Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

MONO



There is still my theory of everything, which is existence.


We are all part and parcel of existence, and there are things which have a beginning, in fact all we come to know directly, they all have a beginning, and from these things with a beginning, we come by honest intelligent productive thinking, we come to the idea of things without a beginning.

In the long run of more and more honest intelligent productive thinking, we have come to the one and only one example of existence without a beginning.

And that is God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

MONO




a reply to: spy66

Dear spy66:

Mankind has to ask the question, Has existence created itself? How do we answer this question?

So, there are two questions actually that mankind has to answer:

1. Has existence created itself? This is Q1.

2. How do we mankind answer question 1? This is Q2.

But first and foremost, Do we mankind have to answer at all Q1 and Q2, this is Q3.

However there is still a Q4, namely, Is there some entity aside from mankind that should answer Q1, Q2, Q3, this is Q4.

Here are the four questions facing mankind proposed by one Pachomius:

Q1. Has existence created itself?

Q2. How do we mankind answer question 1?

Q3. Do we mankind have to answer at all Q1 and Q2?

Q4. Is there some entity aside from mankind that should answer Q1, Q2, Q3?

I Pachomius am a member of mankind, wherefore I feel that owing to my own curiosity I am entitled and also duty-bound to myself as an honest intelligent productive live entity, to answer for myself at least all four questions.

And why do I have to for myself answer the four questions?

Because the un-examined life is not worth living.*

Atheists, I seem to understand, they submit that they don't need to answer any of the and all four questions, because they claim to be ultimately by implication, not honest, not intelligent, and not productive, just like amoeba and Covid-19.


*
Someone also a member of mankind has already said The un-examined life is not worth living, scil. Socrates (d. 399 BC), he said "ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ," literally, "And an un-examined life is not worth living for man."
See, tomblackson.com..., ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ

a reply to: Pachomius

Q1. Has existence created itself?

What is existence..? Within our scientific society our universe is all that exists....

How can we argue anything else..? When science deals with only scientific fackts..?

There is no way you will get a answer to this question on this forum by modern educated people. Moste peopel cant answer this question because science does not explain.

MONO




Dear spy66:

Thanks for your contribution to this thread.


Q1 Has existence created itself?

Actually my intention with that question is to provoke people with honest intelligent productive thinking: to realize that to create oneself one must already be in existence, still when one is already in existence there is no need anymore to create oneself.

Now, let you and I ask ourselves: Who are asking the question, Has existence created itself?

I can imagine only two entities that ask that question:

Entity A - Existence itself
Entity B - any member of the tribe called i.e. named homo sapiens

Can you imagine any other subject that would be asking that question?

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Pachomius

Q1. Has existence created itself?

What is existence..? Within our scientific society our universe is all that exists....

How can we argue anything else..? When science deals with only scientific fackts..?

There is no way you will get a answer to this question on this forum by modern educated people. Moste peopel cant answer this question because science does not explain.

a reply to: Pachomius


Existance is not about any questions, but its all about the word....

God said; let there be light..... And there was light.... No one questioned it....There was no one else present to question it. There was only the word.

Why do you think no one else was present to make any questions...? There sure were no humans present to have any questions...

We only question this now.... And this is much later....

a reply to: spy66
Questions are light appearing as questions.

The light is appearing as what is present.

There is nothing outside of the light.....there is just light showing up.

It's just a movie.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Yes that is the argument.... Nothing exists outside the light..... You say... But how wrong you are.....

The light is only our preseption of time and existance.... How can you tell there is nothing else...? You cant because all you know is now.... This is what you preach...isent it..?

You dont know the future..... Because all you know is now... Youre dependent on time just like everyone lese are.....

MONO



Dear Itisnowagain and spy66:

I understand that you are both bound to the Bible - though I might be mistaken.

On a sudden reflection I just came to the thought that perhaps scientists today don't want to have anything to do with the Bible, they just want to stick to observation and experimentation by themselves, to come to knowledge, BUT of the material world.

