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

a reply to: Pachomius

I have noticed you very consistently failed to address any of the notes I shared, almost like you don't really have anything to say beyond the endless loop of broken logic we have seen so far.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: TzarChasm

What is God beyond the hypothesis? Beyond the interpretation of humans? Don 't think He's impossible to exist there. Gods existence is not dependent on human reasoning or the ability of humans to define.

Actually, yes it is. The existence of god is absolutely dependent on human logic and rhetoric, the definition of an ontological argument. That's literally what's happening here in case you didn't notice.

NOMO



Dear Tok, you can talk forever, but you have no sense of intellectual sincerity and courage to take on my challenge to you, namely, interact with me on my post as reproduced below as follows - but I will already tell you, please go away and do your attempts at derail elsewhere.

Pachomius

posted on Aug, 13 2020 @ 05:15 AM

MONO



NOMO = that means the thread is about proving on evidence the existence of God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, and God is that one of peoples who are adherents of any one of the three monotheistic faiths of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

Please be guided accordingly, everyone who cares to prove or disprove the existence of God.


So today I have decided to just explain in brief words what my 12 steps to the proof on evidence for God's existence is all about, by giving comments on each step.

And I invite posters who care to interact with me, to simply choose only one step per post to talk with me on that one step, but also of course get himself connected to the MONO statement above.

Otherwise I will very seriously suspect you are into off-topic posting in this my thread.

You will see the 12 steps in Annex below, now I will start with comments on each step.

________________________




"1. You and I and he she it, we all exist, do you accept that?"

Comments
When you dear posters care to interact with me on No. 1, you should have a concept of what is existence, and here is my concept of existence, existence in concept is as follows:
"Existence is the default status of reality."


"2. You and I and he she it, we came from our parents, do you accept that?"

Comments
To interact with me on No. 2, you must have a concept of cause and effect or causation or causality, and here is my concept of cause and effect, namely: in the realm of existence there is the recurring event of an entity or a group of entities like for example, a man and wife i.e. parents, who bring about the existence of other entities, for example children, so that the formers are called cause and the latters are called effect.


"3. Our parents came from their parents, do you accept that?"

Comments
To interact with me on No. 3, you must have a concept of the fallacy of infinite regress of cause and effect, and here is my concept of the fallacy of infinite regress of cause and effect, namely: the backward asking of the same question, for example, when a person is told that Bot-1 caused the existence of Bot-2, he then asks the same question, what Bot caused Bot-2, and when he is told Bo-3, he then again asks the same question, what Bot caused Bot-3, when told B-4, he then asks the same question, what Bot caused Bot-4, and on and on and on and on... backward.


"4. We all humans make up the human race, can you accept that?"

Comments
This step is intended by me to keep posters focused on the fact that we are here in my thread concerned with humans, and not some imaginary entities talking about the existence of God.


"5. The human race had a beginning in the universe, can you accept that?"

Comments
To interact with me on No. 5, the poster must know what is the concept of beginning, and here is my concept of beginning, it is a point in the event of causation at which point the effect starts existing, antecedent to that point, the effect was not existing.


"6. Scientists tell us the universe had a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, can you accept that?"

Comments
This No. 6 is intended by me to realize whether the poster is informed about the beginning of the universe from science; if he is not informed, then I will tell him to get informed, or go away.


"7. There has been the domain of existence prior to the beginning of the universe, can you accept that?"

Comments
This point is intended by me to educate posters if need be: that the 'concept' of nothing-ness cannot be the cause of something at all, unless the posters are irrational entities.


"8. In that domain of existence prior to the beginning of the universe, there has got to be an entity, which created or caused the coming to the beginning of the existence of the universe, can you accept that?"

Comments
This step is intended by me to test posters whether they can and do use their brain to engage in honest intelligent productive thinking.


"9. Evidence is anything existing which leads man to ascertain the existence of another thing, can you accept?"

Comments
This step is intended by me to teach posters on what is the correct concept of evidence.


"10. Wherefore, man and the universe and everything with a beginning are the evidence to the existence of an entity, which created or caused them to come to existence, can you accept that?"

Comments
This step is intended by me to educate posters on how to do honest intelligent productive thinking.


