Pithy as it is, it doesn't even make sense as an English sentence. What's the verb?

Right, it's not like I've ever mentioned something like shifting the burden of proof. Your inability to present a cogent argument does not require me to produce a counter-argument.

I can point to a banana peel as a evidence that there's a monkey loose in the house. There may actually be a monkey loose in the house. But there may also be an alternative explanation for the existence of the banana peel. What you have not done is make a convincing argument from the banana peel (existence) to the monkey (God).

If only you would take your own invitation seriously. You have yet to demonstrate that you've really thought about this, and you certainly have not actually contributed to anyone's knowledge. You've merely said a bunch of words that you've repeated over and over again without a hint of showing that you have a comprehension of what the words mean. I'll point you back to the word tautology, where you literally used the word incorrectly ("there exist false tautologies") and then tried to defend your wrong usage of the word.

ok, but we dont have a beginning and ending, unless you are positing some supernatural entity that goes off somewhere when we die. The atoms in our body continue existing, they just go from one state to another, or from one form to another. So it all depends what you mean by "being" and "transient".
Which is why I asked for clarification. Which you didnt give, as usual.

Am "I" the atoms that make up my body or something like a pattern in the organization of the atoms in my body? If its the latter, then I really do have an ending when the atoms are re-arranged such that the pattern no longer exists.

As an aside: The SEP entry on physicalism makes this point well:

In other words, if "I" am a global property of the atoms that make up my body, rather than the atoms themselves, then the argument that I continue to exist because my atoms continue to exist is misconstruing the nature of self. Hence the distinction between supervenience and reductionism.

This is why I was questioning what he meant by "transient being". does a pattern count as a being? or consciousness? Or did he mean a soul? or something else?

Well, what you said was this:

That's not a question, it's an assertion, and it depends on a highly dubious definition of "human being". The general form of your argument would prove that no composite entities (read: anything that involves ordered collections of physical stuff) exist at all, which is not particularly useful.

It seems clear based on his other arguments (the "touch your nose" stuff) that susmario is referring to human beings as physical entities, and not immaterial souls. There is probably no reasonable definition of human existence which doesn't entail transience, so the objection seems quite weak, especially compared to your much better objection:

I understand what you are saying, and I could probably have worded it better. If he wants to claim he is a transient pattern of matter, I wouldnt quibble with that.

Thanks everyone for your presence.


Now, dear silent majority here, I have long ago seen that Aaron and Neeeel are what we might call careerists of muddling of the issue, God exists or not.


You see, dear silent majority here, there are things we know about to exist and no amount of denying it with Aaron and Neeeel by manipulating words/concepts, will succeed to bring about the default status of things in the totality of reality or being to be non-existence.



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

When you Aaron and Neeeel postulate the opposite, then you must already from that point of denial self-annihilate your selves and everything in the totality of reality or being, that is to be consistent and coherent with your postulation: so, stop talking and exterminate yourselves with blowing up your selves into smithereens, but when you get to that status you can still tell yourselves, you still exist in the debris you have changed into.

2. We humans are transient beings because we have a beginning and an ending.

When you Aaron and Neeeel deny this, then you were never born and you don't need to die either, you are nothingness insofar as living humans are concerned.

3. Transient beings need a cause to bring them into existence, that cause is what I call God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

To Aaron and Neeeel, I have no need to play to your anti-knowledge agenda in this thread.


Dear readers here, to judge for yourselves that Aaron and Neeeel are into their anti-knowledge career here of muddling up the issue, God exists (or not), because they have this objective of satisfying their taboo or phobia against God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, you just have to compare what they write with the three criteria of genuine knowledge above.


Dear Aaron and Neeeel, you are the only two who are still in this thread, but into your silly though wicked goal of obfuscation, contrary to the genuine, sincere, honest and productive fruitful search for true, factual, logical knowledge as can be derived and is derived from man's history of ideas - I tell you what:

Start the annihilation if at all possible of existence, with taking the initiative of each of you doing away i.e. killing the other by any fool-proof ways and means from your mastery of your wicked information on ways and means to kill oneself (I will not go into concrete instructions because that could bring about I fear my banning from this forum): then as you go into non-existence of animate human life, you have the perverse morbid thrill of knowing that you are contributing to the extinction of existence with your self-annihilation, however nth times insignificant little diminution of the segment of the animate realm of existence, how much less of the default status of things in the totality of reality or being, which is existence.



Happy thinking and writing, and don't forget to leave a last word to the effect that you are into contributing however little and hopeless, to bring about non-existence as the default status of things in the totality of reality or being.

I just hope that as you pass into non-existence from the animate domain of existence, you see how crazy is your morbid thrill, with contributing your little minimalissimal part to the installation of non-existence as the default status of things in the totality of reality or being.

Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.


Now, let us all continue to humor Aaron and Neeeel, they are what others but not me, call trolls.

Contrary to the adage, "Don't feed the troll." it is my hobby to exercise my working reason and intelligence to feed the trolls here, and thus sharpen my skill with thinking on truths, facts, logic and the history of ideas.


You see, dear silent majority here, to be honest, the objection against God existing on the ground that there is no evidence, that is what I might consider to be a most convincing argument, at least it seems to have convinced Aaron and I assume also his side-kick, Neeeel, and of course all their emulators.

So, I have presented my brief exposition on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target, see below; now I invite Aaron and Neeeel to invest time and labor to work on and present their idea of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target, in re the existence of God.

Do not tell me that you have already said this or that, just start from a blank slate, because I know that you Aaron and I assume also Neeeel were thinking not from your working reason and intelligence, but you know from where, where else but from your taboo and phobia of true knowledge.

Now, from thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, work on and present your exposition on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.



Happy thinking and writing!

To you, we are merely wastrels. But I sense a promotion is coming soon.

