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

a reply to: Pachomius

You

So, let us all work as to concur on things needed to resolve the issue God exists or not.

Already repeatedly done by other people in the real world that were smarter than you. People who actually value other people’s experiences over the traps of their own mind and circular logic.

Asked you a question.

So. What faith that you mislabel as religion have you proven to be false?

a reply to: Pachomius

You

My concept of God has to do with what I call God from reason, now others here want to talk about their God from religion: well, that is all right with me, except that your God from religion is not worth any attention from mankind unless He has achieved everything that scientists are studying and even more, like continuing the existence of dead people who are supposed to have souls as per the common teaching of people with their God from religion.

Not going to let you crap all over my own personal experiences. And let you dismiss other people’s experiences by you labeling them “religion” when your faith is solely your own creation.

Is God reflected in mathematics?

There are many ways to derive the number 4.

2 + 2 = 4

1 + 3 = 4

5 - 1 = 4

2 * 2 = 4

So, God being reflect in mathematics. Why are you so intend on hammering people falsely your way is the only way to derive God?

At least I can show my work of investigation.

You have a brain spasm and declare god.

Me..

More like for me personally. I have felt God’s presence from hiking mountains all by myself, to working wheel chair ramp building and home rehabilitation mission trips, and in pray. A faith of spirituality that dovetails with the Bible while trying to be the hands and feet of God. Being part of the body of God.

Producing something tangible.

Now. What impact has Pachomius god made on lives?

How is my experiences less valuable than yours. And my God any less of a God then the little g god you craft in your own mind after your own image and falsely label “investigation”.

Still not an answer to “ So. What faith that you mislabel as religion have you proven to be false? ”

NB My writing here is reminiscent of my writing elsewhere in the internet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear readers and posters here, take notice that the God-deniers here are into evading from the issue God exists or not.

In regard to Latin, I read Latin and can translate Latin texts to English.

So, let you and me, dear readers and posters here who are not God-deniers, again continue to take to my task of seeking concurrence with God-deniers in the resolution of the issue God exists or not.

Okay, dear God-deniers, do you concur with me that my definition or concept of God is the following:
"God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (21 words)

You see, dear readers and posters here, if God-deniers do not concur with me that the above is my concept of God, then they are not into the issue of God exists or not, but into something else - which we will with bated breath await to read about.


Exhibit 1

Re: God, from concept to existence, an experiment in critical...
Post by yrreg » Tue May 18, 2021 7:29 am

I can prove God exist. -Yrreg
I can prove God does not exist. -Poodle

=====================================


Okay, dear readers and posters here, we two must first start with working together to concur on definitions of God, evidence, and also an exposition on how evidence can prove God exists or does not exist.

Here, I will start first:

My concept of God:
"God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (21 words)

My concept of evidence:
"Evidence is anything in existence leading man to know another thing in existence, owing to their connection, for example, the nose is evidence to lungs." (25 words)

And here is my exposition on evidence that God exists:
"We are transient beings, i.e. we have a beginning and an ending, therefore that is the evidence for God's existence in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (42 words)

Exhibit 2

Re: God, from concept to existence, an experiment in critical...
Post by yrreg » Mon May 17, 2021 6:39 pm

Start proving God does not exist, or just admit that you cannot, then go away.

In case you need some coaching, google: how to prove God does not exist, and produce what you learn here in less than 50 words.

Here are my definitions of God and evidence and my exposition of proof from evidence that God exists.

::


My concept of God:
"God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (21 words)

My concept of evidence:
"Evidence is anything in existence leading man to know another thing in existence, owing to their connection, for example, the nose is evidence to lungs." (25 words)

And here is my exposition on evidence that God exists:
"We are transient beings, i.e. we have a beginning and an ending, therefore that is the evidence for God's existence in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (42 words)

::

Dear Poodle, first determine what God you can prove to not exist.

a reply to: Pachomius

You keep insultingly dismissing other person’s experiences you don’t like as “religion” to pay tribute to your own vanity.

Answer the question.

So. What faith that you mislabel as religion have you proven to be false?

a reply to: Pachomius

In fact. Where does your circular logic exclude that hundred of “gods” have always existed? If it’s possible for one intelligent being, why not many.

Or why does it have to be intelligent? Maybe the universe is the slime trail of an ever existing slug?

a reply to: Pachomius

Let’s use your words and replace god with space slug?