"11. And therefore we can call that entity in concept and in name, as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, can you accept that?"

Comments
This step is intended by me to teach posters how to do honest intelligent productive thinking.


"12. If you cannot or will not accept that God exists, are you not then either irrational or dishonestly stubborn against the existence of God?"

Comments
This step is intended by me to dismiss posters who are irrational or dishonestly stubborn against the existence of God.

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: Pachomius
The point is, any unbiased person who looks at the evidence rationally can easily see that God is imaginary. Critical thinking and the scientific method are our best methods for determining reality. God(s) is a myth and exists only in the minds of believers.
So how do we prove that God, or any other god humans have imagined over the millennia, is imaginary? We list the attributes and positive claims made for God, and then we use logic, science and critical thinking to prove that they are all false.
But if it is faith that we being presented with to prove the existence, then the same faith can be used to prove the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

.

a reply to: pthena

I think the problem is that we quite often need to exploit the things that interest us, which in the case of everything related to spiritual-ish, occult-ish endeavours is actually exclamatorily "forbidden".
Because the case could be made that the only difference between "being posessed" and "being inspired" is the personality of the experiencer.
So you'd need a buttload of pre-experience and rules to put the person seeking on an altruistic path, away from everything that centers around the ego, personal gain in any way... And honestly who'd be left, right?

I really like what I heard a kabbalah guy say: be how you want God to be.
We want God to be as big as the universe. Even bigger maybe.
We want God to be the source of all consciousness.
We want God to send us a saviour.

But there's no reason to believe that is true. God might be a meme/tulpa operating in the transcendent meta-verse of our über-consciousness, a mirror of sorts to our projected hopes and fears.
And if you look at it that way... with all the religious folks all wet with excitement that those filthy atheists and just about everybody who doesn't surrender to their ideal image of conformity, ... are creating a bit of a problem for all mankind.
I mean if we have to assume God is not omnipotent and limited in how he can work through us, those worshippers should right now do everything they can to purify themselves of all evil, all ego, focus on rainbows, butterflies and sunshine, so God might have a chance of finding one person as vessel that isn't "corrupted".

If you want to pray you have to be clean. No meat, no sex, no "pleasures", want nothing and shut up. I don't think there's a single person that could do that.
At least a thought like "I want to meet God" or "I want to save the world" will creep in or why would you do it?

*rambling over

I thought about this a lot. I think it's unsolvable.

Dear readers and posters here, I will opt to not reply to you, unless you first produce whatever you have for grounds to deny God's existence, produce a step by step exposition of your proof if any at all, and do it even with just four (4) steps.


Now, if you claim that you have done that already, then just reproduce your previous post of concern, as I am doing all the time.


I have been dealing with atheists for many many many... years, and my observation confirmed time and again is that they have nothing of any genuine argument - but all essentially only evasions.


.

NOMO



I have time and again invited any atheist to discuss with me on the issue God exists or not, person to person, for as long as he cares to, but there has been no atheist that will accept my invitation.

This brings to mind the accusation of cowardice by Dawkins own Oxford don, that Dawkins was courting the charge of cowardice for refusing to debate in public with Craig.


Google, Dawkins a coward says fellow Oxford don.

(Hits = About 564,000 results (0.55 seconds) - try it!)

.

originally posted by: Pachomius
Dear readers and posters here, I will opt to not reply to you, unless you first produce whatever you have for grounds to deny God's existence, produce a step by step exposition of your proof if any at all, and do it even with just four (4) steps.


Now, if you claim that you have done that already, then just reproduce your previous post of concern, as I am doing all the time.


I have been dealing with atheists for many many many... years, and my observation confirmed time and again is that they have nothing of any genuine argument - but all essentially only evasions.


.

You're a funny one to talk about evading. Your only proof is "the universe had to start somewhere, so obviously this guy did it" but you can't explain how it was done or where he's at now.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh. The individual is here for an honest debate. Well. As long as you accept only the individual’s view. And the concept of theory with no actual evidence as evidence.

a reply to: Peeple

You are wise.

