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

Neutron’s mental exertion is a very rewarding study on what is circular reasoning, or more correctly, what is not circular reasoning.

He is always accusing me of circular reasoning, and that is not only with him, but for all his being a worshiper of God of his religion, it is also the accusation of his opponents against me, namely, all God-deniers aka atheists.

But when I ask them, folks like Neutron and all God-deniers, what is circular reasoning and how is my exposition on God from reasoning to be existing - that it is circular reasoning, they are always lost altogether.

Tell you what, folks like Neutron and all God-deniers, you are all always inside your brain in the what I call concept world, where you can maintain all kinds of nonsense thoughts and also nonsense positions, but never taking the care to go forth outside into the object world, to investigate whether your nonsense thoughts have any evidence in the object world that is outside and independent of your brain.

Your brain can go into extinction when you die, as you and I we will die sooner or later - if you doubt that, just pass by any cemetery, and take notice that your ancestors are already extinct from their demise i.e. death.

Okay, dear Neutron and persons worshiping the God from religion, and also your opponents, God-deniers aka atheists, give an example from my posts here of circular reasoning, and point out where is the circle, in your brain or in the object world outside your brain.

Wanted Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.
Pachomius started this topic on Jun 24, 2020 | Pages: 1 2 3 .. 183 3640 23 1 day ago
(060121tue1008h local date and time) by Pachomius

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, that above is quite satisfying to my ego, I can't deny that.

I have changed with my wording on my concept of God, namely, it now reads as follows:
"God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending."

The purpose is to make the concept so readably comprehensible to people with enough mastery of English, as to get admission to an educational institution in a land where English is the mother tongue of the people there.

No, English is not my maternal language, but it is one of three official languages in my country, and only one is the national language.

So, what do you guys say about my concept of God, is it literally understandable or not?

That concept of God is founded upon the following mental premises in my concept world as distinct from my object world: the concept world is in man's mind, and the object world is outside and independent of man's mind.

That is one distinction, scil., concept world and object world, on which my concept of God today is grounded, it the concept is more grounded on the object world than on the concept world - though as a concept it is of course in my mind, but it corresponds to the object world that is outside and independent of my mind.

Next is the distinction between God from reason and God from religion: God from reason is grounded upon honest intelligent productive thinking, and God from religion is grounded upon the human emotions of fear of and hope on God.

My concept of God is based on the God from reason.

All my thinking in my concept world always strives to seek validation on my experience of the object world, and my experience of the object world tells me that:

Existence exists permanently and independently of man's mind, in fact existence is God: and as there is still man around with his mind, we can say that God also exists in man's mind - yet man's mind/brain is a transient entity, and with death man and his mind/brain become extinct, i.e. no longer exist.

God is present permanently and everywhere, that is why the nose on our face does not fall off our face uncertainly.

One hint to all would be honest intelligent productive thinkers, whatever you think up in your mind, see that there is some entity at all outside and independent of your mind: that is evidence endowing you with the reason why you are thinking honestly intelligently and productively.

That principle applies very factually and truthfully and fruitfully for you to discern what is nonsense in your mind and what is sensible.

Investigation is a word that everyone reading the news everyday need not have to figure out what it means.

So, just the same I do care to give in words what I know to be investigation.

As I happen to know how to read Latin and how to translate Latin into English, I notice that the word investigation is of Latin origin.

It is composed of the prepositional prefix in, and the process suffix ion, and the root word between in and ion, vestigium.

Wherefore: here are the corresponding English words of the Latin preposition in, and the Latin root word vestigium, and the Latin suffix word ion, thus:

Latin in = English in, as in the nose
Latin vestgium = English vestige track trace, as with any trace of the fugitive
Latin ion = English as yes - investigation

And here is my definition of the word investigation, taking it from its Latin components:
"Investigation is the process whereby man comes to the origin of something that is in existence."

Now, my own question to myself, What have I found out about the origin of existence by investigation of anything I know to be existing, i.e. in existence?

Take the nose on our face, it is existing, so what is the origin of the nose?

Long story short, the existence of the nose has its origin ultimately in existence.

And where does existence itself come from?

My investigation is that existence has no origin because it is always existing, for when we ask what is the origin of something, we mean where it comes from, or what is it composed of.

The nose - long story short - ultimately comes from existence and it is ultimately composed of existence.

So, from investigation of the nose on its ultimate origin, it comes from existence and is composed of existence.

But how do I know it to be in existence?

Simple, from my conscious experience of the nose, with by touching it, by using it to smell something, like how my breath smells like as I wake up in the morning.

