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

originally posted by: Pachomius
Wanted Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. -Title of thread (3494)
============================================================================

Dear Tzar, you ask me:

Do you believe that there is a discipline or strategy of investigation which is more dependable and viable than the scientific method for proving the existence of cosmic power interacting with our world? Besides using strictly inductive or ontological reasoning?

Please bear with me, Tzar, for I have my own method and argument to the existence of God, I call it argument from existence, here as follows below:*

1. There is the distinction between the object world and the concept world, the object world is outside and independent of our mind, while the concept world is inside our mind.

2. We do honest intelligent productive thinking in our mind which is the concept world, and we come to the idea that 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. Then armed with this concept of God, we go forth into the object world to seek God's presence in it.

4. And here is my conclusion from my expedition in the object world to seek God's presence i.e. existence in it.




I exist therefore God exists.

First we define God as in concept the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

Then we concur that man has a beginning.

Therefore man is the evidence for the existence of God: As man exists therefore God exists.

Objection: Should man become extinct, God will no longer exist?

Answer: Should man become extinct, then there would be no more atheists, so no need for any proof for God's existence addressed to atheists, for atheists would also be extinct - good riddance.

*Taken with changes from my writings elsewhere in the internet, perhaps you guys here might have read something similar or even identical from my previous posting in ATS forum.

From Tzar posted on Mar, 17 2021 @ 11:11 AM

Firstly, you're welcome. Free speech is the bread and butter of independent thought.

Secondly, to answer your question, I know that I have a nose on my face. And I have a question for you in return.

Do you believe that there is a discipline or strategy of investigation which is more dependable and viable than the scientific method for proving the existence of cosmic power interacting with our world? Besides using strictly inductive or ontological reasoning?

.

1 is true

2 is a lazy attempt at inductive reasoning aimed to bypass all respectable investigative methods aka avoiding honest intelligent productive thinking

3 is impossible because you haven't established the properties by which to measure and identify traces of divine activity

4 your conclusion is premature and utter hogwash for the reasons explained above

a reply to: richapau

No thanks, hyperbole and literal gymnastics parading as some kind of philosophy hardy constitutes truth.

He was full of eloquent wit I’ll grant you that but clearly had an agenda to conspire against religious belief. Not surprising considering his mother killed herself in a suicide pact with a priest.

Being an intellectual does not automatically make you correct.

Also he flipped so many times politically that to describe his beliefs as anything other than inconsistent is disingenuous.

Can’t wait for the Hitchens brigade to turn up defending him, rather ironically as if he’s a religious leader.

Wanted Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. -Title of thread (3502]
============================================================================================

Dear readers and fellow posters here, have you ever had come across atheists and all kinds and manners of God-deniers, working together with theists and all kinds and manners of God-knowers, to resolve together the issue God exists or not, and to have agreed from start, to accept their mutually arrived at conclusion, namely, God exists, or God does not exist?

That is what I would consider to be a non-partisan approach to resolve the issue, God exists or God does not exist.

I am a God-knower, and I care very much to invite an atheist or any kind of God-denier, for us to work together, on behalf of mankind of which we are members, to pool our cognitive resources together, and collaborate honestly, intelligently, and productively: to arrive at the conclusion - God exists or God does not exist.

I am waiting with bated breath to meet any fellow human for a non-partisan undertaking to resolve the issue, God exists or God does not exist.

posted by Pachomius on Mar, 22 2021 @ 08:54 AM

Wanted Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. -Title of thread (3499)
============================================================================================


"What about you anyone else?
Or are you all scared stiff to answer my in effect challenge to you all, namely again: 'Are you keen on us working together in a non-partisan approach to resolve God exists or not?'"


What indeed is a non-partisan approach to resolve the issue God exists or not?

Is there such an animal as a non-partisan approach to resolve any issue at all?

Yes, I can think up a panel of honest intelligent productive humans, who will first work to concur on the criteria to be applied in the resolution of any issue at all.

In re the issue God exists or not, the criteria will be the concurred on definitions of the words/concepts: existence, God, proof - reached by the humans who work together honestly, intelligently, and productively, as to arrive at the final agreed on definitions of the words/concepts: existence, God, proof.

Dear fellow colleague posters here, please tell me what are your provisional definitions of these words: existence, God, proof?

