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

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Thank you Itisnowagain for correcting. I now understand

Wanted Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. -Title of thread (3461)
=============================================================================================


These words, the present message here, are addressed to all posters here, who are into the drama of basically Hindi associated psychology of nothing is real:
----------------------------------

That kind of an attitude is supposed to enable you guys to not feel bad with the certainty of death inexorably coming to each and every member of mankind.

In the meantime all you guys like every animal and plant alive, you still exert brain and muscle to find food, and for humans to not defecate in public, when nature calls.

That kind of Hindi psychology is not going to give you a remedy with your philosophy of nothing exists etc etc etc .

Do some honest intelligent productive thinking with your brain muscle, instead of meditation with your posterior on the floor and eyes closed, on this theme as follows:

Existence is the object of man's conscious experience.

.


That should I hope get you Hindi nothing-ness guys to concentrate on reality, instead of seeking comfort with everything is nothing-ness.
.

Also, continue to post here in my thread, I am learning from all everyone contributing ideas, no matter it can serve only to avail myself of consuelo de bobo,* comfort is comfort no matter it is all fiction in the heart of naive mankind.



*Spanish = consolation of the fool

.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3462)
=============================================================================================


Here is my line by line critique of micpsi's comments* on my earlier** exposition on the existence of God:


1. There has always been existence. -Pachomius

Step 1: this assumption begs the question of what "existence" means. If it means physical existence, i.e., the space-time continuuum, then according to the Big Bang theory space-time did not exist before the Big Bang. In fact, there was nothing; no matter, no time, no space for any kind of physical existence to be meaningful. On the other hand, if it means superphysical existence in the higher realms of consciousness described by various of the world's ancient religions, then even these did not always exist, although one must be careful of how the word "always" is defined, because these realms exist outside of time as it is normally defined but are not eternal in the sense implied by this word because they are stages in the ever-coming into manifestation of God - an unfolding that occurs out of time. Step 1 is therefore wrong both scientifically and from the perspective of the mystical traditions within religions, which speak of the ontological gulf between realities that preserve the duality of subject and object and the non-dual, subjective state of God's self-awareness. If in Step 1 you postulate an existence other than the phenomenal one of His created beings, then you are begging the question by assuming the very thing you wish to deduce, namely the reality of God as the first-cause source of all existances, including the physical.

My critique: all these words are useless because existence is opposite to non-existence, so why so much words to bring up kinds of existence: no need, for existence is existence no matter what kinds of distinction micpsi cares to bring in, as long as it is not non-existence.

2. There are transient beings in existence. –Pachomius

Step 2: This conflates the meaning of the word "existence." It is necessarily true if it refers to physical reality, for the latter is transient, according to the Big Bang theory, and therefore so must be its inhabitants.

My critique: same as for micpsi’s num 1, namely: all these words are useless because existence is opposite to non-existence, so why so much words to bring up kinds of existence: no need, for existence is existence no matter what kinds of distinction micpsi cares to bring in, as long as it is not non-existence.

3. Transient beings necessarily implicate the existence of a permanent self-existent being. -Pachomius

Step 3: This statement is a non sequitur, a fallacy designed to provide the step towards completing the illusion of a logical proof of the existence of God. It is not true a priori, i.e., there is nothing necessary that is implied by the temporary nature of mortal beings.

My critique: the man micpsi does not know that the word temporary is identical to the word transient, so all his comment is worthless. He had not read carefully my num 4 Step on the meaning of the word transient, namely: ‘. . . everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending,’ whence temporary means transient.

4. The conclusion is obvious, there exists God, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending. –Pachomius

Step 4: this is not a conclusion in any logical sense of the final inference to be made from a set of self-evident propositions. The only example here of the latter is the proposition in Step 2.