My concept of God:
"A space slug is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (21 words)

My concept of evidence:
"Evidence is anything in existence leading man to know another thing in existence, owing to their connection, for example, the nose is evidence to lungs." (25 words)

And here is my exposition on evidence that space slugs exists:
"We are transient beings, i.e. we have a beginning and an ending, therefore that is the evidence for Space slugs existence in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (42 words)

————-

Space slugs works quiet nicely in your word salad.

a reply to: Pachomius

And don’t you find it odd that moral man with a consciousness is made of unconscious atoms? Atoms that are essentially immortal as long as they don’t undergo a nuclear reaction.

Atoms that might have always existed?

Each atom by your definition is a god? And responsible for man?

Each atom by your definition is a god? And responsible for man? -Neutron

I never say that.


Now I just realized that there is no need to get fellow humans to concur together on that there exists God - Who is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Because for myself I am certain that God exists, as defined above, and He is not just in my mind, but in the object world outside and independent of my mind, and still I can say He is as He is everywhere and present all the time, then it is also correct to say that He is in my mind - of course Neutron will again twist my words in order to ask me whether I am of the conviction that my mind is also God.

No, my mind is not God, but it is made by God, and it can and will cease to exist when He stops i.e. extinguish me.

Addendum


Yes, I know that some guys here really hate my guts.

And yes, I still enjoy talking about my expedition and investigation of God, by examining existence.

a reply to: Pachomius

Let’s use your own words and replace god with atoms...

My concept of God:
"Atoms are the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (21 words)

My concept of evidence:
"Evidence is anything in existence leading man to know another thing in existence, owing to their connection, for example, the nose is evidence to lungs." (25 words)

And here is my exposition on evidence that atims exists:
"We are transient beings, i.e. we have a beginning and an ending, therefore that is the evidence for Atoms existence in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (42 words)

————-

Atoms also works quiet nicely in your word salad.

Are you saying atoms are not the reason for man’s existence? And are you saying there hasn’t always been atoms, and there will not always be atoms?

originally posted by: Pachomius
Addendum


Yes, I know that some guys here really hate my guts.

And yes, I still enjoy talking about my expedition and investigation of God, by examining existence.

Then answer the question

What faith that you mislabel as religion have you proven to be false?

My writing here is reminiscent of my writing elsewhere in the internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Preliminaries

Okay, dear readers and posters here, we must first start with working together to concur on definitions of God, evidence, and also an exposition on how evidence can prove God exists or does not exist.

Here, I will start first.

My concept of God:
"God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (21 words)

My concept of evidence:
"Evidence is anything in existence leading man to know another thing in existence, owing to their connection, for example, the nose is evidence to lungs." (25 words)

And here is my exposition on evidence that God exists:
"We are transient beings, i.e. we have a beginning and an ending, and therefore that is the evidence for God's existence in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (42 words)

My investigation of existence leads me to the following irrefutable statements:
1. Existence is ultimately composed of permanent uncaused existence and transient existence.
2. Transient existence is caused to come into reality by permanent uncaused existence.
3. In the object world outside and independent of the concept world in man’s mind, my investigation of existence yields irrefutable evidence to the existence of God, the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

a reply to: Pachomius

In the object world outside and independent of the concept world in man’s mind, my investigation of existence yields irrefutable evidence to the existence of God, the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

I thought you posted god didn’t create evil and good?

So god didn’t create everything?

Irrefutable poof? The Big Bang created the universe and everything derived from the Big Bang. No god necessary.

How would you convince a secular person otherwise.

My writing here is reminiscent of my writing elsewhere in the internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I just drop in to tell atheists or God-deniers that their use of Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy is a case of Russell's deficiency in honest intelligent thinking, as the man was also not honest in his sex morality.

In unpublished manuscript, 'Is There a God', (5 Mar 1952) written for the magazine, Illustrated. Collected in Bertrand Russell, John G. Slater (ed.) and Peter Köllner (ed.) The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell: Volume II: Last Philosophical Testament: 1943-68 (1997), 547-548.

Vide, personal.kent.edu...
Full text of the unpublished article.

::


Is There a God?
by Bertrand Russell
(commissioned by, but never published in, Illustrated Magazine, in 1952)


[ . . . ]


Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

[ . . . ]

Practically all the beliefs of savages are absurd. In early civilizations there may be as much as one percent for which there is something to be said. In our own day.... But at this point I must be careful. We all know that there are absurd beliefs in Soviet Russia. If we are Protestants, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Catholics. If we are Catholics, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Protestants.

