It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

page: 17
18
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


What was the question?




posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


What was the question?


Oh, nevermind. I thought you were actually following along. You should probably read the thread.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


Maybe you imagined a question.
The first cause of the seeming separation was the question.
'Why' is the seeking mind- the cause of the individual.


edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


Maybe you imagined a question.
The first cause of the seeming separation was the question.
'Why' is the seeking mind- the cause of the individual.


edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


Maybe -you- simply don't understand what "Begging the Question" means, because that is really the only explanation I can come up with as to why you would ask the question you did.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


Maybe you imagined a question.
The first cause of the seeming separation was the question.
'Why' is the seeking mind- the cause of the individual.


edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


Maybe -you- simply don't understand what "Begging the Question" means, because that is really the only explanation I can come up with as to why you would ask the question you did.

You told me I did not give an answer to the question;
"Simplified, this doesn't actually answer the question, and is merely just a statement of belief." Quote.

I asked what question was it supposed to be an answer to? A specific question you said my post did not answer?
I am confused.

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


Maybe you imagined a question.
The first cause of the seeming separation was the question.
'Why' is the seeking mind- the cause of the individual.


edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


Maybe -you- simply don't understand what "Begging the Question" means, because that is really the only explanation I can come up with as to why you would ask the question you did.

You told me I did not give an answer to the question;
"Simplified, this doesn't actually answer the question, and is merely just a statement of belief." Quote.

I asked what question was it supposed to be an answer to? A specific question you said my post did not answer?
I am confused.

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


en.wikipedia.org...

You are confused because you do not understand what "Begging the Question" means. I implore you to please read the link provided.

You are assuming God exists without answering the question of God's existence. You are assuming the point without proof of the point and allow your assumption to stand as proof of your claim. This is a logical fallacy.

I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, because I don't know, but your logical reasoning in getting to that conclusion is flawed, ergo, it can't be used as evidence of the existence of God.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
en.wikipedia.org...

You are confused because you do not understand what "Begging the Question" means. I implore you to please read the link provided.

You are assuming God exists without answering the question of God's existence. You are assuming the point without proof of the point and allow your assumption to stand as proof of your claim. This is a logical fallacy.

I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, because I don't know, but your logical reasoning in getting to that conclusion is flawed, ergo, it can't be used as evidence of the existence of God.


You are assuming that I said god exists.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
You are assuming that I said god exists.


No, you very clearly and in plain language said that God exists. I mean, you can claim that your usage of the term "the lord" could mean something else, but within the context of this thread, and the post that you were quoting, nothing but a declaration that God exists even makes sense.

To say otherwise after the fact would be disingenuous.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 29-5-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
You are assuming that I said god exists.


No, you very clearly and in plain language said that you believe God exists. I mean, you can claim that you usage of the term "the lord" could mean something else, but within the context of this thread, and the post that you were quoting, nothing but a declaration that God exists even makes sense.

To say otherwise after the fact would be disingenuous.


This right here is presence - it is the lord - it is all there is - all appearances appear within and as it.
edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
You are assuming that I said god exists.


No, you very clearly and in plain language said that you believe God exists. I mean, you can claim that you usage of the term "the lord" could mean something else, but within the context of this thread, and the post that you were quoting, nothing but a declaration that God exists even makes sense.

To say otherwise after the fact would be disingenuous.


This right here is presence - it is the lord - it is all there is - all appearances appear within and as it.
edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


Yeah, uh.. thanks for proving my point, I guess?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
You are assuming that I said god exists.


No, you very clearly and in plain language said that you believe God exists. I mean, you can claim that you usage of the term "the lord" could mean something else, but within the context of this thread, and the post that you were quoting, nothing but a declaration that God exists even makes sense.

To say otherwise after the fact would be disingenuous.


This right here is presence - it is the lord - it is all there is - all appearances appear within and as it.
edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


Yeah, uh.. thanks for proving my point, I guess?

Do we have a winner?

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
You are assuming that I said god exists.


No, you very clearly and in plain language said that you believe God exists. I mean, you can claim that you usage of the term "the lord" could mean something else, but within the context of this thread, and the post that you were quoting, nothing but a declaration that God exists even makes sense.