From my part, here are my proposed definitions of existence, God, and proof - for the consideration of such a non-partisan panel of humans to work on: as to arrive at the communally agreed on final 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.

Now the non-partisan panel of honest intelligent productive humans can use our provisional definitions of the words/concepts of existence, God, proof, and work to produce their own concurred definitions, which they will employ as to determine a common definitive finding on Yes, God exists, or No, God does not exist.

a reply to: Pachomius

It's not our fault your presentation is not very compelling.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Pachomius

It's not our fault your presentation is not very compelling.

Maybe if Pachomuis had actual testimony and a personal relationship with their god, it might be compelling.

Dictating what people should post, what and how they should believe, ignoring people’s other experience, not engaging at an actual personal level of experience, and being generally self serving is not helping. It’s like Pachomuis is trying to describe love without ever experiencing love, unable to feel love, and only read about in a text book. Its like Pachomuis is trying to blind people to god.

Wanted Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. -Title of thread (3505)
=============================================================================================


Well, at this point in time in this thread of mine, I am into inviting my colleague posters here, to with me adopt a non-partisan mode, and work together as to finally conclude on, Yes God exists or No God does not exist.

And how do we both adopt a non-partisan mode?

How else but with us both working together to arrive at concurrence on all things: that we see to be honest and intelligent and productive toward the final conclusion to the issue, God exists or not.

And right now from my part, I tender the irrefutable statement that I and my to be partner concur that we both exist.

So, please come forward anyone among posters here, who care and dare to adopt a non-partisan mode to work with me on resolving the issue, God exists or not.

Here I am and I will be waiting for such a non-partisan poster to work with me, on the things that we will accept to be honest and intelligent and productive: toward the communal labor of resolving the issue, God exists or not.

posted by Pachomius on Mar, 23 2021 @ 10:45 AM
Wanted Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. -Title of thread (3502]
============================================================================================

Dear readers and fellow posters here, have you ever had come across atheists and all kinds and manners of God-deniers, working together with theists and all kinds and manners of God-knowers, to resolve together the issue God exists or not, and to have agreed from start, to accept their mutually arrived at conclusion, namely, God exists, or God does not exist?

That is what I would consider to be a non-partisan approach to resolve the issue, God exists or God does not exist.

I am a God-knower, and I care very much to invite an atheist or any kind of God-denier, for us to work together, on behalf of mankind of which we are members, to pool our cognitive resources together, and collaborate honestly, intelligently, and productively: to arrive at the conclusion - God exists or God does not exist.

I am waiting with bated breath to meet any fellow human for a non-partisan undertaking to resolve the issue, God exists or God does not exist.

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

posted by Pachomius on Mar, 22 2021 @ 08:54 AM
Wanted Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. -Title of thread (3499)
============================================================================================


"What about you anyone else?
Or are you all scared stiff to answer my in effect challenge to you all, namely again: 'Are you keen on us working together in a non-partisan approach to resolve God exists or not?'"


What indeed is a non-partisan approach to resolve the issue God exists or not?

Is there such an animal as a non-partisan approach to resolve any issue at all?

Yes, I can think up a panel of honest intelligent productive humans, who will first work to concur on the criteria to be applied in the resolution of any issue at all.

In re the issue God exists or not, the criteria will be the concurred on definitions of the words/concepts: existence, God, proof - reached by the humans who work together honestly, intelligently, and productively, as to arrive at the final agreed on definitions of the words/concepts: existence, God, proof.

Dear fellow colleague posters here, please tell me what are your provisional definitions of these words: existence, God, proof?

From my part, here are my proposed definitions of existence, God, and proof - for the consideration of such a non-partisan panel of humans to work on: as to arrive at the communally agreed on final definitions of existence, God, and proof:

[quote starts]

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.

[quote ends]

Now the non-partisan panel of honest intelligent productive humans can use our provisional definitions of the words/concepts of existence, God, proof, and work to produce their own concurred definitions, which they will employ as to determine a common definitive finding on Yes, God exists, or No, God does not exist.

a reply to: Pachomius

There is nothing honest about you.

a reply to: Pachomius

You

How else but with us both working together to arrive at concurrence on all things:

That’s the point. You ignore others persons personal experience for your own self serving purpose.

a reply to: Pachomius

I believe God exists however your repetitive arguments founded on circular reasoning don't fit the description of honest, intelligent or productive.

you can try looking by opposites, or by reduction to the absurd.

