Your god does not support your proof. Only god can prove his own existence.

Evidence is like an apostrophe—a stand in for something that’s not there. Like in the contraction “isn’t.” the apostrophe stands in for the o that’s not there. If the o were there, “is not.” We wouldn’t need the apostrophe.

By the same token, if god existed in any meaningful way, you wouldn’t need to come up with proofs and arguments.

(October 24, 2016 at 7:58 pm)comet Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 7:32 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: A "born" (procreated) universe is more fundamental than an "intelligently designed" universe. There is no arbitrary mental creation/decree in biological reproduction.  The thing reproduces it's own nature and that's it.

I only do observations that support a belief,  not what I want it to be belief. It may have been born.  If a person needs it to be dumb, or smart, they might want to ask why that is.  

We are smart, well sort of, and we have nothing the universe doesn't have more of.  That's is more rational than saying we have something more than the universe has.

Ask, "why was it born?"

Does the universe have introspection?

Suppose dear colleagues here, we or at least one of you, we two will talk on something until we get to concur that it exists or it does not exist.

Otherwise, we just get on and on with new things coming up with every other post written and submitted and published, without ever getting treated systematically and completely as to come to concurrence that yes, it exists, or no it does not exist.

So, if I may, what about causation or circular reasoning, but please don't bring in the Bible, I already said that I am here to stick to thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, and not into bringing in revelation or enlightenment, because they are not founded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, but on the what we might call gut feeling.

Forgive me, but I notice that there are a lot of what I see to be categorical statements, but no explanation how they are founded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas to be truthful, or factual, or founded upon logic, or supported by ideas in the history of human thinking.

---

That is a very good theme to work on, namely, that the universe is all there is, period.

First of course we have to ask scientists what they mean by universe, is it all that is existence?

(October 24, 2016 at 8:10 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Suppose dear colleagues here, we or at least one of you, we two will talk on something until we get to concur that it exists or it does not exist.

Otherwise, we just get on and on with new things coming up with every other post written and submitted and published, without ever getting treated systematically and completely as to come to concurrence that yes, it exists, or no it does not exist.

So, if I may, what about causation or circular reasoning, but please don't bring in the Bible, I already said that I am here to stick to thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, and not into bringing in revelation or enlightenment, because they are not founded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, but on the what we might call gut feeling.

Forgive me, but I notice that there are a lot of what I see to be categorical statements, but no explanation how they are founded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas to be truthful, or factual, or founded upon logic, or supported by ideas in the history of human thinking.

---

That is a very good theme to work on, namely, that the universe is all there is, period.

First of course we have to ask scientists what they mean by universe, is it all that is existence?

Now it just sounds like you are trying to change the subject to confuse the conversation instead of trying to back up your claims. Why does this always seem to happen when people can't accept their burden of proof? Keep the goalposts where they are, please.

Let all who want to talk about the universe that is all there is, period, come together including myself, to resolve the issue, is the universe all there is and in what sense of existence?

I have to wait for some time to post this message, otherwise it will get merged into an earlier one.


And no, I am not into changing the subject of the conversation, you bring up anything at all, and I will entertain you, is that changing the subject of the thread here; what about you bring in Trump and Clinton, that will be changing the subject of the thread here.

---

That was my purpose earlier, to get folks to start with what should come first logically, namely, the information on the concept of God, but folks are so eager to get ahead, that is why I am now addressing anything and everything that has a connection with the issue God exists or not; for otherwise someone will sooner than later complain that I am not answering their questions or comments or whatever they write in their posts.

(October 24, 2016 at 8:22 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Let all who want to talk about the universe that is all there is, period, come together including myself, to resolve the issue, is the universe all there is and in what sense of existence?

I have to wait for some time to post this message, otherwise it will get merged into an earlier one.


And no, I am not into changing the subject of the conversation, you bring up anything at all, and I will entertain you, is that changing the subject of the thread here; what about you bring in Trump and Clinton, that will be changing the subject of the thread here.

Yes, it is changing the subject. The topic here involved you bringing us your proof of your god. So far you haven't been able to convince anyone of your arguments (including some people who already believe in the Christian god, I might add). Now you are changing your tone and asking us to back up different ideas. Whether or not we are able to do so does not move us anywhere near proving a god.

Okay, I will return in one hour's time, so let you colleagues here, think up something on the issue God exists or not, and we will get to it.

---

Dear ma'an, do you want me to talk about something so that you will no longer blame me that I am digressing from the thread, whatever?

(October 24, 2016 at 8:30 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Okay, I will return in one hour's time, so let you colleagues here, think up something on the issue God exists or not, and we will get to it.

---

Dear ma'an, do you want me to talk about something so that you will no longer blame me that I am digressing from the thread, whatever?

Tenacious and irrational! What a combination!

(October 24, 2016 at 8:30 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Okay, I will return in one hour's time, so let you colleagues here, think up something on the issue God exists or not, and we will get to it.

---

Dear ma'an, do you want me to talk about something so that you will no longer blame me that I am digressing from the thread, whatever?

I'm not sure what "ma'an" means, but the point I was trying to make is that you are the one trying to prove your god exists. Our only job is to respond to your arguments. We aren't bringing the claims here, so don't expect us to lead the conversation. Just bring your arguments and evidence and we'll let you know what we think. We have nothing to prove in this topic.

(October 24, 2016 at 6:33 pm)abaris Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 6:29 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I suppose if you've grown intellectually tired of it you could just not read or participate in the thread.

Which I have, pointing out it's the same circular arguments we had a million times before.

It takes troops to defend a city, too. Each one may be important. Not everyone needs to pick up a rifle ... but someone does.