::

In unpublished manuscript, 'Is There a God', (5 Mar 1952) written for the magazine, Illustrated. Collected in Bertrand Russell, John G. Slater (ed.) and Peter Köllner (ed.) The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell: Volume II: Last Philosophical Testament: 1943-68 (1997), 547-548.

Vide, personal.kent.edu...
Full text of the unpublished article.

Atheists or God-deniers wax ecstatic insisting that Russell was not dishonest, but was just informing folks that with absurd ideas the burden of proof is on their claimants, not on parties denying them.

This is what I keep on and on and on asking atheists and God-deniers, when are you ever going to tell us why the idea of God is absurd?

Here is my concept of God:
"God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending."

Of course you can deny the existence of teapot in space or flying spaghetti monster, etc.

My writing here is reminiscent of my writing elsewhere in the internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I read these three texts where Bertrand Russell talks about no God exists:

Why I Am Not a Christian (1927)
By Bertrand Russell
users.drew.edu...

Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell:
The Famous 1948 BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God
www.biblicalcatholic.com...

Is There a God?
by Bertrand Russell
(commissioned by, but never published in, Illustrated Magazine, in 1952)
personal.kent.edu...

Do you remember, guys here, that I keep expounding on the distinction between the object world and the concept world?


My impression with Russell's thinking on no God exists, is that he is all the time inside the concept world of his brain/mind, never coming out into the object world that is outside and independent of his brain/mind.

Thus all he does is to engage in all manners and kinds of semantic trickery, never ever setting forth his concept of God, except to talk about teapot in space, from which his fans today take up with flying spaghetti monster, etc.

From my part, I have the concept of God in my mind, and I go forth into the world outside my mind to investigate existence and God, in the object world that is outside and independent of my mind, investigate, and mind you, that is what I do, instead of manipulating concepts and words as Russell does, and fool simple folks with the message that there is no God because God is like the teapot in space.

And that is what atheists and God-deniers do all the time, in essence evading the issue God exists or not, by semantic trickery of all manners and kinds inside their brain/mind.

But they eschew altogether from getting out into the object world outside and independent of their brain/mind, to investigate the evidence of God's presence in the object world, starting with investigating existence itself.

Exhibit

Re: God, from concept to existence, an experiment in critical...
Post by yrreg » Mon May 17, 2021 6:39 pm

[ . . . ]

Here are my definitions of God and evidence and my exposition of proof from evidence that God exists.


My concept of God:
"God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (21 words)

My concept of evidence:
"Evidence is anything in existence leading man to know another thing in existence, owing to their connection, for example, the nose is evidence to lungs." (25 words)

And here is my exposition on evidence that God exists:
"We are transient beings, i.e. we have a beginning and an ending, therefore that is the evidence for God's existence in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (42 words)

[ . . . ]

My writing here is reminiscent of my writing elsewhere in the internet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title of post: God human genitals and the man Bertrand Russell

From having read the three texts of Bertrand Russell and researched on his life, I have come to the conclusion that Bertrand Russell started writing against God, of course he first thought about God and that God does not exist, when he discovered that he preferred making love to studying God.

So, originally Russell had to deny God’s existence because his genitals he discovered had got to be free, for him to employ them on as many women as he wanted or they cared that he used them on them, them women.

In this way, he showed to the Victorian society in which he was a well-known member, that there is nothing wrong with his employment of his genitals with as many women as cared to accept his genitals to make love with him.

::

Since when I started to study i.e. investigate atheists, I had come to the conclusion that atheists should be examined in regard to how they use their genitals, in particular that they atheists are ambitious to enjoy what Russell succeeded to do with his genitals, namely, to use them on as many women as he and they cared to accept his genitals to make love with their the women’s genitals.

::

Calling a spade a spade.

originally posted by: Pachomius
...
Now I just realized that there is no need to get fellow humans to concur together on that there exists God - Who is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Because for myself I am certain that God exists, as defined above, and He is not just in my mind, but in the object world outside and independent of my mind, and still I can say He is as He is everywhere and present all the time, then it is also correct to say that He is in my mind - of course Neutron will again twist my words in order to ask me whether I am of the conviction that my mind is also God.

No, my mind is not God, but it is made by God, and it can and will cease to exist when He stops i.e. extinguish me.

Would you like to know God on a more personal level? Perhaps even become his friend?

