As aaron pointed out, you cant say whether its the default status or not.



I dont know what this means , can you give examples of

1) things that come from themselves
and
2) things that come from other things?



no

It's not just this thread that is pointing out people's errors in understanding the definition of a tautology:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=17077

It's settled there, but here there still seems to be some challenge to this definition by Susmario. If he chooses not to address it, it's fine. He'll simply continue to be wrong when claiming that there are "false tautologies."

Anybody who is honest and not trying to distract this conversation must surely agree with your excellent exposition in this thread. I was initially saddened that you had ignored my post and that it has been so long of me trying to get you to help me on a key step of your argument. But I see now that we have arrived a that spot naturally!

So yes, I emphatically agree with your points 1 and 2. Surely anyone not able to concur with you that the totally of being are either existing from themselves or existing from other things. If they refuse to accept this, they are merely distracting from the laudable goal of coming to go through logic. They deny their own nose!

So I ask that you proceed. How do we deduce a god from these two assumptions? That is the part that eludes your humble reader.

Thanks everyone for your presence here.


Now, please forgive me, but I will not accommodate at all any posters at all, who to my observation are playing ignorant, witless, and stupid, in order to distract readers here, i.e. by muddling up the thread here: so that readers here who care to know truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, and also add to their knowledge of things existing in the totality of being are adversely prejudiced.

No, I will not accommodate posters who to my observation are into acting ignorant, witless, and stupid.

So, let intelligent and knowledgeable folks here not have to give comments to sentence by sentence to my posts here, just attend to the beef of my each post, relevant to the thread which is into:

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


Let us proceed from the truth and the fact that by experience we know what is existence, and its being an objective entity independent of our mind, namely: that it scil. existence is the default status of things in the totality of being.

If you anyone do not accept that, then I will not read your post - as soon as I observe that you are NOT proceeding from that point, that the default status of the totality of being is existence, starting for example with the nose in our face, I will stop reading your post, because you are going to waste my time and effort to understand your point if any at all relevant to the thread.


I am asking you now everyone to exchange thoughts with me and among all ourselves posting in this thread, on how we come to the certainty that all instances of existence can be divided into:

1. Things from themselves, and
2. Things from other things.

If you intelligently hold that there is another ultimate category of things in existence, please declare it in your posts in reply to my post the present one I am now writing here.

And explain it, at least with an example from everyday concrete life and work and leisure and trials, etc., an example of something that is neither existing from itself nor from other(s).

Here is my explanation why I know for a certainty that things in the totality of being are of ultimately two kinds, namely: existing from themselves or existing from other(s): my explanation is because I know a thing is either existing from itself or existing from other(s), there cannot at all be possible to think at all on anything that is neither existing from itself nor existing from other(s).


Happy thinking and writing!

Dear Uke, have you done the request I asked you to undertake, namely, look up all the synonyms in dictionaries of the word entity?

Anyway, I really appreciate your desire to add to your learning or knowledge that is founded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.


Now, you ask me:

”How do we deduce a god from these two assumptions? That is the part that eludes your humble reader.”
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=103

I understand that you are referring to this text from me:

"I am driving at the truth and the fact that all things are into ultimately two categories, namely:

1. Things from themselves, and
2. Things from other things."


On #2, you have to make an exhaustive enumeration of your experiences of things that come forth from other things, like for example you came forth from your papa and mama.

When you get absolutely tired but already certain that there cannot be things per your experience of things, that do not come from other things, then you ask your friends and neighbors whether they will help you: to add to your enumeration, and see what is their reaction to your request, that they add to your enumeration of things that exist from other things.

At the same time, you read up on causation or causality.



Happy thinking and writing!

Don't worry. I'm pretty sure nobody is going to make any accommodations for you, either.

In what sense is this a "truth" or a "fact" when you have been presented examples in which this statement is negated?

You are most welcome!