My critique: This man micpsi does not know that a conclusion at the end of a step by step exposition is merely the repetition of the proposition at the start in my case with my title of the exposition, namely: “Here is my step by step exposition of how God exists": when the readers in particular one micpsi, having honestly intelligently and productively understood and accepted the steps between the statement of the proposition to the conclusion in Step 4, they are convinced; but micpsi got so busy with regurgitating useless learning from his flair for vanity with vacuous irrelevant learning but no genuine self-thinking at all, he does not know what is a conclusion in an exposition.

Micpsi’s own conclusion from his own comments:

“Having said this, I must put on record that my research over 50 years into the parallels between the mystical traditions of religions and their connection with current scientific theories of cosmogenesis has provided me with overwhelming mathematical (and therefore undeniable) evidence of a transcendental source of all existence - both physical and superphysical - that religions call "God."

My critique: more vain but useless learning, in particular, mathematics is all genuine circular reasoning in man’s mind, and it is all just vanity unless and until evidence appears in the objective world outside the mathematics inside in man’s mind: consider how Einstein’s Relativity ideas were all useless though seemingly impressive mathematics until evidence appeared in the objective world outside his mind.

.

*www.abovetopsecret.com...

** See link as follows below for my notice to him of a much latest exposition and for him to revise his belated comments on my earlier one.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3463)
=============================================================================================


Dear atheists and all kinds and manners of God-deniers, since my position is that God exists, and yours is that God does not exist - wherefore, what do you say, shall we not work together logically to arrive at first before anything else, to a mutually concurred on concept of existence, yes or no?

I answer yes, and for everyone answering no, please go away, you don’t belong here.

As I am the author of the present thread: "Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not," I will take the initiative to tender this concept of existence:

Existence is the object of man's conscious experience.

Now, dear atheists and all kinds and manners of God-deniers, right away you will retort with annoyance at me:
"What do you mean, if there is no man then there is no existence, because you say 'Existence is the object of man's conscious experience'?!”

Hey, that's pretty smart of you atheists and all manners and kinds of God-deniers.

But your smart-ness is not identical to what we call intelligence.

The word intelligence comes from two Latin words:

inter - the Latin preposition meaning: among, between, and legere - the Latin verb meaning: to collect, to gather, wherefore: intelligence in English means: to collect, to gather things together, for as much as possible to obtain the whole picture of something like a place or a situation or an event.

So, you atheists and all kinds and manners of God-deniers, you ask me: Is there no existence if there is no man, because I say "Existence is the object of man's conscious experience"?

I tell you, if there is no man then there is no question on the meaning of existence, because there is no man asking such a question.

What about some other kinds of living things asking that question?

Well, since we are not around, so we cannot be curious at all about there might be other living entities asking that question.

The reason why I state specifically that existence is the object of MAN's conscious experience, is so that we will not go far and wide like unto a wild goose chase.

In the whole issue of God exists or not, it is a human question and we will solve it employing the human brain which is the organ for the mind, our faculty for thinking honestly, intelligently, and productively.
.

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


Nobody knows 100%

Fact...
!happy days

Riouz

a reply to: Pachomius
What if man is the conscious experience of God?

What is appearing as existence includes sound, colour, sensation, thoughts, bodies, noses on faces etc..........That which does not appear is what is seeing.

God is said to be all seeing.

Saint Francis of Assisi supposedly said:
What we are looking for is what is looking.


All that appears is transient......That which does not appear is permanent.

Change can only appear to occur if there is something unchanging.

Is the page overlooked when reading words in a book? Can text appear without a backdrop?

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3466)
=============================================================================================
.

Dear Itisnowagain:

Forgive me, but you have totally gone off on a tangent from all the caveats I put up for honest intelligent productive thinkers: to use their brain as to do credit to their membership in the taxonomy of homo sapiens, meaning, intelligent human.

Read carefully with concentration and understanding my immediately preceding post:

Dear atheists and all kinds and manners of God-deniers, since my position is that God exists, and yours is that God does not exist - wherefore, what do you say, shall we not work together logically to arrive at first before anything else, to a mutually concurred on concept of existence, yes or no?

I answer yes, and for everyone answering no, please go away, you don’t belong here.