1) opposites:
Does the evil exist?
Does the evil exists in this world?
if not, then why people takes a lot of efford to honor him?
Does the evil rules this world?
Or it communicates inside you,by stopping your talks with God?
Why a lot of people and civilizations take a lot of efford to put bands on your eyes to dont let you know who you are, where do you come from, and where are you going?

2)reduction to the absurd.
Can God die?
The particles in the uniserse are not eternal, have a very large, but limited period of life. Particles are in the realm of the created.
Then God extends beyond all the created.
Everything vibrates in the universes.
All, a sound, a colour, a light, a density, electricity, all is a vibration.
It it moves, its alive, or it is a product of a first thing that moved it.
Intelligence is in not in our brain, In fact, water is able to respond your questions inside water. For example if you asks to the water for Love. The water answers divinity, god, divine, in ancient old languages and symbols (protovedic, greek, latin, hierographics,etc) in superposition inside water itself in 3D, keeping the answer per months inside water.
But you have been taught to dont believe in your connection with the all...

If the universe is a thought, and you have access to thinking, you have access to the souce. In the same way you can access it or perceive it.
In Dzogchen it is remain in the clarity after your body dies and your spirit gets free.

Can God has past? No, it is all a continuous present.
When you are in kind of absolute present, you become a little more like God as your awareness and conscious fluctuates different.
Why the new order cares a lot to keep your sould slept, disconnected with the source?
They entertain you, they destroy you slowly, they keep you in the ignorance, theydisconnect you at biological level, making you slave.
Why all this efford?
As their satanic chief said: they remain in you alive, while you think about it.
So, All it the manifestation of ideas , and soul.
If the evil does not exist, why all the efford?
At the end, all manifestations, came from the same source, which is beyond space and time.

Can god be absent from itself ? If god is present in all, god is present in you.
As the creation was a moment of awareness. Then is present in all that vibrates. You have the way to know it in the way of symbols, and logic you are used to understand in this temporary way of life form.

The souce that sustains all your atoms, particles, body, space, life, breath of life, soul , vibrations, and thoughts is what is called God.
Without that substent nothing exists.

I am gonna tell you something that maybe you dont understand:

Sun light answers to your thoughts.

The universe is alive, and the connection is in all. And rays of sun light answer your thoughts.
Think, and think, about it.

sun rays are live, they cure, they heal. your neurong communivate via uv light, and your particles are made of light.
you are connected with the all in every instant.

the you can understand now lucifer, the dark, this world, and by opposite, the light, the god.

a reply to: Grenade

Perhaps if anything "exists" : then maybe 'everything' could "exist" : then why would God not "exist" ?

Then perhaps if nothing "exists" : how would it be knowable if God "exists" ?

Perhaps it is beyond us : to 'know' whether or not God "exists" ?

Are we able to admit : that maybe, just maybe : we don't 'know' everything ?

Am willing to welcome, all those stating that they 'know' that God "exists".
Am also welcoming all that 'know' otherwise.
But me ? Don't know nothin.





When somebody yells your name from across the room : does everybody roll-up into a ball, and hide under tables ?

Wanted Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. -Title of thread (3510]
=============================================================================================

The investigation of existence leads us to the existence of 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.

1. Our investigation of our own existence tells us that we are transient beings, i.e. we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death.
2. Thinking on this fact, namely, that we are transient beings, brings us to the implication that there has got to be a being that is permanent and self-existent, that is the cause of us humans, and everything else that also has a beginning and an ending, like the universe.
3. At this point we go forth into the object world that is outside our concept world which is in our mind.
4. In the object world we seek this being which is permanent and self-existent and is the cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.
5. We are still seeking . . .

What do you guys fellow posters here say about my idea?

There are several different types of "god". A highly-evolved entity deliberately exercizing psychic powers to influence one or more people will be feared and worshipped as a god (with a small 'g').

The group consciousness of a psychically potent community eventually develops an independent consciousness of its own and becomes a god both to its creators and to those outside the community with whom it reacts.

There are numerous psychophysical entities in Nature with unusual powers that are seldom encountered by humans; but when they are they are often thought to be gods.