They don't go for the Bible, because they want to start from a clean slate, and to them the Bible is just going to impede their search for knowledge, again of the material world.

So, to start from a very clean slate, no Bible and no world outside of the material world, and also thirdly, knowledge from observation and experimentation.

I however submit that the world is not only material but also immaterial, even scientists must concur with my submission that there is an immaterial world side by side with the material world.

Proof by examples of things that belong to the material world, namely: ideas, mathematical entities...

My principal point in this message is as already partially stated in the OP, "Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not," namely, let us just keep to honest intelligent productive thinking, and grounding ourselves on a clean slate, i.e. no bringing in the Bible, but including the immaterial world and of course taking into account the findings of scientists.

MONO




What happened?

No one dared to react to my yesterday's post?

All I am proposing yesterday is that posters here just stop using the Bible as a face mask and together with a face shield or face cover, in particular one Neutron, in order to NOT have to deal with the world on a clean slate, as scientists want to do, i.e. deal with the search for knowledge as on and from clean slate.

Because posters - with them who are bound to the Bible, for example, one Neutron, and also spy66 and Itisnowagain (I could be mistaken though), they save themselves from the challenge of exploring the world from and on a clean slate, and can squabble forever and ever on what their common Bible says about this or that or everything, wherefore no need for them to undertake in person and with their own brain, the task of honest intelligent productive thinking.

In this connection, I propose also that posters abstain from bringing in or even just dropping in names of deceased or just still live writers who gained celebrity status of a sort.

We know that most humans are lazy to do serious honest intelligent productive thinking on their own mind or say brain, it is so laborious and not glamorous, what with bringing up intellectual celebrities of a sort, like one notorious master of semantic trickery, Richard Dawkins.

Why? Because you guys should be employing your very own personal brain to deploy your genuinely honest intelligent productive thinking, instead of leaning on the shoulders of notorious semantic tricksters like Bertrand Russell, Stephen Hawking, and now one most self-vain Richard Dawkins.

But such is the common phobia and taboo of most posters, they can't master the 'balls' to do use their own brain - if they have one.

Anyway, if you guys want to bring in or drop in the Bible and notorious semantic tricksters, just say that - for honesty's sake, you are not saying anything original, that others have already dealt with what you are now into a recital of, but that you appropriate their thoughts as your very own - AND no need to even just slip in their names at all.

So, dear posters here, stick to your very own thinking and writing, but for honesty’s sake or say, humility's sake, acknowledge that you appropriate the thoughts of others like dead writers or still live but notorious semantic tricksters, for your very own personally thought up ideas.

In brief words, start from a clean slate, even though just pseudo clean slate.

Pachomius posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 08:23 AM
- - - - - - - - - - - -

MONO

Dear Itisnowagain and spy66:

I understand that you are both bound to the Bible - though I might be mistaken.

On a sudden reflection I just came to the thought that perhaps scientists today don't want to have anything to do with the Bible, they just want to stick to observation and experimentation by themselves, to come to knowledge, BUT of the material world.

They don't go for the Bible, because they want to start from a clean slate, and to them the Bible is just going to impede their search for knowledge, again of the material world.

So, to start from a very clean slate, no Bible and no world outside of the material world, and also thirdly, knowledge from observation and experimentation.

I however submit that the world is not only material but also immaterial, even scientists must concur with my submission that there is an immaterial world side by side with the material world.

Proof by examples of things that belong to the material world, namely: ideas, mathematical entities...

My principal point in this message is as already partially stated in the OP, "Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not," namely, let us just keep to honest intelligent productive thinking, and grounding ourselves on a clean slate, i.e. no bringing in the Bible, but including the immaterial world and of course taking into account the findings of scientists.

Lmao...
I am very disappointed with you, as well. You take a condescending attitude with someone you don't know, and then proceed to tell them that their personal opinion is wrong. That take some real social ignorance and arrogance!