As I am the author of the present thread: "Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not," I will take the initiative to tender this concept of existence:

Existence is the object of man's conscious experience.

Now, dear atheists and all kinds and manners of God-deniers, right away you will retort with annoyance at me:
"What do you mean, if there is no man then there is no existence, because you say 'Existence is the object of man's conscious experience'?!”

Hey, that's pretty smart of you atheists and all manners and kinds of God-deniers.

But your smart-ness is not identical to what we call intelligence.

The word intelligence comes from two Latin words:

inter - the Latin preposition meaning: among, between, and legere - the Latin verb meaning: to collect, to gather, wherefore: intelligence in English means: to collect, to gather things together, for as much as possible to obtain the whole picture of something like a place or a situation or an event.

So, you atheists and all kinds and manners of God-deniers, you ask me: Is there no existence if there is no man, because I say "Existence is the object of man's conscious experience"?

I tell you, if there is no man then there is no question on the meaning of existence, because there is no man asking such a question.

What about some other kinds of living things asking that question?

Well, since we are not around, so we cannot be curious at all about there might be other living entities asking that question.

The reason why I state specifically that existence is the object of MAN's conscious experience, is so that we will not go far and wide like unto a wild goose chase.

In the whole issue of God exists or not, it is a human question and we will solve it employing the human brain which is the organ for the mind, our faculty for thinking honestly, intelligently, and productively.
.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Pachomius
What if man is the conscious experience of God?

What is appearing as existence includes sound, colour, sensation, thoughts, bodies, noses on faces etc..........That which does not appear is what is seeing.

God is said to be all seeing.

Saint Francis of Assisi supposedly said:
What we are looking for is what is looking.

All that appears is transient......That which does not appear is permanent.

Change can only appear to occur if there is something unchanging.

Is the page overlooked when reading words in a book? Can text appear without a backdrop?

.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3467)
=============================================================================================


Thanks everyone for visiting my thread here, please continue to think honestly intelligently and productively on my definition of what is existence, namely:

Existence is the object of man's conscious experience.

Now I will tender my definition of God, namely:

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

Please read this definition of God with honest intelligent productive thinking, and tell me what words or phrases you don't understand, or whatever comments or objections you have, okay?
.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3468)
=============================================================================================


Well, I guess no one has any words or phrases in the post yesterday (below) to ask me to explain, or comments on or objections against the post itself.

So, for this post I will just invite everyone to engage in honest intelligent productive thinking on these two statements, and tell me are they both true, or both false, or one true and the other false, indicating which is true and which is false:

1a. There has always been existence.
1b. There is the distinction between the object world outside and independent of our mind, and the concept world inside our mind.


Wishing you all, Happy honest intelligent productive thinking, I remain

Yours truly,
Pachomius


.

Thanks everyone for visiting my thread here, please continue to think honestly intelligently and productively on my definition of what is existence, namely:

Existence is the object of man's conscious experience.



Now I will tender my definition of God, namely:

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


Please read this definition of God with honest intelligent productive thinking, and tell me what words or phrases you don't understand, or whatever comments or objections you have, okay?
.

.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3469)
=============================================================================================


Okay, dear everyone, no one seems to have posted anything since yesterday - whoa, what's happening, devil's got your tongue?

Anyway, you now have four statements which are all true, and they can bring you to come to the certainty of God existing:

1. Existence is the object of man's conscious experience.
2. God in concept is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.
3. There has always been existence.
4. There is the distinction between the object world outside and independent of our mind, and the concept world inside our mind.

Now, dear readers, let us see how many permutations we can make of these four numbers: 1 2 3 4 ?

Here, 24 :

1234 1243 1324 1342 1423 1432

2134 2143 2314 2341 2413 2431

3124 3142 3214 3241 3412 3421

4123 4132 4213 4231 4312 4321

Now, I invite everyone to think on how to arrive at the existence of God by following any one of the 24 permutations, and in each one, think in the order of the numbers in the permutation you have chosen.

