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

MONO

posted by Out6 on Aug, 28 2020 @ 04:38 AM

a reply to: Pachomius

Although God is The Creator we should not fall for their delusion God doesn't exist.

This delusion is based on circular logic.

Sincerely
edit on 27-8-2020 by Out6of9Balance because: (no reason given)

Dear Out6, you mention circular logic from atheists, that is very good.


And all their arguments in fact are all inside their brain, and nothing at all based on the world that is outside and independent of their brain, like babies and roses in the neighborhood, and the nose on our face.

Like this argument - and it is all inside their brain, that no need to postulate an uncaused cause called God, because one thing could have been caused by another thing and this antecedent cause could have been still been caused by still another antecedent cause and on and on, so no need to postulate an uncaused cause, reason being that there is the infinity of causality – that’s the way they abuse reason.

And they justify that kind of thinking with bringing in the idea of a circle, the whole infinity of causality is operating in a circle.

Is that or isn't that an example of circular logic?


I submit it is in fact not only circular but it is inside a circle which is inside the brain of the atheists.


The key to explode a circular logic fallacy is to search whether a new thought is produced, if not and only an 'endless' repetition of the same thought, then it is a fallacy of circular thinking.



Now, in the world that is the neighborhood, the atheist repeating an endless circle of causality, he will sooner than later die, and therefore he ceases to exist, and also his repetitious circular thinking - good riddance.
.

MONO




Addendum
Dear atheists here, if you know of an atheist' blog or website that declare in their About page, that they are into rational thinking, etc. etc. etc., please take notice whether they welcome comments at all, and let me know, okay?

.

a reply to: Pachomius
I do not support the idea of "lump summing" everyone in a group in order to attempt to discredit compelling facts. The non belief in Santa Claus and or the Tooth Fairy carries no tame tag and neither should the non belief in God or Gods. But whatever rocks your boat...Anyways,to continue on the topic on hand:

Life is complex, it’s true, but we know molecules can create repeating patterns, and once that happens, trillions of cases of trial-and error can act like an intelligent designer (though one that still makes a lot of mistakes).

But the simple fact remains that intelligent design has not been proven, so there still exists the very real possibility that we are not designed, and that we are nothing more than the product of chance emergence. All we really know is that we exist and the Universe exist. We also know that currently within the universe changes are continuous on a molecular level and on a physical and tangible level. We also know that by observing and studying the Universe, man has made great stride and discoveries to hence our lives and prolong our continued existence.

It may be rare, we really don’t know, but in a Universe filled with trillions of planets, and innumerable molecules, and nothing but time, eventually even the seemingly improbable becomes possible.

a reply to: Pachomius

There's your definition. The antecedent cause that defeats the purpose of causality. Problem solved, thanks God. Really glad you could hack that Gordian knot to save us from figuring it out the hard way. The hard way would be obtaining a concrete sample of supernatural presence or divine essence to study it and maybe deduce a method to track this god creature down and...have a polite conversation. Take a few pictures and maybe a swab. Something practical and substantial that doesn't rely desperately on ontological arguments or epistemology which avoids all of the fives senses we depend on for fact checking.

a reply to: Pachomius

And when a non-atheist dies ?

What's the difference ?

MONO



Please bear with me, Tok, but I have to educate you in regard to NOT taking to fictions.


In a few words, and dear readers, beware of many words which can beguile you to taking a poster seriously, because he coudl be in pure fantastic fictions all inside his brain.



Okay, Tok, you are into the fiction that random chance can bring about and does bring about the brain inside your skull, and endow it with stability, so that your brain works to operate your physiology, notwithstanding that you abuse it to do fictions all inside your brain, while in your neighborhood, every sane and working human with the tag of homo sapiens is looking to make some money to buy food in this pandemic crisis of Covid-19.


No wasteful verbiage now, tell me, Tok, random chance can and does produce the brain inside your skull, and keeps it working even while you sleep soundly?

.