I have spent the last hour with my pen and pencil listing 78 items that have come from other things, starting with me from my parents. I think i see your point here! Certainly there are many, many things that come from other things.

Can you help guide me to the next step? I've experienced the existence of physical things like the nose on my face, and I've observed who those physical things come from other things. But how to get to a GOD from these observations?

Please forgive my slowness, I don't have your experience and expertise with logic and the historic of ideas, so some things that might be obvious to you will need to be clearly explained for me

As you will recall from my previous post, I have indeed done this. The problem, as I explained previously, is that with so many different sources it was hard to pick a single one and was so often used differently by different people. Since YOU were the one that deduced an "entity" perhaps you could share YOUR definition of "entity" and why you think this "entity" must exist. This is where I got lost.

I dont know if you are referring to me here, but I really dont know what you mean by


for 1) I am not sure what this means at all, which is why I asked for examples.

for 2) I can take a guess at what you mean, eg a stick comes from a tree, or a baby comes from another human, but its not clear what you mean by "comes from ", I mean, sure , a stick comes from a tree, but its not created by the tree, the most you can say is that already existing stuff is rearranged into tree/stick form. If thats what you mean, then fine, I am happy to accept number 2 as a category. I still dont know what "things from themselves" means though, and need an example

Okay, guys here, we are into words and concepts.

Here is my concept of what is existence, please pay attention.

Touch your nose and pinch it, that is an example of an instance of existence.

As soon as you guys have touched your nose if you have one, then please report to me here, I am waiting.

I am now in my location at the date and hour of Saturday, August 20, 2016, 08:15 a.m.

At what date and hour are you guys, please each one mention your date and time.

Would you guys like to talk about what is experience?

I will leave now but will be back in 30 minutes time.

So, your concept of existence is an example of an instance of existence? Okay.

It sounds like you're playing "got your nose" with God.

a quick google search led to this: http://www.livescience.com/50032-ear...bly-found.html

the supposed earliest humans trace back 2.8 million years ago. that fact alone pretty much tells me there is no God. he didn't wait around 2.8 million years (-2016) to have his son Jesus come praise his name.

you guys want to have your faith, be my guest. But when u look at facts and still come to the conclusion that God exists, I think you are being delusional or simply ambitious(believing out of hope/fear/because thats how you have been raised). But for any adult to truly think there is some dude up there, the mastermind of this whole thing, condemning or accepting our souls to heaven or hell, the ol' he has a plan for everybody, well.......shoot. Seems like quite the fairy tale to me

Thanks, Aaron, for your reaction:

"So, your concept of existence is an example of an instance of existence? Okay.

It sounds like you're playing "got your nose" with God.
Last edited by Aaron W.; Today at 07:32 PM. Reason: Give it back! Give it back! He'll kill us all!"

The thought that I am pursuing now is the following, from the experience of the nose existing to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

My time is 9:34pm on August 19th, 2016. CONFIRMED. I have touched my nose and it is there. CONFIRMED. The various projects you assigned me in the last post that you ignored my response to have all been COMPLETED.

Dearest Susmario, please now proceed to how you come to god existing with thinking on truths, fact, logic, and the history of ideas.

At some point, one might presume you will actually start talking about something instead of talking about what you're intending to talk about.

I'll tell you something.

Didn't even read a single word of the thread. Sad!

I'll touch my nose when any creator and operator of existence appears within my senses and asks nicely and gives me a reason to do so. I'll keep a light on for such an entity.

No offense, Sup- Why deal with middle people, when the source is the source? All the truth, logic , and touched noses one can muster for display and discussion wouldn't even come close to the same concept-able type experience.

A pantheistic approach doesn't have such a concern as you and I and even the idea as such are all connected and one.

Are you as sure if God was a deist or creator little g god?

It's two declarative statements, then single word exclamation. Many people say it's important to get your literary forms correct! BAD.

I touched my nose at 10:39:03 on the 20th august 2016