I really like what I heard a kabbalah guy say: be how you want God to be.
...
I mean if we have to assume God is not omnipotent and limited in how he can work through us, those worshippers should right now do everything they can to purify themselves of all evil, all ego, focus on rainbows, butterflies and sunshine, so God might have a chance of finding one person as vessel that isn't "corrupted".

It's like the Kantian Imperative.

It was explained to me one time as "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." - wikipedia Categorical Imperative.

Since I already have this other wikipedia page open:

en.wikipedia.org...

Existence is a single, objective and simple reality, and there is no difference between its parts, unless in terms of perfection and imperfection, strength, and weakness... And the culmination of its perfection, where there is nothing more perfect, is its independence from any other thing. Nothing more perfect should be conceivable, as every imperfect thing belongs to another thing and needs this other to become perfect. And, as it has already been explicated, perfection is prior to imperfection, actuality to potency, and existence to non-existence. Also, it has been explained that the perfection of a thing is the thing itself, and not a thing in addition to it. Thus, either existence is independent of others or it is in need of others. The former is the Necessary, which is pure existence. Nothing is more perfect than Him. And in Him there is no room for non-existence or imperfection. The latter is other than Him, and is regarded as His acts and effects, and for other than Him there is no subsistence, unless through Him. For there is no imperfection in the reality of existence, and imperfection is added to existence only because of the quality of being caused, as it is impossible for an effect to be identical with its cause in terms of existence.

The wikipedia points out that Mulla Sadra avoided the trap of monism.

Each part of reality is separate, perfect in itself; while at the same time completely dependent upon the whole for existence. Therefore perfect and imperfect.

On the moral sphere we must treat others, animate, inanimate, humans as perfect separate individuals while at the same time knowing the interdependence we have with one another.

I thought about this a lot. I think it's unsolvable.

Unsolvable in the whole, yet resolvable personally.

a reply to: neutronflux

It's not even a theory. We could just as easily say the universe exploded from the butt of a black hole because we have solid reliable evidence of their existence and how they behave. Pachomius brought us a riddle pretending to be a physics lesson.

a reply to: Pachomius

I have been dealing with atheists for many many many... years, and my observation confirmed time and again is that they have nothing of any genuine argument - but all essentially only evasions.

Atheists don't have to prove anything which they do not believe to be real.

We exist in the same reality. Learn to live with it.

a reply to: pthena

Hello lamp post, watcha knowin'.
I come to watch your flowers growin'.
Ain't you got no rhymes for me?



Stupid lamp post.

(Tommy Smothers)

a reply to: Phage

Stupid lamp post.

I'm just not seeing things from a proper animist viewpoint lately;

Ever since I lost stick.
I think sometimes that
Stick escaped his handler.

a reply to: pthena

Paul Simon wrote the song. And a nice happy song it is.

Tommy Smothers told it like it is. I can't find a clip, unfortunately.

a reply to: pthena

Perfection, aye? I don't know but I think that'd get us back to the chicken/egg dilemma, is perfection possible in imperfect conditions?
I'd say no.

Maybe eventually when our universe and we have evolved a few steps towards equilibrium it will become possible, in our half-flesh/half-spirit existence I can't survive without destruction.
How can there be perfection?

a reply to: Peeple

If you think that you as an individual must survive,
then try challenging that premise first.

The only spirit I know of is air, actual real air
without which there is no carbon based life (I think).

------------------
The first time I killed a toad

It had been partially run over by the tire of a car. There was no apparent way to make it fixed enough to continue living.

As I held the stone in my hand, hesitating, my sister said, "It will be okay. It will go to heaven."

So eyes closed ...

Now, a long time later, I ask, "What the hell is heaven ?"

a reply to: Peeple

Perfection is an attitude, not a quality. Perfect starts with the beholder.

a reply to: pthena

Okay. Perfection is when everybody has starved to death?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Perfection is a goal. No more than that.

Ever read Mount Analogue? I did quite a number of years ago. A recent thread reminded me of it.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I had actually a long bit written about the fundamental interconnectedness of all things and relativity of the potential as default status instead of existence.
But I deleted it because it felt off topic.
It's all a matter of perspective.

But I don't think perfection is just an attitude, it's harmony.