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

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
So you refuse to answer the question....how does God communicate with you?

So why are you bullying another poster with the same question?

Now your trying to pressure an answer yourself.

Again...

I have repeatedly posted I have a personal relationship with God. Is that false.

And repeatedly asked if you have a personal relationship with God, why do you need “evidence”. Is that false.

Now your asking? Your argument seems more out of spite and is disingenuous.


I know one thing God is telling me. If this thread is down to a few people that cannot answer simple true / false questions, that lie about what people actually post, and general trolling. Leave the thread, let the thread die as it deserves, and STOP feeding the trolls.

Nuff said.

a reply to: neutronflux
Repeating the same over and over is simply avoiding the question.

Why bully posters when you refuse to answer the same question when asked of you?

Does your personal God like it when you bully people?

Tell me what he says....

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
Repeating the same over and over is simply avoiding the question.

Why bully posters when you refuse to answer the same question when asked of you?

Does your personal God like it when you bully people?

Tell me what he says....

How do you keep a troll posting......

a reply to: neutronflux
How can you call me a troll....when you continually troll the OP?

He/she has repeatedly said he/she will not answer your posts.....but you continue to harass them anyway!

MONO




Dear Itisnowagain:


Thanks a lot for your participation in my thread.


I like you and me to talk about existence.


The way I see it, man is the only live entity that studies what is existence and how we know about it.

I have already said it several times but here it is again, and let you join me in my study of existence.

I am sure you and I we know that we exist, but how do we know we exist and also what is existence at all, which you and I claim to know about?

We know existence by our conscious experience of objects in existence, and here I will bring in as I have done many times already, the nose on our face, why the nose on our face, why not balls between our thighs?

Well, then I will include also the balls between our thighs - I am man and I assume that you are man also.

Nose and balls, they represent you and me - I mean our existence, that includes of course existence of women, they have nose and also an assembly of external organs reciprocally corresponding to balls in men.

We consciously experience the nose and the balls by seeing them and touching them, is that obvious to you, dear Itisnowagain?

To make a long story short, with things which are within our access to consciously experience by our external senses of sight hearing touch taste and smell, and also by what I call our super sense of consciousness, we can and do define existence as anything at all which we do consciously experience.

What about things which are not accessible to our conscious experience with our senses of sight hearing touch taste and smell, and also our super sense of consciousness?

What about that I name two things which are beyond our conscious experience of, like God, and like from Bertrand Russell, an orbiting teapot in space?*

With these two things, like God and orbiting teapot in space, I submit that we get to know of their existence with our mind, in particular by thinking with our mind to their existence, through our knowledge of the existence of things within our conscious experience of like our nose and our balls.

I will stop at this point, with saying that there are two kinds of things in existence:

(i) Things which are accessible to our senses, and

(ii) Things which are accessible to our mind or our thinking with our mind on (i) things.



*"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit..."
Cf. Is There a God? by Bertrand Russell - commissioned by, but never published in, Illustrated Magazine, in 1952
www.personal.kent.edu...

MONO




What's happening here in my thread!?

Even the customary trolls are left speechless!


Anyway, I will continue and resume my monologue.


I will partition my preceding message into enumerated items, and comment by myself as to expatiate on each item, that should make my thoughts on existence more clear, and hope that customary trolls will not achieve to foul up my thoughts for their devilish purpose of derailing my thread.

1. Thanks a lot for your (Itisnowagain) participation in my thread.

2. I like you and me to talk about existence.

3. The way I see it, man is the only live entity that studies what is existence and how we know about it.

4. I have already said it several times but here it is again, and let you (Itisnowagain) join me in my study of existence.

5. I am sure you and I we know that we exist, but how do we know we exist and also what is existence at all, which you and I claim to know about?

6. We know existence by our conscious experience of objects in existence, and here I will bring in as I have done many times already, the nose on our face, why the nose on our face, why not balls between our thighs?

7. Well, then I will include also the balls between our thighs - I am man and I assume that you are man also.

8. Nose and balls, they represent you and me - I mean our existence, that includes of course existence of women, they have nose and also an assembly of external organs reciprocally corresponding to balls in men.

