Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

However if you are curious, you and I might work together to investigate whether prescinding from your opinion there exists in actual reality God, in concept understood as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Susmario, what evidence shows there must be a conscious operator of the universe?

Why couldn't we be in a clockwork universe? A deity or some other process created the laws of movement, energy, and subatomic particles and set our universe in motion, but has no further involvement with it. Why can't that be the case?

Perhaps you can explain what is a circular argument?

I say the evidence for God are the universe itself, and you and I, and everything with a beginning.

You say that is circular. because I define God as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning?

You see, the universe and you and I and everything with a beginning exist: now we are going to prove by using what exist as evidence, to prove namely to ascertain the existence of God Who is doubted by some folks to not be existing.

Anyway if you say that is circular argument, then to show or prove that you genuinely understand what is a circular argument, you give readers an example of circular argument in proving the existence of something, but not in regard to God.

Why not in regard to God? Because I am already into proving the existence of God, so you have to bring in another example, otherwise you are into circular argument, because you say that my argument is circular and then you bring in again my argument for God which you already declare gratuitously to be circular.

Do you get, really get, what is indeed a circular argument?

If you do so, then give an example of a circular argument that is not about my argument for the existence of God from the existence of the universe and you and I and everything with a beginning.

Because if you do that, that is definitely, clearly, conspicuously a circular argument from you, and it shows you do not genuinely know what is a circular argument.

You make gratuitously declaratory statements above.

They cannot be taken seriously by discerning folks unless you prove to them that your statements are founded on proofs.

I would rather opine that it is exactly wrong because the man is not sure to know what is genuinely a circular argument.

You are into infinite regress which is an invalid concept; besides, God is not God if He is created also. which is what you are going into, because then there is an infinite regress in the quest for God as every God is created by a preceding God infinitely, and while we are waiting for every God to have created every God infinitely, we will die or became extinct as a species or the universe will have already changed into something else without us existing in it anymore...

Do you see why an infinite regress is an invalid concept?

Any speech involving the existence of an invalid concept is no speech at all, because it means that in the mind of the speaker he has not yet finished his thought, it is still going backward infinitely, while he is not infinite, so he is talking without knowing that he is into irrational thinking.

Its not clear what you are asking me, but I will just answer with the following.

Your argument is of the form

1) God exists
2) God created everything
3) everything exists.

C) therefore God exists.

And is circular because there is no new information in the conclusion that isnt already contained in the premises. You are starting from the position ( god exists) that you want to prove in the conclusion.

You say:

I expect the explanation of how you, I, humans, and everything with a beginning indicates the existence of a god will follow once he feels that we are all on the same page.

That is correct, otherwise how can we at all communicate effectively?

That is why atheists' so-called arguments or objections against God are all not into any reasoning at all; but they are all dodges, if not bad mouthing God which is also dodging.

Well, he said he wants an exchange of philosophical ideas, but has shown no curiosity about the reasons behind atheism and tries very hard to control the course of the discussion. So far, his only evidence for a god is in the form of self-defining truths (God must exist because we exist) and does not get why that would be unsatisfying.

What's the over/under on how many days until Susmario concludes that it's impossible for atheists to carry on a civil, rational conversation with a believer?

Thanks neeeel for your reply, I must commend you for not resorting to foul language, unlike many others who are into challenging the existence of God.



Don't you honestly notice that you do not have any other example of what is a circular argument, and you commit exactly a circular argument by bringing up my argument again which you already gratuitously declare to be a circular argument?

Please be honest and see that you do not genuinely know what is a circular argument; if you do, then you should have given readers here an example of a circular argument for them to examine, but which however is not the one which you already declare but gratuitously to be a circular argument, my argument for God to be existing.

You still don't get what I am telling you? Or is that a dodge to evade facing the fact that you do not have a genuinely correct idea of what is a circular argument?

So, please understand this, I will give you a choice of two items:

1. You produce an example of a circular argument that is not the one on God already declared by you to be a circular argument.

2. You request me to show you how your understanding of my argument to be circular, and when I do so, you must admit that you did not know earlier what correctly is a circular argument.

Okay, dear neeeel, go forth and think carefully, and honestly do not take to the tack of declaring again gratuitously that you seem to not understand my words.

Please, do not indulge in dodges, all you who are into challenging the existence of God understood in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.


Please examine your post before transmitting it, to see whether it is all a dodge essentially, or you do have a valid opinion that is relevant to the concept and/or existence of God, in concept understood as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.


I have to leave this thread now, so if you have transmitted a post prior to this post from yours truly, I will react to it -- if it is not a dodge -- tomorrow.

No. I am not making an argument. I am pointing out that your argument is circular. Bringing up your argument twice does not make my argument circular. It just means that I still think your argument is circular.

Heres an example of a simple circular argument

1) the water is wet

C) therefore , the water is wet.


I choose 2

If you think the universe must have a creator, and that creator is your god, but that your god must not have a creator, because that would lead to infinite regress, how did you know to stop at exactly that point?

(1)
Couldn't it be that the universe came into being without a creator, because if it had a creator, that would lead to infinite regress?

(2)
Or couldn't it be that the universe must have a creator, and that creator is your god, and your god must have a creator, and that creator is Ubergod, but Ubergod cannot have a creator, because that would lead to infinite regress?

Have you found compelling evidence against (1) and (2) that leads you elevate your god as the most likely scenario?