For example, the first permutation is 1234, so you think according to this list:

1. Existence is the object of man's conscious experience.
2. God in concept is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.
3. There has always been existence.
4. There is the distinction between the object world outside and independent of our mind, and the concept world inside our mind.

The second permutation is 1243, so you think according to this list:

1. Existence is the object of man's conscious experience.
2. God in concept is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.
4. There is the distinction between the object world outside and independent of our mind, and the concept world inside our mind.
3. There has always been existence.

So, what are you waiting for?

Get busy.

'

a reply to: Pachomius
The devil has a forked tongue.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Pachomius
The devil has a forked tongue.

The devil is within the mind of man.

a reply to: spy66
Has a mind ever been found?

Maybe the one that 'seems' to live inside is the devil.......but is there really an inside?

The belief in the 'someone inside' produces the work of the devil 😈

Only when the 'someone inside' is found to not be ..... the inside and outside will become one.

Not that there was ever two

Either God created the Universe or the Universe created itself.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. -Title of thread (3474)
=============================================================================================

originally posted by: korath
Either God created the Universe or the Universe created itself.

Dear Korath, have we dialogued before, you know there have been many people who had been in this my thread and now they don't appear here anymore, it seems that they have depleted their stock of ideas, what about you, are you here to stay as to contribute what you see to be useful to mankind, or you are just into silly curiosity to find out what is going on here, this is now the num 3474 post in this thread.

At present I have come to the thought that God is a very big co-extensive being with all existence, that is why and how He has created all existence that is not Himself, and operates it all the time and everywhere.

And here is my concept of God, the latest one to date:

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

What do you say about my concept of God, please, no quoting from other thinkers, but employ your own brain to think up what you see to be honest intelligent and productive, okay?
.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. -Title of thread (3475)
=============================================================================================


From my preceding post:
"At present I have come to the thought that God is a very big co-extensive being with all existence, that is why and how He has created all existence that is not Himself, and operates it all the time and everywhere."

That makes ma a pantheist.

What does a pantheist believe?
Pantheism, the doctrine that the universe conceived of as a whole is God and, conversely, that there is no God but the combined substance, forces, and laws that are manifested in the existing universe.

Cf. Google, define pantheist - www.google.com...

The citation above contains the word universe, but for me the best word or term is 'totality of existence', because totality of existence covers everything, so it is much broader than universe, as universe is the physical world studied by scientists - and scientists don't study everything but only what they can measure.

Now, God is beyond measure, so God in regard to size is what the adjective infinite can correctly be applied to.

God is the glue that binds the totality of existence all together, and He is the medium in we man and the universe and everything transient, thus created by God, exists in.

Christian theologians and philosophers insist that God created everything (that is not Himself) from nothing, and they tell us 'from nothing' means from nothing as a point indicating the beginning of creation.

I go one big step farther from them, by telling them, that God created everything that is not God, with God using Himself as the material from and of which to make all creation.

Is that something new for you guys who are Christians or Muslims or Orthodox Jews? And even atheists or any kinds and manners of God-deniers, who happen to have some information about God in the predominant world religions of Christianity Islam and Judaism?
.

Wanted Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. -Title of thread (3476)
=============================================================================================

Dear my colleagues here, that includes everyone writing here, *let us all work as to concur on how to achieve an irrefutable way to prove that God exists or not.

If you anyone here, your position is that there is no way at all to prove exist or not exist for God, and you will rather suffer martyrdom than take part to work as to concur on the way to prove God exists or not, then I suggest that you do not write anything in this thread for the time being, because we all who at least agree that it is possible, we will be talking to one another, is that okay with you guys, who will suffer martyrdom rather than even just to talk about the possibility of proving God exists or not?

Or you just wait until we are finished completely, then you can voice out your pertinent comments, okay?

The question is not exactly about proving or disproving that God exists.

It is about both theists as atheists agreeing to work together to come to a mutually agreed on method for resolving definitively the issue God exists or not.