9. We consciously experience the nose and the balls by seeing them and touching them, is that obvious to you, dear Itisnowagain?

10. To make a long story short, with things which are within our access to consciously experience by our external senses of sight hearing touch taste and smell, and also by what I call our super sense of consciousness, we can and do define existence as anything at all which we do consciously experience.

11. What about things which are not accessible to our conscious experience with our senses of sight hearing touch taste and smell, and also our super sense of consciousness?

12. What about that I name two things which are beyond our conscious experience of, like God, and like from Bertrand Russell, an orbiting teapot in space?*

13. With these two things, like God and orbiting teapot in space, I submit that we get to know of their existence with our mind, in particular by thinking with our mind to their existence, through our knowledge of the existence of things within our conscious experience of like our nose and our balls.

14. I will stop at this point, with saying that there are two kinds of things in existence:

(i) Things which are accessible to our senses, and
(ii) Things which are accessible to our mind or our thinking with our mind on (i) things.

There.

Now I am going to do some solitary away from the forum thinking, on honest intelligent productive mental work, about existence and God.

In the meantime, I hope that everyone with also honest intelligent productive mind will contribute to my mind's enhancement, with their comments on the present post of yours truly.



ANNEX

MONO


Dear Itisnowagain:


Thanks a lot for your participation in my thread.


I like you and me to talk about existence.


The way I see it, man is the only live entity that studies what is existence and how we know about it.

I have already said it several times but here it is again, and let you join me in my study of existence.

I am sure you and I we know that we exist, but how do we know we exist and also what is existence at all, which you and I claim to know about?

We know existence by our conscious experience of objects in existence, and here I will bring in as I have done many times already, the nose on our face, why the nose on our face, why not balls between our thighs?

Well, then I will include also the balls between our thighs - I am man and I assume that you are man also.

Nose and balls, they represent you and me - I mean our existence, that includes of course existence of women, they have nose and also an assembly of external organs reciprocally corresponding to balls in men.

We consciously experience the nose and the balls by seeing them and touching them, is that obvious to you, dear Itisnowagain?

To make a long story short, with things which are within our access to consciously experience by our external senses of sight hearing touch taste and smell, and also by what I call our super sense of consciousness, we can and do define existence as anything at all which we do consciously experience.

What about things which are not accessible to our conscious experience with our senses of sight hearing touch taste and smell, and also our super sense of consciousness?

What about that I name two things which are beyond our conscious experience of, like God, and like from Bertrand Russell, an orbiting teapot in space?*

With these two things, like God and orbiting teapot in space, I submit that we get to know of their existence with our mind, in particular by thinking with our mind to their existence, through our knowledge of the existence of things within our conscious experience of like our nose and our balls.

I will stop at this point, with saying that there are two kinds of things in existence:

(i) Things which are accessible to our senses, and

(ii) Things which are accessible to our mind or our thinking with our mind on (i) things.



*
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit..."
Cf. Is There a God? by Bertrand Russell - commissioned by, but never published in, Illustrated Magazine, in 1952
www.personal.kent.edu...

MONO



Dear readers and honest intelligent productive posters here, here is the conclusion of my examination on what is existence and how we come to know about it.

14. I will stop at this point, with saying that there are two kinds of things in existence:

(i) Things which are accessible to our senses, and
(ii) Things which are accessible to our mind or our thinking with our mind on (i) things.

Taking the preceding text into consideration and factoring in this text in No. 3 (see below in ANNEX):

3. The way I see it, man is the only live entity that studies what is existence and how we know about it.

What do you say about my definition of what is existence, in concise clear and simple words?

Existence is what man experiences. (five words)

Now, if everyone here is smart - but being smart is not exactly being or doing honest intelligent productive thinking, you might ask me:

So, before man got started with his own existence, there was no existence?

Right away I will tell you, that question will seem smart from your part, but it is not any demonstration of honest intelligent productive thinking at all.





ANNEX

originally posted by: Pachomius
MONO




What's happening here in my thread!?

Even the customary trolls are left speechless!


Anyway, I will continue and resume my monologue.


