Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


What was the question?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

What was the question?

Oh, nevermind. I thought you were actually following along. You should probably read the thread.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Maybe you imagined a question.
The first cause of the seeming separation was the question.
'Why' is the seeking mind- the cause of the individual.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Maybe you imagined a question.
The first cause of the seeming separation was the question.
'Why' is the seeking mind- the cause of the individual.

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Maybe -you- simply don't understand what "Begging the Question" means, because that is really the only explanation I can come up with as to why you would ask the question you did.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Maybe you imagined a question.
The first cause of the seeming separation was the question.
'Why' is the seeking mind- the cause of the individual.

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Maybe -you- simply don't understand what "Begging the Question" means, because that is really the only explanation I can come up with as to why you would ask the question you did.

You told me I did not give an answer to the question;
"Simplified, this doesn't actually answer the question, and is merely just a statement of belief." Quote.

I asked what question was it supposed to be an answer to? A specific question you said my post did not answer?
I am confused.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Maybe you imagined a question.
The first cause of the seeming separation was the question.
'Why' is the seeking mind- the cause of the individual.

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Maybe -you- simply don't understand what "Begging the Question" means, because that is really the only explanation I can come up with as to why you would ask the question you did.

You told me I did not give an answer to the question;
"Simplified, this doesn't actually answer the question, and is merely just a statement of belief." Quote.

I asked what question was it supposed to be an answer to? A specific question you said my post did not answer?
I am confused.

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

en.wikipedia.org...

You are confused because you do not understand what "Begging the Question" means. I implore you to please read the link provided.

You are assuming God exists without answering the question of God's existence. You are assuming the point without proof of the point and allow your assumption to stand as proof of your claim. This is a logical fallacy.

I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, because I don't know, but your logical reasoning in getting to that conclusion is flawed, ergo, it can't be used as evidence of the existence of God.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
en.wikipedia.org...

You are confused because you do not understand what "Begging the Question" means. I implore you to please read the link provided.

You are assuming God exists without answering the question of God's existence. You are assuming the point without proof of the point and allow your assumption to stand as proof of your claim. This is a logical fallacy.

I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, because I don't know, but your logical reasoning in getting to that conclusion is flawed, ergo, it can't be used as evidence of the existence of God.

You are assuming that I said god exists.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
You are assuming that I said god exists.

No, you very clearly and in plain language said that God exists. I mean, you can claim that your usage of the term "the lord" could mean something else, but within the context of this thread, and the post that you were quoting, nothing but a declaration that God exists even makes sense.

To say otherwise after the fact would be disingenuous.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
You are assuming that I said god exists.

No, you very clearly and in plain language said that you believe God exists. I mean, you can claim that you usage of the term "the lord" could mean something else, but within the context of this thread, and the post that you were quoting, nothing but a declaration that God exists even makes sense.

To say otherwise after the fact would be disingenuous.

This right here is presence - it is the lord - it is all there is - all appearances appear within and as it.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
You are assuming that I said god exists.

No, you very clearly and in plain language said that you believe God exists. I mean, you can claim that you usage of the term "the lord" could mean something else, but within the context of this thread, and the post that you were quoting, nothing but a declaration that God exists even makes sense.

To say otherwise after the fact would be disingenuous.

This right here is presence - it is the lord - it is all there is - all appearances appear within and as it.

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Yeah, uh.. thanks for proving my point, I guess?

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
You are assuming that I said god exists.

No, you very clearly and in plain language said that you believe God exists. I mean, you can claim that you usage of the term "the lord" could mean something else, but within the context of this thread, and the post that you were quoting, nothing but a declaration that God exists even makes sense.

To say otherwise after the fact would be disingenuous.

This right here is presence - it is the lord - it is all there is - all appearances appear within and as it.

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Yeah, uh.. thanks for proving my point, I guess?

Do we have a winner?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
You are assuming that I said god exists.

No, you very clearly and in plain language said that you believe God exists. I mean, you can claim that you usage of the term "the lord" could mean something else, but within the context of this thread, and the post that you were quoting, nothing but a declaration that God exists even makes sense.

To say otherwise after the fact would be disingenuous.