To date there is no agreed upon by both sides on the mutually accepted and prescribed method to be followed by both sides, for the definitive final irrefutable answer, God exists or God does not exist - and both sides, theists as atheists are bound to it.

If the mutually agreed on method results into the answer, No, God does not exist, then theists will no longer seek to convert fellow humans to accept God.

But if the answer is Yes God exists, then atheists will no longer complain why they are not accepted by Christians: as qualified to become say, President of America.

So, we who are here in the to all appearances non-partisan net forum of ATS, we will really love to see: who from either side will refuse to work collaboratively among ourselves: to arrive at a mutually agreed on method to resolve the issue, God exists or not.

.

Wanted Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. -Title of thread (3477)
===========================================================================


From my preceding post:
"Dear my colleagues here, that includes everyone writing here, *let us all work as to concur on how to achieve an irrefutable way to prove that God exists or not."


Before we all theists and all kinds and manners of God-knowers, and atheists and all kinds and manners of God-deniers, work together to arrive at a communally agreed on method to prove or disprove God exists, I see it a pre-requisite that we all again first determine together this question:

"Can man prove God exists or not?"

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

What do you say, dear colleagues here, a propos the question above, shouldn't we again first antecedently work together to come to the mutually agreed on concepts of what is existence, what is God, and what is proof?

From my part, I say that Yes we have to first arrive at the mutually agreed on concepts of what is existence, what is God, and what is proof, because otherwise we are not going to get anywhere, but instead we are into each one's talking past the head of everyone's else - and that is not communication at all but an irrational happening.

Here are my concepts of existence, of God, and of proof:

Existence in concept is anything at all that we experience directly with our senses and consciousness, and/or indirectly by our honest intelligent productive thinking on what it is from what we know with our senses and consciousness.

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

Proof is the process by which we humans ascertain the existence of something directly by our conscious experience of the object of concern, and/or indirectly by reasoning from the data of our conscious experience.

So, dear colleagues here, to the question, Can man prove God exists or not, if you care to join in this undertaking of arriving at the mutually agreed on method to prove God exists or not, then please contribute to the concurrence on the concepts of the words: existence, God, and proof.

If you do not care to contribute to the concurrence on concepts, then it is obvious that you are not seriously keen to join in the formulation of the mutually agreed on method to resolve the issue God exists or not.

There are here two items:
1. To decide whether man can prove God exists or not.
2. To formulate a mutually concurred on method to resolve i.e. prove God exists or God does not exist.

First, work on num 1.


I have worked on num 1, with my proffer of the concepts of existence, God, and proof.

Please, from your part my colleagues here in this ATS forum, contribute your concepts of existence, God, and proof, then we will get to integrate them by conciliating them into commutually agreed on concepts of existence, God, and proof.

.

a reply to: Pachomius

There are here two items:
1. To decide whether man can prove God exists or not.
2. To formulate a mutually concurred on method to resolve i.e. prove God exists or God does not exist.

First, work on num 1.

1. No

2. The scientific method

Wanted Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. -Title of thread (3479)
=============================================================================================

I have just entered these words below into google, bing, and yahoo:

Free my God from atheists' obfuscations and theists' stupidities

And here are their numbers of hits:

Google: About 1,350,000 results (0.56 seconds) (divided into nine pages)

Bing: 650 (divided into seven pages of 10 hits per page)

Yahoo:12,300 results (get it at the bottom right side for each page around that number 12,300 or less...)


I am different, I am neither into obfuscations and nor into stupidities, because I have definitions for existence, God, and proof, while - let you all read them atheists' and theists' writings, them atheists and them theists don't have definitions of existence, God, and proof.

For your benefit, dear readers, here again are my definitions of existence, God, and proof:

Existence in concept is anything at all that we experience directly with our senses and consciousness, and/or indirectly by our honest intelligent productive thinking on what it is from what we know with our senses and consciousness.

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

Proof is the process by which we humans ascertain the existence of something directly by our conscious experience of the object of concern, and/or indirectly by reasoning from the data of our conscious experience.

Further, affiant sayeth naught.
.