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: Pachomius
I do not support the idea of "lump summing" everyone in a group in order to attempt to discredit compelling facts. The non belief in Santa Claus and or the Tooth Fairy carries no tame tag and neither should the non belief in God or Gods. But whatever rocks your boat...Anyways,to continue on the topic on hand:

Life is complex, it’s true, but we know molecules can create repeating patterns, and once that happens, trillions of cases of trial-and error can act like an intelligent designer (though one that still makes a lot of mistakes).

But the simple fact remains that intelligent design has not been proven, so there still exists the very real possibility that we are not designed, and that we are nothing more than the product of chance emergence. All we really know is that we exist and the Universe exist. We also know that currently within the universe changes are continuous on a molecular level and on a physical and tangible level. We also know that by observing and studying the Universe, man has made great stride and discoveries to hence our lives and prolong our continued existence.

It may be rare, we really don’t know, but in a Universe filled with trillions of planets, and innumerable molecules, and nothing but time, eventually even the seemingly improbable becomes possible.

a reply to: pthena

Oh ! Oh ! Oh !
Is the difference : that you used the word "non" ?

It kinda sounds like : none; and nun; and noone (naughty Fr. sl.); pawn; dawn; decepticon; Ron and Don; gone; spawn; brawn; prawn ; and Goldie Hawn .

But it doesn't seem much to sound like; taste like; look like; feel like; nor smell like some fish, nor perhaps some other stuff too.

Hows Whip Trigen doing these days ?

a reply to: Nothin

Honestly?

Dear Pachomius spends time on other forums.
We feel cheated on somehow.

It's a scandal! Outrage!

It kinda sounds like : none

So we were invited to check out atheist blogs. None was one of the words I ran across.
And now I'm converted to None-ism.
Now I'm thinking of moving out of the Monastery into the Nunnery.

A scandal! An outrage!




The Nunnery won't take me.
I'll just have to start my own None-ery.

a reply to: pthena

Moving into a Nunnery, to get into Nunism ?
Yeah : can see that.
Good call.


But is None-ism : emerging from nothingness ?
Or none ?
Or not ?
Doughnut ?

a reply to: Nothin

But is None-ism : emerging from nothingness ?

It's a failure to affiliate with sectarianism.
The ultimate Ecumenism, from the Greek οἰκουμένη (oikoumene), which means "the whole inhabited world"
So:
It's an acceptance of whole-ism.
I need further research on what whole-ism emerges from.

Could be Doughnut Whole.
---------
One type of None-ism is called Theological noncognitivism sometimes considered synonymous with ignosticism.
ism, ism, hard to see the forest-ism for the tree-isms.



---------
So this guy David Lewis wrote an article in 1990, Noneism or Allism. He explains the differences, then introduces the Some-but-only-someists.

That may be close to a Doughnut Whole.

MONO




Now I know why you derailing guys are into nonsense posting in here my thread, because you were brought up by nuns, these ladies talk a lot over nunsense.


The best lesson you can and must learn from me, is to distinguish between fictions inside your brain, and the reality of babies, roses, and the nose on our face which is at the front of the brain inside our skull:


When you read philosophers in particular the kinds that follow the fashion today of something like 'me too' with women victims of male lasciviuos fingers and engorged glans penis, I refer to philosophers so-called, who now also sport the tag of identifying themselves as atheist.

Notice how they build fictions of such thought as with one of the four horsemen of the new atheists who are now old and dying, talking endlessly about folks with the belief in God are just into believing in their belief, and that thought is just all inside the mind of that shallow academic philosophy mentor by the surname of Dennett.

The man never factored into his shallow fictional philosophy of 'belief in belief' - the five w's and one h, namely: who, what, when, where, why, and how of existence and life in the neighborhood.

.

a reply to: Pachomius

these ladies talk a lot over nunsense.

So you do have a sense of humor.

The best lesson you can and must learn from me, is to distinguish between fictions inside your brain, and the reality of babies, roses, and the nose on our face which is at the front of the brain inside our skull:

Thank you.
I will endeavor to keep that in mind.
I mean out of mind and in the real World of babies, roses, and noses.
Okay, in mind and in the real World of babies, roses, and noses.