I will partition my preceding message into enumerated items, and comment by myself as to expatiate on each item, that should make my thoughts on existence more clear, and hope that customary trolls will not achieve to foul up my thoughts for their devilish purpose of derailing my thread.

1. Thanks a lot for your (Itisnowagain) participation in my thread.

2. I like you and me to talk about existence.

3. The way I see it, man is the only live entity that studies what is existence and how we know about it.

4. I have already said it several times but here it is again, and let you (Itisnowagain) join me in my study of existence.

5. I am sure you and I we know that we exist, but how do we know we exist and also what is existence at all, which you and I claim to know about?

6. We know existence by our conscious experience of objects in existence, and here I will bring in as I have done many times already, the nose on our face, why the nose on our face, why not balls between our thighs?

7. Well, then I will include also the balls between our thighs - I am man and I assume that you are man also.

8. Nose and balls, they represent you and me - I mean our existence, that includes of course existence of women, they have nose and also an assembly of external organs reciprocally corresponding to balls in men.

9. We consciously experience the nose and the balls by seeing them and touching them, is that obvious to you, dear Itisnowagain?

10. To make a long story short, with things which are within our access to consciously experience by our external senses of sight hearing touch taste and smell, and also by what I call our super sense of consciousness, we can and do define existence as anything at all which we do consciously experience.

11. What about things which are not accessible to our conscious experience with our senses of sight hearing touch taste and smell, and also our super sense of consciousness?

12. What about that I name two things which are beyond our conscious experience of, like God, and like from Bertrand Russell, an orbiting teapot in space?*

13. With these two things, like God and orbiting teapot in space, I submit that we get to know of their existence with our mind, in particular by thinking with our mind to their existence, through our knowledge of the existence of things within our conscious experience of like our nose and our balls.

14. I will stop at this point, with saying that there are two kinds of things in existence:

(i) Things which are accessible to our senses, and
(ii) Things which are accessible to our mind or our thinking with our mind on (i) things.

There.

Now I am going to do some solitary away from the forum thinking, on honest intelligent productive mental work, about existence and God.

In the meantime, I hope that everyone with also honest intelligent productive mind will contribute to my mind's enhancement, with their comments on the present post of yours truly.

MONO


Dear Itisnowagain:


Thanks a lot for your participation in my thread.


I like you and me to talk about existence.


The way I see it, man is the only live entity that studies what is existence and how we know about it.

I have already said it several times but here it is again, and let you join me in my study of existence.

I am sure you and I we know that we exist, but how do we know we exist and also what is existence at all, which you and I claim to know about?

We know existence by our conscious experience of objects in existence, and here I will bring in as I have done many times already, the nose on our face, why the nose on our face, why not balls between our thighs?

Well, then I will include also the balls between our thighs - I am man and I assume that you are man also.

Nose and balls, they represent you and me - I mean our existence, that includes of course existence of women, they have nose and also an assembly of external organs reciprocally corresponding to balls in men.

We consciously experience the nose and the balls by seeing them and touching them, is that obvious to you, dear Itisnowagain?

To make a long story short, with things which are within our access to consciously experience by our external senses of sight hearing touch taste and smell, and also by what I call our super sense of consciousness, we can and do define existence as anything at all which we do consciously experience.

What about things which are not accessible to our conscious experience with our senses of sight hearing touch taste and smell, and also our super sense of consciousness?

What about that I name two things which are beyond our conscious experience of, like God, and like from Bertrand Russell, an orbiting teapot in space?*

With these two things, like God and orbiting teapot in space, I submit that we get to know of their existence with our mind, in particular by thinking with our mind to their existence, through our knowledge of the existence of things within our conscious experience of like our nose and our balls.

I will stop at this point, with saying that there are two kinds of things in existence:

(i) Things which are accessible to our senses, and

(ii) Things which are accessible to our mind or our thinking with our mind on (i) things.



*
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit..."
Cf. Is There a God? by Bertrand Russell - commissioned by, but never published in, Illustrated Magazine, in 1952
www.personal.kent.edu...

a reply to: Pachomius
After watching this:
Bertrand Russell on God.

Jiddu Kristnamurti came to mind......