Lesson to learn: we sapients know what is existence by our conscious experience of anything and everything in existence, like for example, the nose on our face.

Now, what is consciousness?

Insofar as man is concerned, man is the only conscious entity that is concerned with what is consciousness, in particular the consciousness of and in man himself.

So, that is one and most important advantage for man to investigate what is consciousness, because we have it with us, so no need to go anywhere but except to each one of us ourselves, to examine ourselves, i.e. investigate ourselves, in order to come to a definition of what is consciousness.

Happy happy man, we are possessed of consciousness and with consciousness we can investigate what is consciousness, it is like say we are cheese and we can investigate what is cheese, without having to go anywhere else to investigate what is cheese, hahahaha.

To be continued.

" . . . no need to go anywhere but except to each one of us ourselves, to examine ourselves, i.e. investigate ourselves, in order to come to a definition of what is consciousness."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right away I will state that upon investigation of myself and my consciousness I come to the finding that consciousness has existence, and it makes up my existence as a human entity.

Without my consciousness I don't exist, but what about if I should transiently lose my consciousness, like for example I am into a most profound dreamless sleep, or I have fainted, or I am in general anesthesia, or in apparent death - in which all such status and similar ones, my senses are not operative but I am biologically or vegetatively alive, do I exist?

No, not as a human being, but at most as a vegetable.

So, what is my definition of consciousness, namely, human consciousness?

Here: Human consciousness is the human status of existence wherein man is aware of his internal environment i.e. his body, as also the external environment that surrounds his body - which external environment is all existence, that means God, as I know God to be the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

a reply to: Pachomius
Is a thought transient?
Is a sound transient?

Isn't absolutely everything that appears 'transient'?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Pachomius
Is a thought transient?
Is a sound transient?

Isn't absolutely everything that appears 'transient'?

Yes, dear Itisnowagain, the thought and the sound are both transient, i.e. they have a beginning and an ending, because they are not God, God Who is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Dear Itisnowagain, I sincerely love to learn from you, so let us talk about anything at all which has to do with existence, as everything we know has to ultimately do with existence.


What do you say about my answer to your question?

Here I am, and I am going to stick my neck out, with saying that God is the theory of everything, and meaning God to be existence itself.

And to put my neck even farther out, I will ask honest intelligent productive thinkers who know science, to tell me what is wrong with God Who is existence itself to be the theory of everything?

But what is a theory?

What is my definition of theory?

In concise words, theory means answer.

And answer implies question.

So a theory of everything signifies man having an answer to every and any question.

What is my answer to every and any question at all?

Here, God Who is existence itself is my answer to every and any question man asks.

And who is God?

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

a reply to: Pachomius

Moste people dont know much about science. At least when it comes to the infinite. Probably because people are being told not to pay attention to something they can't grasp. People are constantly being told not to even try to understand the knowledge about the infintie.
So if you try to explaine God (who is infinite and takes up all space there is) to people they wont even try to grasp the scientific concept of God. People of our age have to be scientifically though what God is. But that is never going to happened. There is not way science can explain God, because science can only observe a limited timeframe. And science is limited to the observation of finites and the speed of light.

If you are into science you know that science also cover our knowledge of the vacuum of space. Vacuum is about how many finites a volume of space occupy. The less finites that are present in the volume of space the purer the vacuum of space is.

When we are talking about the vacuum we are talking about two things. A absolute empty volume of space and finites that are within that volume of space.

But when it comes to many peoples understanding of this,..... This is what they comprihend: If you take away all finites there is no volume of space left. Its like the absolute empty volume of space never existed to them, but the definition of a vacuum is: The amount of finites that occupy a volume of empty space. But suddenly the volume of empty space dosen't exist..... YOU HAVE TO BE A SCIENTIFIC THINKER TO GRASP THIS. You have to break some barriers to garsp it.... Because you ar ebeing told not to think about it.

If you want to bring God into science you have to use the absolutes and not finite. God takes up space there is...... Why...? God always was and always will be. This makes God a absolute. God is the absolute inifinite... God is the absolute void of empty space. God existed before the creation of finite. God is the void of empty space that finite can exist within.

I never say that God is infinite, because the word infinite is invented by humans, and its invention is not according to the big whole picture of reality.

My concept of God is the following for my latest investigation on God, namely:

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

The word/concept infinite is invented by man, in particular men with God from religion, not from reason.

Now, what do I say about scientists?