To say otherwise after the fact would be disingenuous.


This right here is presence - it is the lord - it is all there is - all appearances appear within and as it.
edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


Yeah, uh.. thanks for proving my point, I guess?

Do we have a winner?

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


No winners in logic, only losers I'm afraid. Something either is logical or someone is wrong. That's the best thing about deductive reasoning, only the person making the claim is actually putting themselves out there. Like this idea of Intelligent Causation. If someone thinks it happened, they can make the case based on logic, and if it sticks, there really isn't much defense, until the known nature of the Universe itself changes, which has been known to happen.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Begging the question is a type of circular reasoning where the conclusion is included in the premise.

However the question was "who created the creator?". This is what is called a category mistake. The question is a fallacy to begin with. It only applies to someone who believes in a created creator.

In other words the charge of begging the question as it relates to the question of who created the creator is in fact a strawman fallacy. As well as the question being a category mistake, the premise is included in the very question to begin with!



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
No winners in logic, only losers I'm afraid. Something either is logical or someone is wrong. That's the best thing about deductive reasoning, only the person making the claim is actually putting themselves out there. Like this idea of Intelligent Causation. If someone thinks it happened, they can make the case based on logic, and if it sticks, there really isn't much defense, until the known nature of the Universe itself changes, which has been known to happen.

Logically - have you ever not been here and now?
Has anything other than the present moment ever been available to you?
Is there a you separate from the present moment?
Can anything really be separated from the present?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


What is the big problem if some believe God exists?

I believe God exists and in my mind there is no doubt. I have proven God existence to my self.
If you and others havent found any proof to convince you. Its is more your problem than ours. There is no way any of us will convince you or any one else why we believe in God.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Nothing created the question and nothing is the answer.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Begging the question is a type of circular reasoning where the conclusion is included in the premise.

However the question was "who created the creator?". This is what is called a category mistake. The question is a fallacy to begin with. It only applies to someone who believes in a created creator.

In other words the charge of begging the question as it relates to the question of who created the creator is in fact a strawman fallacy. As well as the question being a category mistake, the premise is included in the very question to begin with!


I was taking the statements as-is without including them into the larger framework. In this regard, simply stating God is Timeless assumes the initial point that God exists. When taken into the thread at large, "The Universe was created by God because God is Timeless and existed before the Universe" -is- circular reasoning, to be assured.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


What is the big problem if some believe God exists?

I believe God exists and in my mind there is no doubt. I have proven God existence to my self.
If you and others havent found any proof to convince you. Its is more your problem than ours. There is no way any of us will convince you or any one else why we believe in God.


I don't have a problem with some believing in God. The problem arises when someone says that they can logically prove God's existence.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by squiz
Begging the question is a type of circular reasoning where the conclusion is included in the premise.

However the question was "who created the creator?". This is what is called a category mistake. The question is a fallacy to begin with. It only applies to someone who believes in a created creator.

In other words the charge of begging the question as it relates to the question of who created the creator is in fact a strawman fallacy. As well as the question being a category mistake, the premise is included in the very question to begin with!


I was taking the statements as-is without including them into the larger framework. In this regard, simply stating God is Timeless assumes the initial point that God exists. When taken into the thread at large, "The Universe was created by God because God is Timeless and existed before the Universe" -is- circular reasoning, to be assured.


This is 'being' the present - it is timelessly present.
'Becoming' is in time. Time is an 'idea' arising presently.
All arises in presence as presence - it is all there is, it looks different, constantly changing in appearance.
This is God - it is 'nothing' appearing as everything.


edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
No winners in logic, only losers I'm afraid. Something either is logical or someone is wrong. That's the best thing about deductive reasoning, only the person making the claim is actually putting themselves out there. Like this idea of Intelligent Causation. If someone thinks it happened, they can make the case based on logic, and if it sticks, there really isn't much defense, until the known nature of the Universe itself changes, which has been known to happen.

Logically - have you ever not been here and now?
Has anything other than the present moment ever been available to you?
Is there a you separate from the present moment?
Can anything really be separated from the present?


Precognition is not one of my abilities, but I have been in the company of others that have seemingly demonstrated such abilities.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join