Do you have any friends, or do you brow beat them all to death within 30 seconds?

Buddy, I'll answer posts as I please, not as your silly ass thinks they should be.

originally posted by: Pachomius
MONO



Dear DeReK DaRkLy:


I am very disappointed with you, because you have not started with existence, please write again and start with existence, okay?

As we humans are the only live entities discussing God exists or not, then we mus start with existence of me and you and him her it - why it, also? because there could be another live entity which is like us humans i.e. with intelligence and free will, and occupied with the question, Is there a God?


So, dear DeReK DaRkLy, start with studying existence, touch the nose on your face for an example of what is existence, okay?

originally posted by: DeReK DaRkLy

In my estimation, "God" is like a self-writing, self-editing computer code - a logical progression, ever advancing within the bounds of possibility, but with no particular meaning other than the functions it produces. Which makes us basically a product (or perhaps by-product) of this eternally changing code. Associating "God" with mammalian feelings (another by-product serving only reproductive/survival purposes) is way off course. God doesn't "care" per se ... God just does what God does.

MONO


Dear DeReK DaRkLy:

I am at present keen to learn from the fans of one atheist celebrity - Richard Dawkins.

He has the expertise in regard to complexity and improbability, and that seems to be his No. 1 message to all members of the tribe homo sapiens.

In brief, with complexity and improbability, he has come to the conviction that God is improbably to exist at all.

Tell you what, dear DeReK DaRkLy, I am most receptive to read from you what you know to be the No. 1 idea of Dawkins, namely, complexity and improbability.

Or you can refer me to someone else truly acquainted with Dawkins’ idea of complexity and improbability, and I will thank you most sincerely for your reference.

DeReK DaRkLy posted on Oct, 20 2020 @ 09:54 AM
- - - - - - - - - - - - -


Lmao...
I am very disappointed with you, as well. You take a condescending attitude with someone you don't know, and then proceed to tell them that their personal opinion is wrong. That take some real social ignorance and arrogance!

Do you have any friends, or do you brow beat them all to death within 30 seconds?

Buddy, I'll answer posts as I please, not as your silly ass thinks they should be.

originally posted by: Pachomius
MONO



Dear DeReK DaRkLy:


I am very disappointed with you, because you have not started with existence, please write again and start with existence, okay?

As we humans are the only live entities discussing God exists or not, then we mus start with existence of me and you and him her it - why it, also? because there could be another live entity which is like us humans i.e. with intelligence and free will, and occupied with the question, Is there a God?


So, dear DeReK DaRkLy, start with studying existence, touch the nose on your face for an example of what is existence, okay?

________________
...and thats why aliens dont talk to us.

MONO




What's happening? No one is reacting to me calling Richard Dawkins a semantic trickster?

Now that I have examined more carefully this semantic trickster, his specialty is weaving or spinning words from nowhere to nowhere, in order to gain fame and influence people to buy his nonsense worthless books, by which from his erroneous mindset of everything is explicable with complexity and improbability, even new species of life can spring up, and God is established to be improbably to exist.


There.

And hope to be not like him.

Softly, hehehehehe...

MONO



I am now into researching on Dawkins, and he is certainly another instance of my very serious suspicion that militant atheists used to be religiously Christians, but perhaps they then got what, tired?

Anyway, they chose to leave their Christian lifestyle, feeling that they had invested time and effort to be devout Christians, while others have left and now enjoy a lot of liberties - they got embittered and now adopt militant atheism.

And there wasn't a sense of loss here? I mean you obviously hadn't had a personal relationship with God, to whom you spoke in your prayers, because to lose that would've been considerable.

Well that's probably right. At the age of about 13 when I was being confirmed, I did have a fairly active fantasy life about a relationship with God, and I used to pray and I used to have fantasies about creeping down to the chapel in the middle of the night, and having a sort of blinding vision and things. I don't know really how seriously I took that.

Richard Dawkins interviewed by British Broadcasting Company, April 2004
www.bbc.co.uk...