They don't have the whole big picture of existence, but just the same they keep on and on and on dividing existence into smaller and smaller and smaller pieces, like sub-atomic particles and the laws that govern them, and they keep on and on and on multiplying everything like even universes, so that now they talk about all kinds of universes, like alternative ones and parallel ones, but they take the care to state that we in our universe cannot access them - so what the heck, except that they seem so profound, i.e. nonsensical (also with their division of existence into smaller and smaller and smaller…).

Anyway, my point is that the word infinite is not a valid word/concept, which gets honest intelligent productive thinkers all diverted into nonsense, until they again get hold of honest intelligent and productive thinking with their brain.

More on the invalidity of the concept of infinity, from my writing elsewhere in the internet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

math.stackexchange.com...

Math without infinity
Asked 9 years, 11 months ago Viewed 5k times

Does math require a concept of infinity?

[. . . ]

Please define what is your concept of infinite, and your concept of finite.

Man cannot use infinite without giving it a meaning that is finite.

In the process of mathematical manipulation, you will notice sooner than later, that there sneaks in already the finite, though the mathematician is still using the name and concept of infinite.

For example, the mathematician cannot arrive at the time and distance for a bullet to hit his target of a running say mad dog, without having sneaked in the finite in processing his mathematics, to arrive at the time and distance factors involved in hitting the mad dog.

The infinite is a concept that is purely in the mind of man, there is nothing in the object world of man outside his concept world, that is infinite.

And the concept world in man's mind need not be consistent and coherent among all its components, that is why he can harbor the concept of infinite without suffering infinite migraine.

End of exposition: There is no such reality in existence outside the mind of man that is an infinite, not even God is an infinite.

God is all in all and He is permanent and self-existent, but He is not infinite - no need of God to be infinite, as He is permanent and He is self-existent, and everything else in existence that is not He Himself, it comes from Him, and is therefore transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Here then 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."

answered 18 hours ago (060821tue1440h)


Marius de Jess aka Pachomius

What am I going to do with a God from reason, Who is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, even Who is existence itself?

When He does not care to be the special God of say the Jews who used to be His own people, by a covenant sealed with the rite of circumcision - of course nowadays a lot of Jews are atheists except what are called orthodox Jews.

Perhaps here is where humans who go for the God from religion, in particular folks like Neutron can teach me something.

What's happening, I don't see anyone from the camp of God from religion coming forth to talk with me, to topple my idea of God from reason, that it is all nonsense.

Okay, I will make an honest intelligent and productive confession, I also pray to God, the God of reason, I am only human, I have hope and fear, and still I maintain that with praying to the God from reason I am acting rationally.

At present I pray to God to save me from getting infected with the Covid-19 virus, and on the other hand I would rather prefer the ivermectin treatment than vaccines.

Why? Because ivermectin seems to be the most reasonable, even though establishment medicine does not favor it at all.

Here is the OP of the present thread:

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

[Please everyone, bear with me, I still have to re-learn how to write in ATS forum, as I used to know some over two years ago.]
edit on 24-6-2020 by Pachomius because: Mistake of sending a post that had still nothing on it - and I just pressed my enter key twice to bring up two empty lines.

And what was my concept of God at the start?

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

Pachomius posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 04:35 PM

This is the title of the thread:

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


And the OP is as follows:

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?

Thanks for your replies, but not one of you have a definition of the English word, God.

Here is my definition of God:

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

So, as you all are literate in English, just try to think of a definition of God, the English word.

And we will all work together with honest intelligent productive thinking to attain agreement on the concept of God, so that we can reason to the existence of an entity in the realm of existence, that corresponds to the concept we have reached concurrence on, or that no entity in the realm of existence corresponds to the mutually agreed on concept of God.

Please remember to proffer your definition of God, otherwise readers will not know what your are talking about, although you are literate in English.

Now, after one year, here is my definition 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.

What about all you guys who have contributed posts, do you now have a concept of God, or you are still into eschewing on a concept of God?

Dear readers and fellow posters here, consider these two texts where Bertrand Russell, whom a lot of God-deniers hold to be their inspiration and master to follow (with how to dis-represent the concept of God in order to dishonestly prove to themselves if at all that there is no God).

The first one is the BBC radio 1952 debate between Fr. Copleston S.J. and Bertrand Russell "On the Existence of God," and the second (1952) is by Bertrand Russell on "Is There a God" (thus entitled by Russell himself).

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

www.scandalon.co.uk...
The Copleston–Russell debate was an exchange concerning the existence of God between Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell in a 1948 BBC radio broadcast.
Transcript of the Russell/Copleston radio debate

A DEBATE ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Bertrand Russell [hereafter R:] and F.C. Copleston [hereafter C:]

C: As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term "God." I presume that we mean a supreme personal being -- distinct from the world and creator of the world. Would you agree -- provisionally at least -- to accept this statement as the meaning of the term "God"?
R: Yes, I accept this definition.

