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

a reply to: neutronflux

The evidence strongly suggest god had a beginning. That beginning was humans. Not a single artifact supporting any god related philosophy before homo sapiens arrived on the planet, less than a million years ago.

a reply to: TzarChasm

And being a believer in my God, I would say I have faith our solar system was groomed to support life.

Please forgive me that I assumed your from this solar system. I know it’s a little presumptuous😁

Anyway.

Pachomius wants to capture, box, stamp a definition, and prove god exists. And wants nothing to do with faith.

I think it’s a mater of personal faith.

So, I guess you and I both cannot help Pachomius?

The proof that God is real can be found carved into the Gate of the Sun at Tiwanaku in Bolivia.

But you will have to wait for my book to be published if you want mathematical proof of this claim.

Dear neutronflux, thanks for your definition of what is evidence, I have included it in my list of definitions.

From TzarChasm
Evidence is a body of facts that support a statement.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

From Pachomius
Evidence is anything at all existing which leads man to know another thing existing.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

From Phage
[Evidence is] something that is not strictly a matter of faith.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

From neutronflux
Evidence is anything at all existing or discovered which leads man to know another thing is either true or false.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, let us all contribute each one's concept or definition of God.

Here is my oft repeated concept of God:

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

_____________________



Dear readers, please read the text below under the caption [For your orientation anyone], so that you will know what the thread is all about.




[For your orientation anyone]

For my definition of God: God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning." -Pachomius [17 words]

And for universe, my definition is the following: universe in concept is everything observable to man, in particular to scientists to study - most importantly in regard to its origin.

This is the title of the thread from Pachomius:

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


And the OP is as follows:

[posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 01:12 PM]
On the assumption that mankind sincerely seeks knowledge, I submit that it is possible for any person to come to resolve the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, i.e., thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas. Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God. What do you dear colleagues here say?

a reply to: Pachomius

You want to go beyond faith. Is that true? But you are clueless what constitutes evidence. You have provided no evidence. You produced a meaningless definition. When In reality you don’t need a definition, but state a theory. Then prove it using the scientific method.

What’s your theory concerning god. Here’s the road map to prove, or disprove your god exists.

a reply to: Pachomius

This is probably a better phrasing.

If you want to convince skeptics god exists without faith, then your path is the scientific method.

You claim you don’t want “religion”? But in you ignoring the scientific method, not using a theory and evidence, but creating a nonsensical definition based out of religion shows you are up to your neck in religion and faith.

Before anything else, I like to commend neutronflux for his contribution of his definition of the word evidence; now dear neutronflux, do the same also for the word God.



Dear everyone posting in this thread but not daring at all to work with me, to concur on the crucial words involved in the resolution of the issue God exists or not, I ask you why are you afraid, and I say to you, you are not rational with your fear.

You see, without concurrence on concepts or definitions of words, communication is not at all possible.

That is why in the domain of law which is all about ensuring that human conduct does not infringe into the rights of one's neighbors on the one hand , and on the other, all members of society work together for the common good, they the lawmakers of society take care to define crucial words that are involved in their law-making role, and it is because otherwise humans under the rule of law, they would not be conducting their affairs to the end: that all abstain from infringing on the rights of their neighbors, while all work to the peace order and prosperity of everyone.

In one particular case of a contract, the law requires that parties to the contract agree on definitions of the crucial words employed in the drafting of the contract.

And let you everyone read any new law or any old law for that matter enacted by your local lawmaking bodies, there is a section among the first ones, that is a list of the definitions of terms i.e. words that are to be taken as much as possible literally.

Tell me, you do you get the idea that without a common understanding of words which is the way we communicate most effectively, you cannot get to tell someone something and expect him to understand you, and also from his part he to tell you something and expect you to understand him - unless from both sides there is the mutual common understandings of words employed by both sides.

That is why I am into making lists of words like God, evidence, etc. which words are crucial to the resolution of the issue God exists or not.




Dear readers, please read the text below under the caption [For your orientation anyone], so that you will know what the thread is all about.




[For your orientation anyone]

For my definition of God: God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning." -Pachomius [17 words]

And for universe, my definition is the following: universe in concept is everything observable to man, in particular to scientists to study - most importantly in regard to its origin.

