection on the topic.

When both parties speak English, but they are both stranger one to the other, and as only one party is not fully aware of the communication environment for he has low IQ even though he is talkative, we could have here an event of what I call communication gap, from the part of the low IQ being interviewed for a job, his very first one, upon finishing his minimal schooling qualifying him for office boy employment.


Here is one scenario:

1. Interviewer, filling a form for the interviewee: "Sex?"

2. Interviewer: "Three times a week."

3. Interviewer: "I mean what genitals do you have, male or female?"

4. Interviewee: "I consider myself female in term of transgenderism i.e. insofar as gender is concerned."

5. Interviewer: "So, you have a penis and you have accompanying your penis, a testicle on each side...?"

6. Interviewee: "I am scheduled to have an operation by which the surgeon will excise my male genitals, and open a tunnel hole in their place for a dead-end vagina."

7. Interviewer: "You may go now, thank you for applying; we will let you know our decision by postal mail."

So, dear silent majority here, what do you think of Neeeel, he says he thinks what I think and that to him it is what? wrong, with my use of the term default status in the sentence, the default status of things in the totality of reality or being is existence," and that in a forum thread with the title: "How to come to God existing with thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas?



Happy thinking and writing!

By the way, the interviewee got a letter of rejection from the company looking for workers, with reason for rejection as communication gap.

And there is this inscription at the bottom of the letter, "This is a form letter, please do not reply in all events."

I know what the words "default" and "status" mean

It seems like you are trying to use them to say that there are different statuses ( I am assuming you mean existence, and non existence) and that existence is the status that things fall in to, normally. That if we check at any given time, the status of something will be existence.

If we look at any given time, at something that exists, it exists. Great. If we look at any given time, at something that is red, its red. Great. Where does that get you? Its a tautology.

I dont see how you can tell, just by observation, what the default status is. Turkeys, on 364 days of the year, by observing , will be able to assume that living is the default status. On the 365th day, when they wake up, they can still assume that living is the default status for them. They would be wrong.

You seem to think that saying something is the default status gets you somewhere, or helps prove the point you are trying to make. It doesnt.

Dear Neeeel, you tell me:

No, never do I imply at all that there are several statuses of existence at all; there is only one status of existence, and it covers all existence whatsoever whether things exist purely in or mind or outside and independent of our mind.

When we exist, have existed, and will exist and one day cease to exist: existence is the default status of things in the totality of reality or being.

Existence is the container and the content medium in which existence itself exists, whatsoever existing, has existed, and will exist before we came into existence and also after we shall have ended our existence, and also the existence that exists (take notice of the exists, in the present tense) outside and independent of our mind in objective reality, in the particular phase of existence prior (prior as a placeholder) to the beginning of the universe.

Tell me why you even suspect that I am telling mankind that there are several statuses of existence, THERE IS ONLY ONE DEFAULT STATUS OF THINGS IN THE TOTALITY OF REALITY OR BEING WHICH IS EXISTENCE.


Some atheist cosmologist says that the universe is all there is, period.

I have this certainty, namely: "The default status of things in the totality of reality or being is existence, period."

Do you accept that or you don't, namely:

"THE DEFAULT STATUS OF THINGS IN THE TOTALITY OF REALITY OR BEING IS EXISTENCE, PERIOD."

So, for me it is a certainty that there is existence prior to the beginning in time and in space of the universe, and there is existence when if ever the universe ceases to exist.

And that is why existence cannot ever (ever as a placeholder) come to the status of non-existence, and there is no such status of non-existence, ever, i.e. never (ever and never as placeholders).

Are you of the certainty that there was a default status of non-existence and then by a randomness occurrence existence came into reality or actuality or being, i.e., into existence?

Okay, no more nonsense, just tell me, are you of the certainty that there was a status of non-existence of everything whatsoever in whatsoever whatsoever whatsoever alternate or parallel universes, etc.

You can make up all kinds of if I may use the word scenario or model or whatsoever word you want to employ, and tell mankind that there was a default status of non-existence and then existence came into being.

I tell you you are absolutely irrational or in common language, crazy.

I tell you even God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, He cannot destroy existence altogether even if He wants to, because He cannot destroy i.e. exterminate i.e. extinguish i.e. annihilate Himself or existence altogether.

That is one instance He is limited, hahahahaha.

I really find you abominable owing to your crazy way of thinking.

Okay, tell me, are you of the idea that there was non-existence as the default status of things in the totality of reality or being, answer: Yes? No?

Think hard and honestly with your working reason and intelligence, answer only either yes or no, and nothing in between or that you don't know or that you have to wait for the universe to come to whatsoever status it is going to ever come to....

So, when you write again, just first answer the question immediately preceding this line I am now writing.



Happy thinking and writing!

because thats what default means. There are multiple statuses, but one of them is labelled as default.