MONO



Well, I am through with Dawkins.


I will now return to my OP:
Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

My theory of everything is existence, in concept as follows:
Existence is the default status of reality.

And my whole big full all every complete entire total picture of reality is as follows:
God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

Take notice, that this is my methodology for the search of knowledge:
Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.


Dear readers and fellow posters in ATS and atheists, see if you will just take up one point in this present message, where you concur with me or do not concur with me, and let us work on it, okay?

MONO





Here is my invitation again to all who have or had contributed to this thread:

"Dear readers and fellow posters in ATS and atheists, see if you will just take up one point in this present message, where you concur with me or do not concur with me, and let us work on it, okay?"

What's happening? Not even Neutron has come forward, he is one most persistent poster in this thread?

I guess and I am going to get you guys very annoyed again, Have you guys depleted already all your attempts at derailing this thread?

.

I am now investigating randomness, and up to now I still cannot at all imagine that randomness has taken the place of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

The Founding Fathers of the USA thought up a phrase that should have reconciled knowers of God and the opponents to the knowers of God, namely, Nature's God,* what do you guys say about that, dear atheists here, and also one Neutron?


*
In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. [ . . . ]

MONO



Yesterday I said that:
I am now investigating randomness, and up to now I still cannot at all imagine that randomness has taken the place of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

But are there really atheists who do advocate that randomness explains the existence of everything with a beginning?

So I looked up the internet and found out from the internet** that Yes there are atheists who do advocate that randomness explains the existence of everything with a beginning.

The trouble is how they explain randomness, and they explain randomness in so many many many words that when I finally completed my careful analysis of all them words, they them words come to mean:

"God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.”

originally posted by: Pachomius
MONO

Here is my invitation again to all who have or had contributed to this thread:

"Dear readers and fellow posters in ATS and atheists, see if you will just take up one point in this present message, where you concur with me or do not concur with me, and let us work on it, okay?"

What's happening? Not even Neutron has come forward, he is one most persistent poster in this thread?

I guess and I am going to get you guys very annoyed again, Have you guys depleted already all your attempts at derailing this thread?

.

I am now investigating randomness, and up to now I still cannot at all imagine that randomness has taken the place of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

The Founding Fathers of the USA thought up a phrase that should have reconciled knowers of God and the opponents to the knowers of God, namely, Nature's God,* what do you guys say about that, dear atheists here, and also one Neutron?


*
In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. [ . . . ]

.

**
Google, do atheists believe everything with a beginning came from randomness

About 10,300,000 results (0.39 seconds)

Do you believe all this came about by random ... - Atheist FAQ
www.atheist-faq.com › do-you-believe-all-this-came-ab...
Mar 22, 2018 — Atheist Frequently Asked Questions - For most atheists, no, of course not. ... Do you believe all this came about by random chance or by accident? ... It's to be expected, given the starting conditions. In fact ... Things like abiogenesis may turn out to be just as inevitable of a result, as snow falling in the winter.

Is atheism and an atheist the product of chance or evolution?
www.researchgate.net › post › Is_atheism_and_an_atheist...
It depends on what you mean by chance, do you mean blind randomness- or ... is what is the real 'originality' (the beginning, not how the idea or theory came about ... I believe that is the a priori rationality that non-atheists have to argue and it ...
17 answers

Atheist Bible: Meaning of Life - Fabian Suchanek
suchanek.name › texts › atheism › ChapterSense
The question can mean different things Meaning of Life: ... Starting from these cells, the reason for existence has always been the same, all the ... If we are to believe the theory of evolution, then we are mainly the product of lots of ... In the end, we are all victims of the very same randomness — atheists and believers alike.

People also ask
What is it called when you don't know if God exists?

[ . . . . ]

MONO




So, atheists have got to show mankind that they do have an explanation for the existence of the nose on their face, even though they have this - with militant atheists, stubbornly irrational position that God does not exist.