Jiddu Krishnamurti (/ˈdʒɪduːkrɪʃnəˈmuːrti/; 11 May 1895 – 17 February 1986) was an Indian speaker and writer. In his early life, he was groomed to be the new World Teacher, but later rejected this mantle and withdrew from the Theosophy organization behind it.
Jiddu Krishnamurti - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Krishnamurti: Is belief necessary to find out? To learn is far more important than to know. Learning about belief is the end of belief. When the mind is free of belief then it can look. It is belief, or disbelief, that binds; for disbelief and belief are the same: they are the opposite sides of the same coin. So we can completely put aside positive or negative belief; the believer and the non-believer are the same. When this actually takes place then the question, "Is there a god?" has quite a different meaning. The word god with all its tradition, its memory, its intellectual and sentimental connotations - all this is not god. The word is not the real. So can the mind be free of the word?
'Is There a God?' | J. Krishnamurti
jkrishnamurti.org...

Krishnamurti: You came to ask if there is god. We said: the word leads to illusion which we worship, and for this illusion we destroy each other willingly. When there is no illusion the "what is" is most sacred. Now let's look at what actually is. At a given moment the "what is" may be fear, or utter despair, or a fleeting joy. These things are constantly changing. And also there is the observer who says, "These things all change around me, but I remain permanent". Is that a fact, is that what really is? Is he not also changing, adding to and taking away from himself, modifying, adjusting himself, becoming or not becoming? So both the observer and the observed are constantly changing. What is is change. That is a fact. That is what is.
'Is There a God?' | J. Krishnamurti
jkrishnamurti.org...

MONO




Dear Itisnowagain:


What exactly is your very own self thought up point with your most recent post?

You see I expect posters to tell me about their thoughts on this OP, now in particular about what I am saying for some posts already, about existence, what it is and how we know about it, and most important how it is for myself the 'theory' of everything.

You bring up Bertrand Russell, but forgive me, you should bring up your very own thoughts in re my present emphasis in this my thread, namely, on existence.

Actually I used to be an admirer of Bertrand Russell, but I am now with Bertrand Russell, I think that the man is just into semantic trickeries when the issue is God exists or not, the same also with Stephen Hawking.

No, I don't see any reason why an honest intelligent productive human thinker should be so enamored of another human thinker in history or in today's world of ideas, as to be into defending or even advocating the ideas of his idol.


In brief, don't be into defending or the worst advocating the ideas of another human thinker, if you don't have any self-thought up ideas which you want to share with other human thinkers (and what other thinkers do we have but human thinkers?), just read and then react - not with citing other human thinkers, but with your very own self thought up ideas.

And I will not bother with one J. Krishnamurti either.

I expect you dear Itisnowagain to tell me how you are certain that you exist, start with that, okay?

And no bringing in whatever intellectual idols you are enamored with.

With one Neutron, he is enamored with the Bible.






a reply to: Itisnowagain

MONO




Dear mankind:


There is existence, no matter that self-smart physicists are into looking for more and more and more subatomic particles and laws of physics and forces of nature, etc etc etc, and also into the randomness that supposedly rules the universe, it is still existence all the time and everywhere - even if there is no time and no space, and it is all delusion or illusion, still there is existence.

You cannot at all even talk about nothingness without there being existence.

Think about that.

MONO



Dear mankind:


I was just strolling in the internet and came upon this webpage:
www.closertotruth.com...

It is inviting anyone at all to contribute comments to the question, namely:

Why is there anything at all?

So I contributed this text, and it came out right away, not even with the caveat* that my short piece would appear upon approval (by the powers that be in charge of 'censorship').

1 comment

MariusDejess • 16 hours ago

1. Why is there anything at all?

2. What do you say, dear readers, is this an acceptable answer from me, Marius? My answer follows...

3. Namely: First, I am one example of anything at all.

4. So, I am entitled to ask myself and all readers who are reading me now,

5. The question, Why am I here at all? Instead of Why is there anything at all?

6. I am here at all because Ultimately some entity puts me here, is that comprehensible to us all?

7. It is comprehensible to myself, what about you, my readers?

8. It is comprehensible to me, because I didn't put myself here.

9. And though my parents put me here,

10, They also themselves are asking Ultimately Why are they here at all.

