Proof of the existence of God

The proof of god is the ancient texts ( at least 5,000 to 6,000 BCE )

The thing is this , I don't consider these beings gods
 
river said:
The proof of god is the ancient texts ( at least 5,000 to 6,000 BCE
Click to expand...
No it's not.

The thing is this , I don't consider these beings gods
Click to expand...
Um, then your first statement is wrong even by your own admission.
If they're not gods then they're not proven as such, neh?
 
Pachomius said:
That is reminiscent of an atheist here who is into verbosity in aid of vain pomposity. Many atheists talk that way, instead of thinking on facts and evidence and talk or speak out their honest solid findings on facts and logic.
Click to expand...
Utter drivel. Of all the people on this thread, and the previous at which you raised this nonsense, it is you who writes 100 words when 10 would suffice. And it is you who has failed to demonstrate any thinking on facts, and certainly not on logic.
No, they don't but they will commit themselves to verbosity in aid of vain pomposity; and finally take to their last safe house, with this kind of a most perversely ingenious very humble declaration, "I don't know," with the pleading for people not to be so presumptuous as to know something for certain, like the existence of God in concept the creator and operator of the unversed and everything with a beginning.
Click to expand...
Nothing here but an attempt on your part to poison the well... you know, that logical fallacy you are undoubtedly aware of, given your espousing on "thinking on yachts and logic".
Okay, no need to invest time and trouble wastefully with your card on what is the meaning of permanent.

You are into what is an eternal universe, but scientists already have this common finding that the universe has a beginning in time and in space; so, no need to play that card of the universe being eternal.
Click to expand...
And here I thought you were finally going to "think on facts and logic" but instead you choose what you want to consider as fact and ignore everything else.
Scientists have a reasonably common understanding that there was indeed a beginning to what we consider time and space, but it is not certain that this was not merely some form of cyclical bang/crunch cycle, with our t=0 merely the start of the latest cycle.
So it is certainly not "fact" that the universe is not eternal, regardless of your dismissal of the notion.
Try again, please. But this time be sure to "think on facts and logic" and not merely what you think are facts and what you consider to be logical.

However, we can talk about the universe in the older original meaning of universe, namely, the totality of existence.

So in the totality of existence there are we may speculate two components, the bigger component which encloses the smaller component:

The bigger component is what I would call properly the totality of existence and the smaller component is what scientists of the Big Bang universe call the universe.

So, let us speculate that there is an entity in the totality of existence that is eternal, and it is in charge of the universe the component that is called universe by scientists today, namely, the one which began in time and in space with what is now called the Big Bang.

So, what do you say, about my speculation?
Click to expand...
That it is just that: speculation. There are no facts to it.
For one who espouses the need to "think on facts and logic" it has been clear for a long time that you tend to do neither.
Dear fellow muscle-builders or fancy talkers here, remember that the number 1 muscle of your existence is the brain: so use your brain to think on facts and logic, instead of talking so much without saying anything supported by your own thinking on facts and logic.

Today I had thought of presenting to you my proof for the existence of God in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

But I now find the task so very boring because it is so obvious to any entity with intelligence and free will: intelligence to know and free will to decide to not suppress his intelligence.

Let us imagine that you and I are newly born infants and we do not know anything at all outside our home, where papa and mama are the ones in charge and provide for everything that we need to stay alive, healthy, active, and happy, and also satisfied with all our wishes whatever in our infancy stage.

Let us further imagine that we have reached the age of one year and five months and we start walking,* and have a working intelligence as to explore our home environment: what do you guys say, shouldn't we already have the idea that papa and mama are the creator and operator of the whole universe of our home, including most importantly, ourselves?

That kind of an experience in infancy enables mankind to come to the concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.
Click to expand...
So you are claiming that to come to the conclusion that "God is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning you need to be as naive and as uneducated as a 17-month old child whose only experience is to be supported by their parents that they can physically see, touch, smell?
Your analogy is pathetic, but adequately demonstrates your apparent limited ability to think critically.

