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

From Phantom423 a reply to: Pachomius

"You're mixing apples and oranges. The existence of a god or gods is a BELIEF system."


Now, Phantom, have you ever sought to work with me at all or with anyone at all, in the quest of concurrence on how to resolve an issue, like for example, God exists or not.

If you have never, then now today have the courage to engage me, or are you always into running away from me?


You are bringing in science, but you are pretty unscientific for always making ipse dixit statements - because you have his attitude that you are infallible.


Dear readers here, take notice, Phantom423 is fearful of dealing with me, I will ask him a question, and you see whether he will answer me - relevantly.


Okay, Phantom423, think honestly intelligently and productively, what is your definition of God? And make it brief but pithy.


We are now in the world of ideas with people who talk on and on and on - without ever taking any concern with seeking to achieve concurrence on: how to get others to concur with them, even just on exactly what they are talking about, and it is because everyone has this attitude that they are infallible, and that is due to the mania of free speech even though it is all vacuous speech.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Pachomius

You're mixing apples and oranges. The existence of a god or gods is a BELIEF system. Science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Beliefs require no evidence. It's the right of the individual to believe anything they want. You can discuss it all you want over a martini but science requires evidence - data that you can examine and interpret.

To date, there is no hard evidence for a god or gods. And that's fine. People can believe whatever makes them happy.
But what they can't do is misconstrue the evidence (or lack of evidence) from science and turn it into something it is not. It would be a falsehood no matter how many martinis you had.

a reply to: Pachomius

I have no definition of "god" and neither do you. The concept is unprovable, unknowable and irrelevant.

a reply to: Xtrozero

It is not expanding without friction... That friction is called gravity and the universe will slow down from the original big bang force and then gravity will start it to go backwards. Right now It is still expanding from the force of the big bang.

Dont you see the problem With this Gravity you think of...? How far will Our universe expand until time stops and the retraction take splace…?

At present time the mass of the universe is greater then the infinite time Space..... Right...? TIme Space is the weaker force right, it does not act as friction when it comes to Our universes expansion.

Our Universe is a compressed mass of matter and energy. Infnite time Space is not. So infinite time Space is per defintion a stronger vaccum then the mass of our universe. Conclution the mass of universe can expand.,


For the finite mass to be able to retract/compress its own expanded properties this mass must at one point in time become a less mass then the infintie time Space..? The vaccume force of finite must at one point become greater then the vaccum of infinite time Space. Now how in hell would a finite mass expand to the point that it becomes a stronger vaccume compared to infinite time Space...? How would you explain that..?

There is no way in hell the finite mass of Our universe would ever retract and form a New singularity… That is impossible.

For that to happened the mass of Our universe would have to be capable of expanding beyond the the force of time Space and become a stronger vaccum then the vaccum Our universe is expanding in.... THat is impossible. And you should know that.

Our universe is nothing like a black hole. Our universe is getting weaker not stronger when it comes to mass.[

Our universe will expand until the force of expantion is Equal to time Space. There is no way in hell our universe will expand Beyond that. And there is no way it will retract because there will not be any force present to make that happened.

Our universe will always be a posetive mass no matter what finite state it is in,... therefor it will expand...emitt energy, heat and particles to the infinite time Space. Because finite is never equal to the mass of time Space and can never be that until it has completed it's expantion.

The expantion is only completed when all finite mass have completed its expantion and become infinite time Space. Our universe can not expand Beyond time Space. And our universe would never be capable of harnishing a foce that would make it capable of retraction. That is just science fiction….

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Pachomius

I have no definition of "god" and neither do you. The concept is unprovable, unknowable and irrelevant.

Quite insane from your part, as you have no idea at all about God, and still you are here in this thread which is all about God exists or not.


Can't see how so much insane folks are in internet forums, but that is the reality of the internet forum scene.



Dear readers, please read the text below under the caption [For your orientation], so that you will know what the thread is all about.
_________________________




[For your orientation]

For my definition of God: God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning." -Pachomius [17 words]

And for universe, my definition is the following: universe in concept is everything observable to man, in particular to scientists to study - most importantly in regard to its origin.

This is the title of the thread from Pachomius:

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


And the OP is as follows:

[posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 01:12 PM]
On the assumption that mankind sincerely seeks knowledge, I submit that it is possible for any person to come to resolve the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, i.e., thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas. Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God. What do you dear colleagues here say?

a reply to: Pachomius



If I told you there was a cure for cancer, you would ask for the proof – clinical trials etc. If there were none, would you risk taking the cure?

If you were asked to fly in an airplane that had never taken off and landed safely, would you do it?

But in the matter of a god, you expect people to follow logic that begins and ends with nothing but your own opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to say that your opinion is true without evidence.

I think you consider yourself to be a great thinker, that everyone else is simply engaged in an exercise geared to your entertainment. You might check on the definition of “arrogance” (and it does have a definition unlike a god). You place yourself on an unwarranted pedestal and then look down on anyone who can't grasp your “logic”. But it is your logic that's faulty because you don't recognize that your logic with regard to the existence of a god can never be proven. No conclusion can be drawn from your logic. Your opinion is not falsifiable and will always remain an opinion. You need to go back to Critical Thinking 101.

a reply to: Pachomius

Moste peopel who rome on ATS are not here to understand but to argue.