No , I dont accept it, for reasons discussed previously


I have said nothing about non-existence. You are just strawmanning your wierd ideas about me, or atheists.


I have no idea. I cannot comprehend non existence. But no, I do not have the idea that non existence was the default status of things. That doesnt make sense, for the same reasons that existence being the default status of things doesnt make sense.

Dear Neeeel, so you do know in effect long ago clearly though indirectly what I mean in my sentence,

"The default status of things in the totality of reality or being is existence";

for you proclaim that:

"...no, I [you] do not have the idea that non existence was the default status of things";

that's tantamount to saying what I want you to know and you now know clearly but already long ago and now with categorically disavowing the opposite idea.

Very good! Hehehehehe...

And I know that notwithstanding your expostulations whatsoever that you don't have any conclusion you are driving at, you do have one, namely, to tell mankind that God does not exist, for you firmly say to me:

[From Neeee] ... saying existence is the default status of things that exist" is not proof of god.

See, no matter how you want to display yourself if in good faith as ignorant, witless, stupid, or in bad faith a liar, with malingering yourself to be ignorant, witless, stupid, you still give yourself away, because truths and facts cannot stay down in the murky water of your mind, they always float up, and mankind sees them very clearly, no matter all your headless chicken expostulations to the contrary.


Hehehehehehe... that's the practical and efficacious way to deal with wastrels.



Everyone, please go to next post from yours truly.

Thanks everyone for your presence.


Now, let us all dear colleagues here, in particular our good wastrels here, work to come up with one objection per post to my exposition on how and why God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, and you and I and every thinking human being a transient being, with beginning and ending.

Please refer to the text below in bold.

Everyone, please produce your one objection per post, so that I can concentrate on it without getting all distracted with inane headless chicken words in all kinds of random directions.

When we have completed one objection, then I will take up another one.


Dear everyone, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness what the wastrels here will come up with, more vacuous nitwitpicking, I dare presume.


Anyway, happy thinking though and writing!

Right, but thats not the same as agreeing that "existence is the default status of the totality of things"

I have said, at least two or three times, that I agree that things that exist , exist. I still dont know what you mean by "the default status of things"



Nope, saying that what you have said being not proof of god, is not the same as saying that god doesnt exist
Refuting, or disbelieving in ,your proof of god, is not the same as trying to prove that god doesnt exist, and is not the same as claiming that god doesnt exist. Its simply saying that your proof is not valid.

Sounds interesting

Dear everyone, thanks for your presence.


Now, allow me to share with you this thought in my mind, on the word default.

Earlier the word means to be failing in something that a human has to do or be, for example, to default in paying your income tax.

Then with the coming and permanent stay of computers, default has come to be understood as like a software that has a pre-configuration from its authors: so that when the user of the software wants to return to the pre-configuration, thus removing all the changes he made to the software, all he has to do is click on the link button, inscribed with the word default or reset.


There, dear silent majority, is how now default has also the meaning which is in a way opposite to its earlier meaning of some failing or deficiency with a human in his duties, etc.



Happy thinking and writing.

Here is another example of an English word which has also in the course of time come to mean the opposite of its earlier understanding, often by a people using English aside from their native language.


Dear silent majority here, this is an ad hominem to the wastrels here, an ad hominem is addessed to living human beings as anthropoi i.e. endowed with living reason and intelligence, not as their playing walking dead zombies.


Please, Oh ye wastrels, do some reading of rhetorical devices so that you will not be moving about here like the walking dead zombies, talking no end without real life understanding of words, but dropping terms like tautology and that it is always a true formula, and all irrelevant inanities, not un-expected though with walking dead zombies.



Happy thinking and writing!

Dear everyone here, thanks again for your presence.


Now, I am requesting the wastrels here to present one objection for each post, against this argument from me for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and we humans as transient beings.
So far to date, no objections from the wastrels here.

Let us then continue to sit back and await with bated breath for the wastrels here to gather enough epistemological guts or balls, as to come up with objections.

so you are claiming that existence is pre configured by an author? and thats what you mean by default?

Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.


I have to leave now, but let me just invite you to do thinking grounding your working reason and intelligence on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, namely, on the following thought from yours truly.

Beware of pompous a-holes who manipulate words/thoughts all inside their murky mind, but never work as to know reality by observing that real life and existence is always concrete, not abstract words/concepts in the minds of pompous a-holes bent on lying to mankind and cheating them and stealing from them of truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

When they with words/concepts, these pompous a-holes, show you that even that they don't exist, check to see what is the concrete reality in time and in space as we exist in a universe that is permeated in time and in space, the default status of these a-holes, and know that they also exist in concrete circumstances of time and space and are subject to the 5 w's and one h of journalists i.e. news reporters' writing:

who, what, when, where, why, how.

God is proven to exist, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything having a beginning, with evidence from objective reality described by the five w's and one h.

Happy thinking and writing!