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

Dear everyone, as there is an oft repeated request for me to show my proof on evidence for the existence of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, allow me to reproduce my post, below, for your study.

After you have studied it, may I just ask you to kindly bring up No. 1 line, for us all to discuss: you see, without your acceptance of No. 1, it is impossible for you to understand the whole procedure of my proof.

So, if you don’t first bring up No. 1, I will opt to not give attention to your message.

Pachomius posted on Aug, 9 2020 @ 07:13 AM
.

Dear everyone, here is my exposition proving from evidence the existence of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

.

1. You and I and he she it, we all exist, do you accept that?

2. You and I and he she it, we came from our parents, do you accept that?

3. Our parents came from their parents, do you accept that?

4. We all humans make up the human race, can you accept that?

5. The human race had a beginning in the universe, can you accept that?

6. Scientists tell us the universe had a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, can you accept that?

7. There has been the domain of existence prior to the beginning of the universe, can you accept that?

8. In that domain of existence prior to the beginning of the universe, there has got to be an entity, which created or caused the coming to the beginning of the existence of the universe, can you accept that?

9. Evidence is anything existing which leads man to ascertain the existence of another thing, can you accept?

10. Wherefore, man and the universe and everything with a beginning are the evidence to the existence of an entity, which created or caused them to come to existence, can you accept that?

11. And therefore we can call that entity in concept and in name, as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, can you accept that?

12. If you cannot or will not accept that God exists, are you not then either irrational or dishonestly stubborn against the existence of God?

.


Dear everyone, please point out what Number 1 to 12 you have difficulties with, okay?

.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

.

a reply to: Pachomius

You

After you have studied it, may I just ask you to kindly bring up No. 1 line, for us all to discuss: you see, without your acceptance of No. 1, it is impossible for you to understand the whole procedure of my proof.

Circular logic is not proof.

You need to state a clear hypothesis concerning god, then produce a repeatable experiment that produces data that supports your hypothesis.

So. You only have your “faith” that is not accepted as “evidence” by a majority of people.

What now?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
No physical properties.....invisible.

Being invisible is a physical property which pure awareness would not have.

originally posted by: neutronflux

So. You only have your “faith” that is not accepted as “evidence” by a majority of people.

What now?

All matter exists according to precise physical laws. Laws require intelligence, and they are mathematically predictable because of this fact. To believe this all came to be by random chance, without intelligent input, is the most farcical fantasy ever to infect the human conscience.

a reply to: cooperton

Joe Kane and when was the last time Chelsea won the league or champions league before the Russian takeover,? You most prob started to support Chelsea after the Russian takeover

But where is the evidence thst your religion is real. Do you have that evidence to share?

a reply to: cooperton

You

Laws require intelligence,

Laws are a human concept. An iron block, or a virus could careless.

Then please show how the Differences in the theories of relativity and quantum physics has been resolved to create one universal law? Or does that mean there is a “quantum god” and a “relatively god”?

God is that that in the end wins with or without you.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
God is that that in the end wins with or without you.

Still not proof.

You only have faith like everyone else that god exists or doesn’t.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Yes!

Yes it is.

I was ready to ask "really turquoise, or appears turquoise ?"
But upon looking at my question: LOL

a reply to: neutronflux

Faith God doesn't exist is a contradiction.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: neutronflux

Faith God doesn't exist is a contradiction.

And yet people have faith in god doesn’t exist. Is that a false statement? And faith in evolution.

a reply to: neutronflux

That's word salad.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: neutronflux

That's word salad.

It’s a reality that people can think in the abstract. Like the bloody knife told a story. Or when pigs fly, went over like a lead ballon. Throw salt over your shoulder when you spill salt. Knock on wood. The joys of the silent song.

a reply to: Pachomius

I haven't seen many responses to that list, maybe because it's nonsensical but I'll give my thoughts on it.

1-6 I can accept with the caveat that the 'Big Bang' model mentioned in number 6 is perhaps not as secure as it once was although I could be wrong about that. So ever onward...

7. There has been the domain of existence prior to the beginning of the universe, can you accept that?

Nobody knows what there was before the beginning of the universe. There are many theories, even that it sprang into existence from nothing. So no one knows. Can you accept that?

8. In that domain of existence prior to the beginning of the universe, there has got to be an entity, which created or caused the coming to the beginning of the existence of the universe, can you accept that?

See No 7, regards 'domain of existence '. Not only is that assumption flawed but you have now introduced an 'entity' magically into this. Cause and effect would be a more acceptable proposition with 'entity' being replaced by say 'agent' and said 'agent' would not necessarily be living or conscious. Know one knows. Can you accept that?

9. Evidence is anything existing which leads man to ascertain the existence of another thing, can you accept?

I don't like the way that question is structured, it is deliberately vague and obtuse. So no I don't accept that.

10. Wherefore, man and the universe and everything with a beginning are the evidence to the existence of an entity, which created or caused them to come to existence, can you accept that?

I'll fall back on my reply to No 8 which really shows how circular this nonsense is. Can you accept that?

11. And therefore we can call that entity in concept and in name, as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, can you accept that?

Already covered in my reply to No 8.