Thank you.

a reply to: pthena

Maybe failure just isn't ?

Is acceptance like faith ?

Is Timbits™ : Holistic Wholeness™, of the sacred doughnut-hole ?

What might one call an adept of this whole-ism ?

God is sometimes an explanation of unexplained survival. Or a word to use for human empathy in conversation. Still is and will be an abstract concept for all of time. More naive folks' explanation of God can be parralleled to their parents. It's too weird sometimes with some people. The irony is you have to agree with folks to get them to shut up. That normally is when I believe in God the most.

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: Pachomius
...
Life is complex, it’s true, but we know molecules can create repeating patterns, and once that happens, trillions of cases of trial-and error can act like an intelligent designer (though one that still makes a lot of mistakes). ...

This man addresses the subject of repeating patterns in relation to the DNA code (referring to it as "what you would end up with is not an informationary sequence, instead something that information theorists refer to as redundancy, or simple repetitive order. . . what you would end up with is a kind of repeating messages of . . ., you get a molecular mantra, not a message, not an informationary sequence that could direct protein synthesis." (just before the end)

Dr. Stephen Meyer: Chemistry/RNA World/crystal formation can't explain genetic information

And he's right, it is just common sense after all, unlike your claim and belief/opinion/philosophy that you expressed (the bolded part).

Common Sense—Why So Uncommon?

The patterns in snowflakes for example are not a comparable subject to bring up when the discussion is about the molecular machinery and technology that makes up life (and the code that runs it on auto-pilot giving it abilities such as replication, reproduction, automated error-checking and correction, DNA repair, etc.).

Molecular Machinery of Life
Do not watch the video below beyond 3:35 (you can start at 1:10), but do exactly what he says there by going to the next video, then think about what I and Dr. Stephen Meyer said:


It really is that childish for Lawrence Krauss to bring up snowflakes in a discussion about the molecular machinery and technology that makes up life. That's not even conflating apples and oranges anymore, more like rocks and the international space station. It's outright ridiculous to bring up snowflakes* into the discussion as somehow being evidence for the possibility of a natural chance (spontaneous, accidental) process that could accomplish such a feat of engineering entirely on its own (without interference from an intelligent agent with a corresponding level of technological know-how and advancement). *: you can swap out "snowflakes" with what you said about patterns, cause snowflakes is just one example of what you were hinting at, Lawrence Krauss uses another irrelevant example after 3:35, irrelevant to the discussion about the molecular machinery and technology that makes up life and the belief and unsupported assertion* you attached to what you said about patterns that defies common sense (the assertion in the bolded part that you attached that is, not what you said about patterns that isn't bolded). *: in light of the actual subject under discussion.

A little bonus:

DNA Repair Machinery

Then again, Lawrence Krauss is quite the character:

Psychology: The Art of selling nonsense/contradictions (Prologue: Stephen Hawking's nonsense)
Psychology: The Art of selling nonsense/contradictions part 1
Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something



Common sense, even in fictional storywriting:

a reply to: Pachomius

There is a point often repeated here, about some sort of different view, or vision, of babies-roses-noses : but there is struggling, to understand.

Explain please : what is this different view, or vision, of babies-roses-noses, that is supposedly not seen ?

a reply to: TzarChasm

This is a comment that can only come from a soulless robot but since you are human I wonder, what has life ever offered you to become like this?

a reply to: pthena

What kind of non-atheist are you talking about?

a reply to: Nothin

I thought we were instructed to ask one question at a time.

Maybe failure just isn't ?

Or failure is not.

Is acceptance like faith ?

I don't think so. When I give something to someone and it is accepted, no faith is required, maybe trust. The accepter usually trusts that it won't hurt them. I hope that they don't merely hope that I'm not giving them something harmful.

Is Timbits™ : Holistic Wholeness™, of the sacred doughnut-hole ?

The dough was whole. Then the center was cut out. They were baked/deep fried separately. They are two yet of the one.

Yes.

What might one call an adept of this whole-ism ?

Doughnut eater of holes too.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Any non-atheist.

Is there a difference between the death of an atheist and the death of a non-atheist?