11. At this point of my exposition, I submit that the question

12. Here should not be Why is there something at all,

13. But Why am I here at all?

Let me read your reactions, dear readers.

*caveat = best English translation, caution.

a reply to: Pachomius
Have you found out what you are?

The assumption is that there is a 'you' knowing 'existence'.

But have you found a you + existence? Two.

What there is; is just what there is! Mono.....just one not two!

When the two are found to be one.....God is obvious.

a reply to: Pachomius
If you listened to the interview that you linked to (where you posted your question: why am I here?).......you would have heard that if there is a God, even God would wonder 'where did I come from....why am I here?'

The only thing that cannot be negated is that you exist......but what you exist as (what are you?) may be the real question!

I’m a little late to the party and have many pages to read, so if this has been said already, please accept my apologies in advance.

Great Thread!

My conception of God is very simple.

God, imho, is everything in all of existence, including you and I.

God is obviously intelligent, because we are intelligent, and we are a part of God.

We live within God and within each person, is a unique expression of the universe.

MONO*




Dear Itisnowagain and OwenandNoelle:

I am so happy that you two are with me in this my thread, instead of characters like Neutron, period.

So, to Itisnowagain:

You tell me,

"[a] The only thing that cannot be negated is [a1] that you exist...... [b] but what you exist as ( [b1] what are you? ) may be the real question!"

Dear Itis, we are concurred in [a] that you and I we exist, is that correct? So, let us go to [b], assuming that I am correct, namely, that you are asking me to focus on [b1], my answer to your question, what are you i.e. me is the following, namely:
I am an example of existence that is a live entity with intelligence i.e. homo sapiens and with a beginning.
.

Now to OwenandNoelle:

Dear Owen, you tell me:
"My conception of God is very simple.
God, imho, is everything in all of existence, including you and I.
God is obviously intelligent, because we are intelligent, and we are a part of God.
We live within God and within each person, is a unique expression of the universe."

I concur with you! Period.
.

Now, I invite you two and myself to concur on the fact that There has always been existence, period.


*
MONO = that is my way of reminding everyone or mankind that it stands for my position that God is numerically one, and in concept He is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.



ANNEX

Itis posted on Oct, 4 2020 @ 06:20 PM
a reply to: Pachomius

Have you found out what you are?

The assumption is that there is a 'you' knowing 'existence'.

But have you found a you + existence? Two.

What there is; is just what there is! Mono.....just one not two!

When the two are found to be one.....God is obvious.

Itis posted on Oct, 4 2020 @ 06:44 PM
a reply to: Pachomius

If you listened to the interview that you linked to (where you posted your question: why am I here?).......you would have heard that if there is a God, even God would wonder 'where did I come from....why am I here?'

The only thing that cannot be negated is that you exist......but what you exist as (what are you?) may be the real question!

===================
edit on 4-10-2020 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Owen posted on Oct, 4 2020 @ 10:06 PM

I’m a little late to the party and have many pages to read, so if this has been said already, please accept my apologies in advance.

Great Thread!

My conception of God is very simple.

God, imho, is everything in all of existence, including you and I.

God is obviously intelligent, because we are intelligent, and we are a part of God.

We live within God and within each person, is a unique expression of the universe.

================
Don’t kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance he’d eat you and everyone you care about! --- Troy McClure

drive.google.com...

youtu.be...

a reply to: Pachomius

You

I am so happy that you two are with me in this my thread, instead of characters like Neutron,

Still nothing honest about you.

Any new false accusations or intellectually Dishonest arguments.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Pachomius

What are you doing. More intellectually dishonesty by you.

The actual context of my post.


originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Pachomius
MONO




Haha, gotcha, dear robot Neutron, you are again running away via a derail, I ask you to tell me what is circular logic, not about God, not in the current context.

That is the programming of a robot, in case of ignorance, go into derail mode.

Hey, Neutron, better go into your erstwhile favorite mode, faith in the Bible for evidence, okay?


ANNEX

From Pachomius

Do I hear some robot with the objection that I am into circular logic?