12. If you cannot or will not accept that God exists, are you not then either irrational or dishonestly stubborn against the existence of God?

This last question really just about sums up this thread. Deliberately flawed from the outset and written in a stupid manner for God knows what reason. Hey there's evidence here too for that old adage 'give enough chimps a laptop"

All that's left, is just amusement and last wordiness. Maybe that was the whole idea from the outset. So kudos for the entertainment.

Regards midicon

a reply to: Pachomius
6. Beginning in as far as we human measures time and space and in it's current state. No reason to think the Universe has not always existed.
7. No evidence to support that..existence can only be measured by the observer. So if we didn't exist...not existing is not evidence of saying nothing else existed prior.
8.No...who created or caused the entity.
9. Anything existing is the thing that exist. Anything beyond existence does not exist. It is that simple
10. the only evidence of anything existing is the things that exist..i.e. The universe and it's content
11. you can make up and call anything by name...the tooth fairy , Santa clause, the Easter bunny. That does not prove they actually exists or they created a universe.
12. Are you disillusion into think something exists without proof of it's existence.

a reply to: cooperton

That so called in intelligence is attributable to the Universe through a sequence of trial and error. What we conceive as perfection and order can also be construed as chaos...meteor shower, solar flare, nova explosions, volcanoes, hurricanes, twisters etc etc

a reply to: Pachomius

No. 1

1. You and I and he she it, we all exist, do you accept that?

Definition of creature
1: something created either animate or inanimate: such as
a: a lower animal
especially : a farm animal
b: a human being
c: a being of anomalous or uncertain aspect or nature
creatures of fantasy
...
History and Etymology for creature
Middle English, borrowed from Anglo-French, borrowed from Late Latin creātūra "act of bringing into being, something brought into being," from Latin creātus, past participle of creāre "to beget, give birth to, CREATE entry 1" + -ūra
...
“Creature.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com... Accessed 10 Aug. 2020.

(1 c) Exists in fantasy, be it you, I, he, she, or it.
As I sit here, I can day dream that you and I are conversing. I can imagine myself better looking. I can imagine that you are not as fat as myself, with more eyebrows than I have, and a much shorter beard. I can imagine that she sits over there by that house plant and smiles more after my comments than yours. But who is keeping score?

It would seem that I could accept your 1, but then I think of he, she, and its that once existed but no longer do. On that basis I must not accept 1.

I'm sorry.

Dear midicon, enough, you accept my No. 1 item, namely:

1. You and I and he she it, we all exist, do you accept that?

Let us discuss now together how you and I we are certain that we exist, is that all right with you?

Please, don't abstain from my proposal that we now discuss how you and I we are certain of our existence.

Will you be first to tell me how you are certain that you and I we are certain that we exist, or you want me to be first?

.

.

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: Pachomius

I haven't seen many responses to that list, maybe because it's nonsensical but I'll give my thoughts on it.

1-6 I can accept with the caveat that the 'Big Bang' model mentioned in number 6 is perhaps not as secure as it once was although I could be wrong about that. So ever onward...

7. There has been the domain of existence prior to the beginning of the universe, can you accept that?

Nobody knows what there was before the beginning of the universe. There are many theories, even that it sprang into existence from nothing. So no one knows. Can you accept that?

8. In that domain of existence prior to the beginning of the universe, there has got to be an entity, which created or caused the coming to the beginning of the existence of the universe, can you accept that?

See No 7, regards 'domain of existence '. Not only is that assumption flawed but you have now introduced an 'entity' magically into this. Cause and effect would be a more acceptable proposition with 'entity' being replaced by say 'agent' and said 'agent' would not necessarily be living or conscious. Know one knows. Can you accept that?

9. Evidence is anything existing which leads man to ascertain the existence of another thing, can you accept?

I don't like the way that question is structured, it is deliberately vague and obtuse. So no I don't accept that.

10. Wherefore, man and the universe and everything with a beginning are the evidence to the existence of an entity, which created or caused them to come to existence, can you accept that?

I'll fall back on my reply to No 8 which really shows how circular this nonsense is. Can you accept that?

11. And therefore we can call that entity in concept and in name, as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, can you accept that?

Already covered in my reply to No 8.

12. If you cannot or will not accept that God exists, are you not then either irrational or dishonestly stubborn against the existence of God?

This last question really just about sums up this thread. Deliberately flawed from the outset and written in a stupid manner for God knows what reason. Hey there's evidence here too for that old adage 'give enough chimps a laptop"

All that's left, is just amusement and last wordiness. Maybe that was the whole idea from the outset. So kudos for the entertainment.

Regards midicon

.

For the rest who have not accepted my No. 1 step, namely:

1. You and I and he she it, we all exist, do you accept that?

You can continue to post here but I will not concern myself with you, because you have not dared to discuss HOW you and I we are certain of our existence.

For it is my certainty that unless human beings are certain on their existence and know how they have come to certainty, i.e. how they attained certainty, it is useless to attempt any exchange with them on the issue God exists or not.

.

a reply to: Pachomius



What’s your problem?

I actually agree with your premise
And unless your trying to drum up a good-natured argument or two then your question is only about communication skills which you’ll learn in time.