There is a sayin that state: People hardly learn anything from other Peoples mistakes. They only learn from the pain of their own mistakes.

a reply to: Phantom423

With a reasoning like that i sure understand you. But let me ask. Are you using Your head at all.... How can you compare a Cure for canser to a beleif in God. Would the outcome of that be the same in any way..?

If we compare the risks here. Would it be safer to have some faith in God or to have faith in a Cure to cansor..?

Which faith woudl kill you if Your faith was wrong..?

a reply to: spy66


The point I was making was that belief systems are just that: beliefs. There are no proofs. The OP was attempting to foster a belief in the existence of a god based on some kind of logic. But things don't work like that in the real world. In the real world we require evidence to have confidence in something.

Believing in a god is fine. My personal opinion is if there is a god that's fine, if there isn't that's okay too. I'm not going to waste a lot of time coming up with convoluted rationales for something that I can never prove.

Using the cancer and airplane analogy simply makes the point that in our real world we require proofs in our every day experience. A god has no proof and isn't part of our every day experience.

Let me ask you this: What if your god turned out to be something very different than the Judeo-Christian god which most people believe in? What if it turned out to be a super being who was simply playing games from another universe and didn't really care about you and me? What if the god was a super evil entity causing suffering, pain and death? It's all within the realm of possibility - simply because we don't know.

1. Experience your own existence, you exist don't you, otherwise you would not be here.

2. Look around you, and you will notice that you and plenty plenty plenty other entities are like you, with a beginning.

3. With a beginning, that means they did not bring themselves into existence.

4. Wherefore some entity without beginning but existing from its own self, is the cause of these entities with a beginning.

5. So in the course of the history of ideas a good portion of mankind have called or named this entity God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.



Now, in less than 50 words, tell me what's your problem with my step by step demonstration of the existence of God?

a reply to: Pachomius

Because it doesn’t honor god. And here to honor only yourself.

You will say, no evidence.


You don't have a definition of evidence, of course.


Hey, what about your experience of your existence, does that count for evidence?


Anyway, here is my definition of evidence: anything you know to exist which brings you to know another thing to exist.

Will you just abstain from insisting that God is a belief system?


There is belief and belief, what you want to define belief is that it is totally arbitrary, without any foundation in experience.


That only gives the lie away that your conceptual world is woefully deficient.

a reply to: Pachomius

You

Hey, what about your experience of your existence, does that count for evidence?

Nothing if your going to lie about what people post, and falsely label people’s experience as “religion”

You

originally posted by: Pachomius

I see that you all wrongly conflate God with religion, you can have religion without God.

While you keep placing god in you dogma of a religious definition.

If you don’t believe in gods. That is your right and free will.

What your doing is just seeing people argue in circular logic to your own satisfaction, and doesn’t honor the love and glory of a true god.

Again. If alien extraterrestrials created life and earth, which is a real possibility, would that make them gods. Or is there more to being a god than creating physical objects.

Do people have souls, and can souls only be brought into existence by a true god.

Is there only a physical aspect of life? Or is there a spiritual aspect that is the domain of God?

originally posted by: Pachomius
Will you just abstain from insisting that God is a belief system?

I am not the one trying to lockdown god in a definition.

Again. If this existence is purely physical. Then we could all be gods. Just create something.

There is belief and belief, what you want to define belief is that it is totally arbitrary, without any foundation in experience.

In that if there is a “true” god, then that being is more than a physical existence. Its probably not an existence that can be defined by a purely physical being, or a one dimensional physical language.

That only gives the lie away that your conceptual world is woefully deficient.

Your the one trying to box in a being that might be physical, spiritual, energy, multidimensional with a single cookbook definition with a language that only has one word for love.....

a reply to: Pachomius

What’s wrong. Afraid God might be more than a physical being that cannot be captured and caged by your one dimensional definition?

Dear readers, please read the text below under the caption [For your orientation], so that you will know what the thread is all about.
_________________________




Okay, dear anyone here, please accept my invitation to you that you and I work together as to concur on the meaning of a word, so that at the end of our exchange of thoughts, we will have come to an agreed on meaning of the word.

Here is the word we are going to work on together as to come to an agreed on meaning of the word, namely, the word: evidence.

If you want to suggest another word instead of evidence, please do present your word, for us to work together as to come to the agreed meaning of the word you propose.


Why do I choose the word evidence? Because the thread here is on the issue God exists or not, and there are posters here who insist that there is no evidence for God existing.




[For your orientation]

For my definition of God: God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning." -Pachomius [17 words]

And for universe, my definition is the following: universe in concept is everything observable to man, in particular to scientists to study - most importantly in regard to its origin.