This is the title of the thread from Pachomius:

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


And the OP is as follows:

[posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 01:12 PM]
On the assumption that mankind sincerely seeks knowledge, I submit that it is possible for any person to come to resolve the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, i.e., thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas. Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God. What do you dear colleagues here say?

[end of post]

a reply to: Pachomius

So. You have no evidence. Got it.

a reply to: Pachomius

You cannot define something into existence. Just ask the flat earthers.........

To everyone that tells me that I have no evidence, for the existence of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, I will present to you this procedure for my proof on evidence:


1. God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

2. With this concept in our mind, you and I go forth into the world that is outside and independent of our mind, to search for evidence.

3. Now, evidence is anything at all existing which leads man to know another thing existing.

4. Examples of things with a beginning are babies, roses, and the nose on our face.

5. There, babies roses and the nose on our face for having a beginning are pieces of evidence to the existence of God, God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

6. Therefore God exists in objective reality that is outside of our mind, and His existence corresponds to the concept in our mind of an entity in concept the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning - which is God.


That procedure from No.1 to No. 6 is my proof on evidence to the existence of God, again in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

a reply to: Pachomius

Meh our imagination is limited to our understanding. Honestly it is philosophical ideologues, we use to attempt to understand or at least use to reason with our significance. Yet most people come to a rational conclusion something is out there, beyond our understanding. The only thing we can prove with evidence from what we understand is we are here at this moment, we don’t know why and many have chosen to adopt a god to find purpose in understanding it. For the most part god as we know it, is a construct just as the devil, both are idioms in a sense to define the nature of man, and his ability rationalize his existence.

Of course the way mankind has evolved into thinking is very primitive and lacks the understanding of the construct of reality he exists in. You have to understand that or try to before even trying to perceive the existence of a creator or god(s). Again I find it a tad vain for people to debate the existence of god. Chances are thou a monotheistic form of god derived from holy books are false, sadly but inspiring to be better and devoting yourself to a higher cause tends to accelerate success and happiness.

✌️

Please Bicent, out of fraternal charity, redact your post above to an abstract of less than 50 words.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Pachomius

You cannot define something into existence.

Right. That is what Pachomius is attempting to do.

To Pachomius:

Your 6. is not written in such a way as to be consistent with 1-5. It should read:

6. Therefore God exists in objective reality that is outside of our mind, and His existence corresponds to the concept in our mind of an entity in concept the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning - which is God.

Dear pthena, you prove something to exist on evidence, whatever, step by step, in six steps, I am keen to learn from you, okay?

Everyone, you have my proof on evidence for the existence of God, I am very keen to learn from you all: so please prove something to exist on evidence, and I will hope that I can learn from you.



In the meantime:

Everyone else not so smart, see if you can find out what are the communication transmissions of these three very concise sentences in an ancient language.

1. Ne quid nimis.
2. Sapienti pauca.
3. Stultorum infinitus est numerus.

a reply to: Pachomius

1) Different people have different concepts of god(s).

2) One concept shared by many people is a concept of a personal God. A personal God is someone who can be spoken to. These people feel, on an emotional level, that the God hears, cares, and even responds.

3) The evidence of 2) is apparent in the way people write about their personal God/Goddess/gods/goddesses.

4) The researcher may believe the testimony of the writers or not. The existence of this written testimony is beyond dispute. Several examples exist in this very thread.

5) Some percentage of the people who have, in their personal experience, a personal God, may also consider that personal God to be the ultimate source of all things. However that is not a necessary attribute for a personal god to be a personal god.

6) In concept, therefore, there are many Gods/Goddesses/gods/goddesses, not all of whom are considered to be the source of all that is, even in concept.

Dear pthena, please tell me in less than 50 words what is the point that you are making in your post preceding this post of mine?

Dear everyone writing in this my thread, please ascertain that you know that you have a point to make, otherwise you are just into useless verbiage.


When you do have a point to make, insure that you can make the point very sharp, otherwise you do not know enough as to make the point you want to make, and people reading your point will conclude you can’t think at all as to project the impression to them: that you are into honest intelligent productive thinking, which you are not into.

a reply to: Pachomius
Two posts above my post:

originally posted by: Pachomius
Dear pthena, you prove something to exist on evidence, whatever, step by step, in six steps, I am keen to learn from you, okay?

I was answering this request of yours in the six steps you asked for.
I proved the existence of a multiplicity of gods, in concept.
The concept(singular) is my own, based upon the testimony of others (plural). (38 words)