That is in effect, that God does not exist, although they as usual go about it in a most dishonest un-intelligent un-productive abuse of words, saying that they just, merely, simply, only lack any belief in any god(s).

With their dishonest in-intelligent un-productive abuse of words, they in so many many many words i.e. abuse of words, they tell mankind that randomness is the ultimate cause of the universe, etc.

And they are just saying - when you get serious and read carefully, are saying that to themselves:

"Randomness is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."

And that is exactly what I am saying all the time, namely, That God exists in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

What atheists do is, by crude analogy, putting on a different costume on God, namely, the costume of randomness, whereas God does not need any costume at all, if atheists would be honest intelligent productive with their thinking and writing.

MONO



Here is again my argument for the existence of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

The more I repeat it, the more it gets so clear that I cannot imagine how atheists can rationally question it, but then talking about militant atheists, they are not rational at all, it is all stubborn adherence to irrationality with them.


Here is again now very brief and in again simple words my argument for the existence of God:

1. There is existence.

2. There are all kinds of things in existence that have a beginning.

3. Existence of things with a beginning logically demands the existence of at least one entity of existence that has no beginning.

4. Wherefore, that one entity in existence without beginning is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

MONO



My latest repetition of the proof for the existence of God (below in quote) applies to the God of reason, and not to the God of religion.

What is the difference between the God of reason and the God of religion?

If anyone knows about the Bible, then I will tell you what is the difference between the God of reason and the God of religion.

First, there is in the Bible a lot about the God of reason, but as a whole the Bible is also about the God of religion, in particular, in the three monotheistic faiths of Christianism, Islamism, and Judaism.

Okay, here is the difference between the God of reason and the God of religion, from what I gather from the Bible itself:

The God of reason is described in the very first line of the Bible, namely:
"In the beginning God made heaven and earth."

And the God of religion in the Bible consists in the addition of hell to the first line of the Bible, thus:
"In the beginning God made heaven and earth and hell."

Take notice that hell figures a lot in the Bible, so also heaven and earth.


That is why my concept of God, namely, the God of reason is as follows:
"God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."

originally posted by: Pachomius

Here is again my argument for the existence of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

The more I repeat it, the more it gets so clear that I cannot imagine how atheists can rationally question it, but then talking about militant atheists, they are not rational at all, it is all stubborn adherence to irrationality with them.


Here is again now very brief and in again simple words my argument for the existence of God:

1. There is existence.

2. There are all kinds of things in existence that have a beginning.

3. Existence of things with a beginning logically demands the existence of at least one entity of existence that has no beginning.

4. Wherefore, that one entity in existence without beginning is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

originally posted by: DeReK DaRkLy

Lmao...
I am very disappointed with you, as well. You take a condescending attitude with someone you don't know, and then proceed to tell them that their personal opinion is wrong. That take some real social ignorance and arrogance!

Do you have any friends, or do you brow beat them all to death within 30 seconds?

Buddy, I'll answer posts as I please, not as your silly ass thinks they should be.

originally posted by: Pachomius
MONO



Dear DeReK DaRkLy:


I am very disappointed with you, because you have not started with existence, please write again and start with existence, okay?

As we humans are the only live entities discussing God exists or not, then we mus start with existence of me and you and him her it - why it, also? because there could be another live entity which is like us humans i.e. with intelligence and free will, and occupied with the question, Is there a God?


So, dear DeReK DaRkLy, start with studying existence, touch the nose on your face for an example of what is existence, okay?

originally posted by: DeReK DaRkLy

In my estimation, "God" is like a self-writing, self-editing computer code - a logical progression, ever advancing within the bounds of possibility, but with no particular meaning other than the functions it produces. Which makes us basically a product (or perhaps by-product) of this eternally changing code. Associating "God" with mammalian feelings (another by-product serving only reproductive/survival purposes) is way off course. God doesn't "care" per se ... God just does what God does.

👍

I see lots more empty posts by Pachomius to push this truth into obscurity.