Haha, let him come out first with his concept of what is circular logic, in less than say 40 words, and no running to dictionaries.

Let us work together to concur on what is circular logic, as you bring up that term, then you must have in your stock knowledge and information an idea of what is circular logic, otherwise you are talking nonsense aka insanity - until you have consulted your dictionaries, which is an unfathomable task: try the voluminous i.e. in several volumes, of The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language on Historical Principles.

Dear everyone, I will now owing to unavoidable distraction, entertain the resident robot here - stay tuned of course, I will resume my exposition on how thinking will bring us to the fact sooner than later, the permanent i.e. eternal reality of existence.

From Neutron
You don’t think god can communicate? Isn’t that the bases of an intelligent being. Communication?

Please define the language of god in fifty words or less?

a reply to: neutronflux

Huh. Ok? Do you actually read what other people post.

Other people have called you out on your “logic”. Is that false.

I have explained your use of circular logic, and provided examples how your “logic” is not “evidence”. Is that false.

More than one individual has called you out on circular logic and tried to explain (as you will not accept any credible argument, just your own ego driven rants) why your “logic” is not evidence. Is that false.


I’ll tune up one of my examples of circular logic. And made it short.

In concept god is an uncorrupted and perfect being. So such a being would never have created imperfect beings like humankind. So, something other than god created flawed humans. Because a perfect being would never make something as corruptible as humankind.

So logic disproved god.

——————

So logic is not actual evidence. Get the point? But logic can lead to a hypothesis that can be tested. The results of the test is the evidence.

Now...

Again..

You don’t think god can communicate? Isn’t that the bases of an intelligent being. Communication?

Please define the language of god in fifty words or less?

—————-

Still see you are using trolling to breathe false life into your thread.

You already have gotten more attention than you deserve.

MONO




Dear Neutron:


Please tell me just one thing, what do you want me and you to talk about, I am now concentrating on existence.



ANNEX

Pachomius posted on Oct, 3 2020 @ 06:07 AM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[ . . . . ]

Dear readers and honest intelligent productive posters here, here is the conclusion of my examination on what is existence and how we come to know about it.

14. I will stop at this point, with saying that there are two kinds of things in existence:

(i) Things which are accessible to our senses, and
(ii) Things which are accessible to our mind or our thinking with our mind on (i) things.

Taking the preceding text into consideration and factoring in this text in No. 3...

3. The way I see it, man is the only live entity that studies what is existence and how we know about it.

What do you say about my definition of what is existence, in concise clear and simple words?

Existence is what man experiences. (five words)

[ . . . . ]

MONO




Dear mankind:


Perhaps with false modesty, I just want to tell everyone that I am kind of self-contented that at last I have landed on what I call the 'theory' of everything, and that is - Existence is always and everywhere present, even when if ever there were neither space nor time nor subatomic particles etc etc etc from the findings of our most rigorous scientists, there is already existence - and it ain't never going into extinction.

If only scientists just examine with their mind, engaging in honest intelligent productive thinking, they will also come to the (my) 'theory' of everything.

That is my eureka.*


*eureka = Greek, I found it. The ancient Greek thinker and inventor Archimedes (d. 212 bc) shouted Eureka! as he stepped into his bathtub and noticed the water overflowing out of the bathtub, and realized how he could now measure the quantity of water in an irregularly shaped container. (If memory serves - hehehehehe.)

a reply to: Pachomius

I think I was very exact and specific...,

You don’t think god can communicate? Isn’t that the bases of an intelligent being. Communication?

Please define the language of god in fifty words or less?


You wanted people to define god in fifty words or less. Is that false. God cannot be boxed in by the English language.

You wanted people to define faith in fifty words or some other BS concerning defining faith. Is that false. When the English word faith already has a definition to facilitate a language people use to communicate. And they don’t have to waste time recreating language every time two or more people want to converse.

—————————-

Now its your turn.

You don’t think god can communicate? Isn’t that the bases of an intelligent being. Communication?

Please define the language of god in fifty words or less?

Or you just going to stay butt hurt because somebody made a demand of you.

Hypocrite much?

a reply to: neutronflux
Just because you believe in 'a' god doesn't mean there is 'a' god!!