I know, it's not really what this thread is about, but seeing that you are so convinced that God exists, I thought you might be interested in the following:

LESSON 1: God Invites You to Become His Friend (You Can Be God’s Friend!)
LESSON 2: God Is the Best Friend You Could Ever Have
LESSON 3: You Need to Learn About God

To be God’s friend, you need to learn about him. Do your friends know your name and use it? They do. God wants you to know and use his name too. God’s name is Jehovah. (Psalm 83:18; Matthew 6:9) You must also learn what he likes and dislikes. You need to know who his friends are and who his enemies are. It takes time to get to know someone. The Bible says that it is wise to set aside time to learn about Jehovah.​—Ephesians 5:15, 16.

God’s friends do what is pleasing to him. Think about your friends. If you treat them badly and do the things that they hate, will they continue to be your friends? Of course not! In the same way, if you want to be God’s friend, you need to do what is pleasing to him.​—John 4:24.

Not all religions lead to friendship with God. Jesus, who is God’s closest friend, spoke of two roads. One road is wide and is filled with people. That road leads to destruction. The other road is narrow and has few people traveling on it. That road leads to everlasting life. This means that if you want to have God’s friendship, you must learn the correct way to worship him.​—Matthew 7:13, 14.

LESSON 4: How You Can Learn About God

Just will share 3 personal experiences (one is a miracle.) Not in order
1. On a day in Sept back in 2001 I thought wait a minute I thought the world was gonna end with y2k, my mind yells turn on the TV.
2. Before the last election last spring I was in front of a statue of Jesus (at a RC church near my house) asking who is going to win the election? Joe Biden forced his way into my head (I did not vote for either) I tried hard to put Jo J into my mind but alas it was not to be.
3. (the "miracle") Almost 2 years ago I was sitting upstairs at my cpu typing away and all of a sudden I hear a crash from in front of my house. I go outside see some drunk b had gone into my ditch after running into my driveway catching air and shearing off the pole from the power line. The remainder of the pole went down right next to where it seared off and stood there. There was a car parked in directly in front of the pole another to the side of it next a truck, and the flying car which ended up on the other side of the driveway next to the pole it had just hit.

There are many more tales of miracles throughout my life but this was the most recent biggie.

My writing here is reminiscent of my writing elsewhere in the internet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear readers and posters here, please consider that my last paragraph in my post reproduced below, let you read it more diplomatically correct as follows:

"Since when I started to study i.e. investigate the phenomenon of the decline of God's acceptance in society today, I had come to the conclusion that modern humans emulate the example of Bertrand Russell, namely, making love freely is preferable to the traditional restrictive sex morality of love making for only married couples."

originally posted by: Pachomius
My writing here is reminiscent of my writing elsewhere in the internet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title of post: God human genitals and the man Bertrand Russell

From having read the three texts of Bertrand Russell and researched on his life, I have come to the conclusion that Bertrand Russell started writing against God, of course he first thought about God and that God does not exist, when he discovered that he preferred making love to studying God.

So, originally Russell had to deny God’s existence because his genitals he discovered had got to be free, for him to employ them on as many women as he wanted or they cared that he used them on them, them women.

In this way, he showed to the Victorian society in which he was a well-known member, that there is nothing wrong with his employment of his genitals with as many women as cared to accept his genitals to make love with him.

::

Since when I started to study i.e. investigate atheists, I had come to the conclusion that atheists should be examined in regard to how they use their genitals, in particular that they atheists are ambitious to enjoy what Russell succeeded to do with his genitals, namely, to use them on as many women as he and they cared to accept his genitals to make love with their the women’s genitals.

::

Calling a spade a spade.

What’s happening now with the readers and posters of ATS forum, have they lost their tongue?

This site is the most hospitable to my ideas, thanks!

So, here is what I have to say this morning.

God from reason is not the God from religion.

God from religion is all about getting favors from God and avoiding hell.

God from reason is all about man investigating the ultimate entity called God that is the cause of man and the universe and everything transient.

There is that word from me again, transient, it is the opposite of permanent, an example of a being that is transient is you and me, all humans, we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death.

And what about the word permanent?

It means that an entity is all the time present in existence, it has existence for its essence and substance and nature, for example with my concept of God, as follows:
"God is the permanent and self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.”

This God from reason is present all the time and everywhere.

That explains why everywhere man is around he does not experience at all any falling of his nose from his face uncertainly.

Hey, Neutron, what do you say?

Hahahaha.

Neutron, come over and report here how much you have earned from your God for your good deeds, and how far you are now away away away from hell.