This is the title of the thread from Pachomius:

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


And the OP is as follows:

[posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 01:12 PM]
On the assumption that mankind sincerely seeks knowledge, I submit that it is possible for any person to come to resolve the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, i.e., thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas. Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God. What do you dear colleagues here say?

originally posted by: spy66

Dont you see the problem With this Gravity you think of...? How far will Our universe expand until time stops and the retraction take splace…?

Give or take 100 billion years, long ass time...

At present time the mass of the universe is greater then the infinite time Space..... Right...? TIme Space is the weaker force right, it does not act as friction when it comes to Our universes expansion.

Nope... Our expansion is 14 billion light years big... space/time is infinite... see the difference?

Our Universe is a compressed mass of matter and energy. Infnite time Space is not. So infinite time Space is per defintion a stronger vaccum then the mass of our universe. Conclution the mass of universe can expand.,

No clue to what you are suggesting. Our universe is infinite, do you know what that means? Matter/energy is not infinite. When you say vacuum it is not like your vacuum cleaner... its an emptiness, its not sucking...

For the finite mass to be able to retract/compress its own expanded properties this mass must at one point in time become a less mass then the infintie time Space..? The vaccume force of finite must at one point become greater then the vaccum of infinite time Space. Now how in hell would a finite mass expand to the point that it becomes a stronger vaccume compared to infinite time Space...? How would you explain that..?

Shoot a bullet and see what happens. I don't think you understand what vacuum in space is. That is not a force, it is a lack of force.

There is no way in hell the finite mass of Our universe would ever retract and form a New singularity… That is impossible.

OK..are you an astrophysicist?

For that to happened the mass of Our universe would have to be capable of expanding beyond the the force of time Space and become a stronger vaccum then the vaccum Our universe is expanding in.... THat is impossible. And you should know that.

This makes zero sense...

Our universe will always be a posetive mass no matter what finite state it is in,... therefor it will expand...emitt energy, heat and particles to the infinite time Space. Because finite is never equal to the mass of time Space and can never be that until it has completed it's expantion.

Maybe, one theory is it will expand to the point that all matter is so far apart that gravity and energy basically become so small it is almost nothing...It becomes a black void of nothingness.. let me know in a trillion years...

The key here is whether the universe is slowing down or not. That is measurable.

What's happening in this thread from "Jul, 5 2020 @ 02:32 PM" [my local time eight hours in advance of Greenwich] to now in my local date and time, "Jul, 5 2020 @ 11:40 PM"?


That is some 9:08 hours and minutes without any poster accepting my invitation to first work together as to arrive at concurrence of the word evidence, or any other word, that has any bearing at all, toward the resolution of the issue in this thread, namely, God exists or not.


That is what I mean about thinkers not daring to undertake the definition of crucial words thinkers use in re the issue God exists or not - this indicates most conspicuously that thinkers here except yours truly don't have the honest intelligent productive heart and mind to take up definition of words, i.e. everyone else is not at all again: with an honest intelligent productive heart and mind to take up definition of words.

So what is everybody doing here except yours truly?

From my honest intelligent and predictive mind and heart, I say they must be into some very irrational bordering on insanity undertaking in this thread, which is about the issue God exists or not.

posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 02:32 PM

Dear readers, please read the text below under the caption [For your orientation], so that you will know what the thread is all about.
_________________________




Okay, dear anyone here, please accept my invitation to you that you and I work together as to concur on the meaning of a word, so that at the end of our exchange of thoughts, we will have come to an agreed on meaning of the word.

Here is the word we are going to work on together as to come to an agreed on meaning of the word, namely, the word: evidence.

If you want to suggest another word instead of evidence, please do present your word, for us to work together as to come to the agreed meaning of the word you propose.


Why do I choose the word evidence? Because the thread here is on the issue God exists or not, and there are posters here who insist that there is no evidence for God existing.




[For your orientation]


For my definition of God: God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning." -Pachomius [17 words]

And for universe, my definition is the following: universe in concept is everything observable to man, in particular to scientists to study - most importantly in regard to its origin.



This is the title of the thread from Pachomius:

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


And the OP is as follows:

[posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 01:12 PM]
On the assumption that mankind sincerely seeks knowledge, I submit that it is possible for any person to come to resolve the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, i.e., thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas. Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God. What do you dear colleagues here say?

a reply to: Pachomius

Your trying to define a none physical being with physical context and a limited language.

Shrugs..

When people have a relationship with God.

Maybe this journey is yours and yours alone? And you should come to terms with your own soul and beliefs. And seek validation from your god, and not validation from humans?

The real question Is not that god is known to you. But you are known to god, not separated from god, and your soul is apart of gods song of life and kingdom.

Addendum

Definitions are important because they are one of the ways in which you control (as best you can) how the reader understands your essay. Without them, you and your audience may have a radically different sense of the key terms of your argument. So define your terms—but don't simply rely on the dictionary.Mar 20, 2020
How to eschew weasel words ... | Hub
hub.jhu.edu › 2020/03/20 › weasel-words-writing-tips

www.abovetopsecret.com...