Do all you notice that in 1948 in their BBC radio debate on the existence of God, Copleston right away proposed to Russell on the concept of God, namely, "I presume that [by God] we mean a supreme personal being -- distinct from the world and creator of the world," which Russell accepted - yes, of course, provisionally.

But in 1952 Russell chose to not define the concept of God, but goes into comparing God to an orbiting teapot in space, that is one dishonest purposefully un-intelligent and purposefully un-productive strawman approach to talk about Is There a God?

Now, here come the God-deniers telling mankind that Russell's idea is to convince mankind that whoever makes a claim bears the burden of proof, and also that when a concept is ridiculous then it can be dismissed off-hand.

Okay, dear God-deniers, are you altogether so illiterate as to not know that God is not any ridiculous concept except on your dishonest dis-information?

And no need to talk about burden of proof on the person making a claim, the fact and the truth is that the burden of proof is binding on any person making a claim, be it positive or negative.

That is why my thread here on: "Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not." I started with the concept of God as follows, "God is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."

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

In their essence they are the same when you study them carefully.

It's just a matter of using what to me are more concrete words.

So, what is the beef from the part of God-deniers against my idea that - the most extreme idea that is anathema with the God from religion folks like one Neutron, that existence is God and God is existence, that is why my concept of God today is as follows:
"God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending."

What is the beef from the part of God-deniers?

From my many years of attempts to get God-deniers, the greatest majority of which are atheists who are for the most part disgruntled ex-Christians of the Western world, they seek sanctuary with insisting that they don't know.

So, what do I say about them with their no know attitude?

They are cultists of know-nothing-ism.

Is existence the proverbial soup, erh, I mean the primordial soup of much attachment by Godless evolutionists, from which life came forth, owing to their concept of random mutation and natural selection?

What about this statement from the deep physicists adepts of black holes: information is irretrievably lost forever in a black hole?

Hey, you mean that there is information like what? Like Paris is the capital city of France, or Biden is the present president of the US?

And such information will get irretrievably lost when they get sucked into a black hole?


Please define what is information and what is black hole in reference to what is existence.

I tell you guys, existence is anything at all that is the object of man's conscious experience, and what he sees to be implicit in that conscious experience that is in turn though not subject to his conscious experience, but embedded in his verbalization of his conscious experience of say, like babies and roses in his neighborhood.

And then man comes to the concept ultimately of God, as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Now, what is a black hole? It is a region in space by which anything in existence become extinct if and when it should get sucked in, when God in His scientific knowledge and liberty chooses to stop its further continuation in existence.

What about the proverbial, erh, I mean the primordial soup from which life arises? That is what God regurgitates if and when He misses some soup He enjoyed and wanted to taste it again.

I tell you guys, existence is anything at all that is the object of man's conscious experience, and what he sees to be implicit in that conscious experience that is in turn though not subject to his conscious experience, but embedded in his verbalization of his conscious experience of say, like babies and roses in his neighborhood.

Allow me to parse the above text:

I tell you guys, existence is anything at all that is:
(1) the object of man's conscious experience, and
(2) what he sees to be implicit in that conscious experience that is in turn:

(a) though not subject to his conscious experience,
(b) but embedded in his verbalization of his conscious experience of say,
like babies and roses in his neighborhood.

You say, dear Pachomius, that God is existence and existence is God.

On that basis you can also say that Pachomius is existence and existence is Pachomius.

Therefore: God is Pachomius and Pachomiuse is God, because they are both existence?

Hahahaha!

Here are the three works where Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) dealt with the existence of God:


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...


We will seek to find out whether Russell has a concept of God at all.

I have gone through all three of them and the only place that a concept of God is mentioned, and that not by Russell, is in the BBC debate on the existence of God, with Fr. Copleston S.J., and it was proposed by the Catholic priest Copleston, namely:

A DEBATE ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Bertrand Russell [hereafter R:] and F.C. Copleston [hereafter C:]

C: As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term "God." I presume that [by God ] we mean a supreme personal being -- distinct from the world and creator of the world. Would you agree -- provisionally at least -- to accept this statement as the meaning of the term "God"?

R: Yes, I accept this definition.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Posted by Pachomius on Jun, 13 2021 @ 01:08 PM

Now, my purpose in the present post is to seek if there is any concept of God from Russell in his earliest work of the three, namely:

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


To be continued tomorrow.