However, the concept of a single God responsible for the creation of the entire Universe is merely a projection of human individuality onto the Cosmic Consciousness responsible for cosmic creation. The Universe is a self-created, self-aware manifestation of this Cosmic Consciousness, which is far greater than any individual within it.

The Abrahamic God is the dominant conceit of Those of Yahweh, foisted on Earthlings to enforce their adoration, fear, worship and obedience. Believe in it if you wish, but you'll be enslaved by it.

a reply to: Pachomius

Why would you need proof if your have a personal relationship with your god.

Wanted Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. -Title of thread (3513]
=============================================================================================


The Universe is a self-created, self-aware manifestation of this Cosmic Consciousness, which is far greater than any individual within it. -Phirun

That makes the universe identical to God in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transent, i.e. with a beginning and an ending. That is my definition of God, though - so dear Phirun, we have no quarrel.

Why would you need proof if you have a personal relationship with your god. -Neutron

I see you to be reciting the born-again declaration of Christians on having a personal relationship with Jesus who to you is God, such a posture of Christians is definitely a manifestation of their concept of God as derived from what I call the concept of God from religion, not the concept of God from reason - which is mine, 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.

God from religion makes of God some kind of a Man Friday,* and I see it to be some devaluation of God.


*Man Friday, one of the main characters of Daniel Defoe's 1719 novel Robinson Crusoe. Robinson Crusoe names the man Friday, with whom he cannot at first communicate, because they first meet on that day. The character is the source of the expression "Man Friday", used to describe a male personal assistant or servant, especially one who is particularly competent or loyal. -Wikipedia

> That makes the universe identical to God in concept

Correct in theory. In practice, the concept of God with a capital 'G' has become so anthropomorphized that the mental image of a 'superman' of some sort is unconscious and automatic, hence my dislike of the term. The Abrahamic God is commonly pictured as the wrathful Old Man in the sky eager to cast sinners into Hell. Greek gods were more human, but Zeus/Jupiter as King of the Gods wasn't much better, if a lot more reprobate.

My use of the term Cosmic Consciousness is intended to emphasize that, at its 'higher' levels of operation, such foibles as human emotion and thought do not even exist: they are manifestations of a much lower order. We each have the POTENTIAL ability to approach such states of consciousness (samadhi etc), but in my experience the closer you get, the more timeless and ephemeral is the experience. You return as from a state of calm bliss, mind totally quiescent, and it takes an hour or two to relate to your surroundings. A sort of "after-echo" perseveres for several days. I doubt that meditating on any of the popular Gods produces anything like this.

a reply to: Pachomius

What are you babbling about.

There is nothing honest about you.

Your here to push your own views, and try to shout down other people’s experiences.

How does being spiritual, and having a personal relationship with God constitute a “religion” any different than your “religion”?

At least I have faith in my God, and try to adhere to God’s creation. And I am fluid to those in this earthly existence.

While you go on these dogmatic rants about your little g god’s inert existence. An existence like your little g god doesn’t exist at all.

————-

By the way. Admit it. You got excited again when you saw someone posting on this thread, and wet yourself.

Your here for attention, and browbeat individuals that have actual experience of God with your own religious and dogmatic views that do not honor God’s creation in anyway, and have zero value to the lives created by God.

The only thing your here for is to honor your only god, and that is yourself. While crapping on other people’s experiences.

I didn’t buy into “white privilege” and “mansplaining” until you stated posting. Yea, your posts are that bad.

a reply to: neutronflux

At least I have faith in my God, and try to adhere to God’s creation. And I am fluid to those in this earthly existence.

What does that even mean?

How do you adhere to God's creation?

How are you fluid to those in this earthy existence?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux

At least I have faith in my God, and try to adhere to God’s creation. And I am fluid to those in this earthly existence.

What does that even mean?

How do you adhere to God's creation?

How are you fluid to those in this earthy existence?

Please tell me how you honor creation.

And I am not the one posting to negate and belittle people’s experiences. Just like you did.

So. You can respectfully share your experiences. Or you can get the time out of my schedule someone as dismissing as you deserves.

Maybe if you spent more time understanding those in creating than being dogmatic and dismissive, you might have a better understanding without being an a$$.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

What was your theory on those that suffered under slavery? That it wasn’t a real experience, or some BS?