You still don't even understand the basics. Why not reread the entire thread and try again?

By your request, we'll do it again.

The combinations of words I've already cited as not being a sentence continues to not be a sentence.

And now you have this "argument" again:

1. This isn't a sentence.
2. On what basis do you have the capacity to narrow a singular target?
3. This is just a failure of logic.

A banana peel is evidence that there's a monkey loose in the house. So the evidence hits the monkey, owing its connection to the banana peel. Hence, there's evidence of a monkey loose in my house.

Strawman. Not agreeing that existence is the default status of things, is not the same as believing in non existence, or needing to self annihilate. It can be as simple as not agreeing with the rubbish you spout.

Again, I agree that things that exist, exist.



wow, I almost agree with something you said! (also, not sure Aaron has denied that he is a transient being)





You say existence is the default status of things, so how about you try self-annihilation? Since existence is the default status of things, you shouldnt be able to. But give it a go, and see what you find out.

Dear Aaron and Neeeel, please do give your idea of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target, as we, you and I, want to go into evidence as to arrive at concurrence.

At this stage of your thinking if at all you think on the three items above, we, you and I, we will not bring in God, but just anything at all that we you and I want to prove that it exists in objective reality independent of our mind, by way of evidence.



Dear silent majority here, do you notice that they have not given their concept of what is evidence, much less what is the target of evidence, and definitely no bringing up how evidence hits its target.


Happy thinking and writing.

Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.


Now, I will address the silent majority here.

For the present I will not interact with Aaron and Neeeel, except on their idea of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target, in that order.

So, if they don't present their thinking on evidence in this order, namely: what is their idea of evidence, then what is the target of evidence, and lastly, how evidence hits its target, I will not bother with them whatever they do otherwise to muddle up the thread.


Dear silent majority here, I like to propose to you this dictum, namely:

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

You see, I am going to web forums of atheists and read how they react to the dictum above.

And report to you here, tomorrow.


Happy thinking and writing, but no bother from me with Aaron and Neeeel, unless and until they present in the following order: a) their idea of what is evidence, b) what is the target of evidence, and c) how evidence hits its target.

empirical evidence, eg something that impinges on the senses, or on sensing devices.



I have no idea what this means. Target of evidence? Evidence is used to provide proof of the truth of an assertion, is that what you mean?


again, its not clear what you mean by this. I am guessing that you mean, how does evidence provide proof of the truth of an assertion? If so, it provides proof by experiential means. Proof of it raining would be to go outside , see the rain, feel the water.
You could also deduce that if someone comes in from outside, and they are wet, that it is raining. But you could be incorrect, as there may be other explanations.

You should try that one on a form of theists and see what happens. After all, I'm a theist, and I still think your argument is terrible.

Dear Aaron and Neeeel, I see that you two have impossibility owing to your vocabulary deficiency to understand my English.

That is what I have been noticing all the time.


So, on the one hand, I thank you for being present in this thread, on the other hand I wished you would tell me what is your purpose in this thread aside from contributing useless posts here: because I am at a loss how to help you to remedy your vocabulary deficiency.



Happy thinking and writing, though; and thanks for always bumping the thread to the top of the threads list - that is already a good contribution in a way, because then readers take notice of my thread, and that is truly satisfying to me.

It may be that I have a vocabulary deficiency, in which case you could help by answering my questions and trying to explain what you mean by certain phrases that I question. Put it in different words, for example

Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence.


Here is how the guys in Reddit.com understand my sentence:

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

I am not familiar with the layout of their website, but just the same I am reproducing what they understand of my sentence above, by removing peripheral website materials, which are not needed to get to their understanding of the said sentence from me.

My name in Reddit.com is Susma.


My reply to their comments seems to have rendered them speechless, hehehehehe!

There is an atheist cosmologist who wrote a book called: "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing."

I see that he's got a very bad beating from serious scholarly reviewers, one of them is a well known philosopher-physicist.

It's amazing how you take pride in being incomprehensible, as if that's something that demonstrates a positive regarding your intellect.

It's not really an issue with vocabulary deficiency as much as it is vocabulary differences. I use standard English. This means that words like "tautology" and "default" have particular meanings that are accepted by the vast range of English speakers.

You use the words to mean things other than that accepted meaning. For example, you have insisted that a "false tautology" is a thing, whereas the accepted definition of "tautology" is includes the explicit clause that it's always true. Similarly, you are using "default" in a way that functions more like "observed" (though it's true you're trying to construct an argument around the word "default" to mean original status, while not actually using it in that way.)

One reason that you are at a loss is because the deficiency is actually on your end, but you haven't yet figured that out.

I'm glad you feel satisfied by your prominence in this thread as the one person that everyone agrees makes no sense. Whatever makes you happy, I guess. (Also, now Reddit posters also agree you make no sense.)

Dear silent majority here, next time someone wants to strike up a conversation with asking rhetorically, why is there something instead of nothing?

You just tell him, "Because the default status of things in the totality of reality or being is existence."

That should leave him speechless.


If memory serves, I think the author of nothing makes notorious these words, roughly: "Nothing is inherently unstable that is why there is something instead of nothing.”

You could also say "The taste of flubber smells green" and he will be equally speechless.

My how noncognitivist of you

LOL - You're still smarting over that one because you still can't tell the difference?

Thanks everyone for your presence.


Dear silent majority here, this morning I am going to try to get posters here to adopt a systematic approach to work together to resolve the question, Does God exist?

As I am the proponent of this thread, systematically I have to present my concept of God, and here it is:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Dear posters here, to be systematic, please present your concept of God.


It is now in my place 2:40 a.m., of September 24, 2016, Saturday, I am eight hours in advance of Greenwich time. I will be back in one hour's time.



Happy thinking and writing!