New topic: infinite regress may be unsatisfying to you (or I, or philosophers, or ancient thinkers, etc.) but why does that mean it can't exist in reality? Do you, or the greatest physicists, or the greatest philosophers, or the greatest polymaths, know enough about the way universes and things that exist "outside" and/or "prior" to our universe work to say for sure that it doesn't make sense for there to be an infinite chain of gods creating gods creating gods? We could be the creation of some god not even at the end of the chain -- from our perspective that may not look likely, but as we all know, human perspective is often limited. A few hundred years ago who could have imagined how many stars there are out there? A few dozen years ago, who could have imagined how many planets there are out there? Point being, just because we don't see how there could be infinite gods creating each other, does that mean it couldn't possibly be the case?

That is fine so long as we understand that we are using the term in a more informal manner to mean that we have demonstrated something sufficiently such that we can reasonably accept the proposal as true.

Here is why I want to be careful with the term proof: If we are talking about absolute certainly, I reject that that concept is attainable for just about anything. What we can do, however, is demonstrate something to be real to a high enough level of certainty that belief in its existence is reasonable. But this is a tricky subject. Different people will have different thresholds for evidence regarding what they consider to be reasonable. And for each person, those thresholds will be a bit hazy. There will not be a well defined "okay with X amount of evidence I will not be convinced, but with X+1 amount of evidence I will." Instead, as I mentioned in my previous post, what we have are varying levels of confidence. Belief is binary, but how strongly one is convinced or not convinced is a spectrum.

There are a number of things I could do. For nearly all scenarios, my telling somebody that I have a nose would suffice. This is because the threshold for belief in this case is going to be very low for most people. Most of us have noses; it would not be especially unbelievable to most people that I have one as well. Past that, I could show them my nose, they could feel it, make a cast of it, or a number of other potential demonstrations.

OK, that's a start I guess, at least you're not starting at god and working backwards anymore.

If you accept that our existence alone is not evidence for god, that there are alternatives, then what's your evidence/reasoning for god?

Call it a hunch but I get the feeling from OPs dismissive responses to some fairly straightforward points that we may find out in the next few pages why he is no longer able to post on some other forums.

Susmario,

do you understand that

a) your argument is circular?
b) circular arguments are invalid?

actually, circular arguments are technically valid, just worthless, as it doesnt show anything new, or add any new information.

Susmario,

do you understand that

a) your argument is circular?
b) circular arguments are technically valid, just worthless, as it doesnt show anything new, or add any new information?

Thanks neeeel for your post.

Now, you have chosen No. 2 item, see below:


Here is your representation of my [ according to you ] my argument and you say it is a case of circular argument:


You know neeeel, are you sure you have correctly represented my argument for the existence of God as in concept creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, with the above syllogism?

Suppose you read my posts and be demanding on conducting yourself with meticulous care to get my argument correctly.

You will say that I am now into stalling.

No, I am not into stalling at all; but in order that you will get to learn what is a genuine circular argument, you owe it to yourself to examine your work in coming to the conclusion that I am into a circular argument with my proof for God existing.

Here, I will help you, so that we will both not be wasting labor and time.

Look at your premises 1, "God exists."

Is that my premise 1?

You see, you seem to have read a 'best-selling' book from a fellow atheist on something like God is a delusion, or breaking the spell, etc., and you come forth imagining that you know everything about the arguments of theists on the existence of God, whereas thinkers from millennia back all the way to the ancient Greek philosophers to the present Christian, Muslim, and orthodox Jew scholars have worked on all the possible objections against God, in concept creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

So, please, you owe it to yourself to become a solid intellectual with taking up the first premise in your reproduction of my [ to you ] my argument for the existence of God, namely from your representation, scil., of my [ to you ] my first premise, "1. God exists."

Ask yourself honestly, is that really my first premise if at all I have ever said anything like that, "Here is my first premise..."?

You now go and do your work and write back here.

Thanks everyone for your posts, appreciate that.


I am very busy with neeeel.

Please work on your thoughts and come up with a concise post on what you want to say, in not more than a 100 words.


And examine it carefully whether you are into the topic or not, you could be into dodging without knowing it: because almost all forums allow posters to go on and on and on even though they are anywhere but into the topic of the thread, because the thread's author himself seems to not know either what his topic is all about in choosing the title for his thread -- their titles are like headlines put up by tabloids publishers.

If you doubt what the thread is all about, read the OP, i.e., post #1 and also if need be the succeeding posts of the author.

I as author of a thread owe it to my office to keep posters to the topic.

And then also when you expound on a concept like infinite regress, check and check again whether all the words you are pouring forth have any coherency and consistency at all.

Susmario. I have one question for you. Can you ever know for certain that God was not created by a higher God that gave him all the powers of a God except for the power to know that he himself was created by the higher God?

Yes. Its a hidden premise, sure, but its a premise all the same.


Even without that premise

ie

1) god created everything
2) everything exists

C) god exists

You still need to prove (1)

Still waiting on this proof.. Just see riddles.

It seems op wants us to prove God isn't real. I don't feel the need to prove there is no God, the same way I don't need to prove there aren't such things as elves and fairies...

If someone is to come up with something which defies all understanding of known science, should it not be on them to provide the evidence?

Might be a struggle... Being as there isn't any.

Basing your life on a 2000 yr old work of fiction would be considered reasons for a snug white jacket, if it hadn't been normalised over the years.