This right here is presence - it is the lord - it is all there is - all appearances appear within and as it.

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Yeah, uh.. thanks for proving my point, I guess?

Do we have a winner?

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

No winners in logic, only losers I'm afraid. Something either is logical or someone is wrong. That's the best thing about deductive reasoning, only the person making the claim is actually putting themselves out there. Like this idea of Intelligent Causation. If someone thinks it happened, they can make the case based on logic, and if it sticks, there really isn't much defense, until the known nature of the Universe itself changes, which has been known to happen.

Begging the question is a type of circular reasoning where the conclusion is included in the premise.

However the question was "who created the creator?". This is what is called a category mistake. The question is a fallacy to begin with. It only applies to someone who believes in a created creator.

In other words the charge of begging the question as it relates to the question of who created the creator is in fact a strawman fallacy. As well as the question being a category mistake, the premise is included in the very question to begin with!

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
No winners in logic, only losers I'm afraid. Something either is logical or someone is wrong. That's the best thing about deductive reasoning, only the person making the claim is actually putting themselves out there. Like this idea of Intelligent Causation. If someone thinks it happened, they can make the case based on logic, and if it sticks, there really isn't much defense, until the known nature of the Universe itself changes, which has been known to happen.

Logically - have you ever not been here and now?
Has anything other than the present moment ever been available to you?
Is there a you separate from the present moment?
Can anything really be separated from the present?

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


What is the big problem if some believe God exists?

I believe God exists and in my mind there is no doubt. I have proven God existence to my self.
If you and others havent found any proof to convince you. Its is more your problem than ours. There is no way any of us will convince you or any one else why we believe in God.

reply to post by squiz


Nothing created the question and nothing is the answer.

Originally posted by squiz
Begging the question is a type of circular reasoning where the conclusion is included in the premise.

However the question was "who created the creator?". This is what is called a category mistake. The question is a fallacy to begin with. It only applies to someone who believes in a created creator.

In other words the charge of begging the question as it relates to the question of who created the creator is in fact a strawman fallacy. As well as the question being a category mistake, the premise is included in the very question to begin with!

I was taking the statements as-is without including them into the larger framework. In this regard, simply stating God is Timeless assumes the initial point that God exists. When taken into the thread at large, "The Universe was created by God because God is Timeless and existed before the Universe" -is- circular reasoning, to be assured.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

What is the big problem if some believe God exists?

I believe God exists and in my mind there is no doubt. I have proven God existence to my self.
If you and others havent found any proof to convince you. Its is more your problem than ours. There is no way any of us will convince you or any one else why we believe in God.

I don't have a problem with some believing in God. The problem arises when someone says that they can logically prove God's existence.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by squiz
Begging the question is a type of circular reasoning where the conclusion is included in the premise.

However the question was "who created the creator?". This is what is called a category mistake. The question is a fallacy to begin with. It only applies to someone who believes in a created creator.

In other words the charge of begging the question as it relates to the question of who created the creator is in fact a strawman fallacy. As well as the question being a category mistake, the premise is included in the very question to begin with!

I was taking the statements as-is without including them into the larger framework. In this regard, simply stating God is Timeless assumes the initial point that God exists. When taken into the thread at large, "The Universe was created by God because God is Timeless and existed before the Universe" -is- circular reasoning, to be assured.

This is 'being' the present - it is timelessly present.
'Becoming' is in time. Time is an 'idea' arising presently.
All arises in presence as presence - it is all there is, it looks different, constantly changing in appearance.
This is God - it is 'nothing' appearing as everything.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
No winners in logic, only losers I'm afraid. Something either is logical or someone is wrong. That's the best thing about deductive reasoning, only the person making the claim is actually putting themselves out there. Like this idea of Intelligent Causation. If someone thinks it happened, they can make the case based on logic, and if it sticks, there really isn't much defense, until the known nature of the Universe itself changes, which has been known to happen.

Logically - have you ever not been here and now?
Has anything other than the present moment ever been available to you?
Is there a you separate from the present moment?
Can anything really be separated from the present?

Precognition is not one of my abilities, but I have been in the company of others that have seemingly demonstrated such abilities.