I also note that you again go through the charade of denigrating anyone who fails to accept what you say, even before you have said anything of worth.
So, this morning I like for you fellow posters here but big talkers, to act your drama of big talking atheists as you are, and to respond to my write-up below as follows:

Dear readers, do you notice what is the knee jerk reaction of an atheist when he hears or reads the word God?

My impression is that he directly seeks to suppress in his heart and mind the natural instinct of man to know what it is and how it relates to himself.

What do you say about my impression?
Click to expand...
That it is wrong, and that it is driven from wishful thinking on your part. There is no suppression: there is merely a lack of ability on the part of the theist to adequately explain what God is and what evidence there is for believing God to exist, other than as an unproven concept, along with the infinite other unproven concepts.

Anyway, let us do this every simple experiment, let us present the word God in this thread and observe how the atheists here react in term of what we call a knee jerk reflex, is it to follow man's natural instinct to know what it is and its relation to himself, or to suppress the instinct?

Okay, atheists here, read this word, God, and tell readers what is your knee jerk reaction.
Click to expand...
Again with the pathetic efforts to belittle atheist responses even before you have asked them a question. Your bias is astounding. Your attitude is appalling. Your thinking is as uncritical as rock.

And at least say "please?". :rolleyes:
 
Continued....
Pachomius said:
Now, I am always telling people to think on facts and logic, and also to know the distinction between knowledge and information.
Click to expand...
Practice what you preach, Pachomius. Please.
So, allow me to bring to your thinking on facts and logic the following idea from yours truly.

Let us all limit our discussion to man, to ourselves, for the present please abstain from bringing in non-human living things; this is an appeal, so please don't argue against my suggestion to abstain bringing in non-human entities -- otherwise we will be expanding our discussion more widely than necessary.

The instant topic here is what is thinking on facts and logic and the distinction between knowledge and information.

And my first question is on the distinction between knowledge and information.

Information by way of example is like when I and you are walking in the park and I say, "There is something there behind the bush."

"There is something there behind the bush," that is a piece of information which we can also call a fact.
Click to expand...
I disagree, and so would most others.
It is not necessarily a fact that "there is something behind the bush" unless there actually is something behind the bush.
Just because you say it does not make it a fact.
If you say it, what is a fact is "you have said that there is something behind the bush".
A fact is generally considered to be true, not just an opinion. So please be clear.

As for it being information, it is certainly information to those that heard you that you consider there to be something behind the bush.

Broadly speaking I would classify it like this:
Data is the experience / stimuli.
Information is the interpretation of data into something useful: and that interpretation becomes a belief, whether held consciously or subconsciously.
Knowledge is when that belief is justified and true (although Gettier et al have discussed when is knowledge actually justified etc).
Wisdom is then the correct application of that knowledge.
Knowledge is when we ask ourselves and seek the answers to what journalists or news reporters call the five w's and one h of an event or an object, namely: what, who, where, when, why, and how.

To answer the five w's and one h, we have to employ logic.

When we have answered the five w's and one h, then we possess the command of an orderly collection of facts and even non-facts which orderly collection has a meaning for us humans: and that is knowledge.
Click to expand...
Again, to be a fact it generally has to be held as true, and there is nothing in your comments above relating to the veracity of the answers you receive. You may consider them facts, and the answers may even be logically valid, but unless you can demonstrate their veracity to others, other people will merely hold them as being your opinion.
What is our understanding of "meaning for us"?

By the word meaning I refer to how our knowledge contributes to our staying alive, healthy, happy, and satisfied in regard to everything that we have at least a wish to reach or achieve in life.
Click to expand...
A rather narrow definition, when much of what we understand and has meaning to us we might consider irrelevant to those things you mention. That Man Utd beat Cambridge Utd 3-0 this week has meaning to me (i.e. I understand what each term means, what the overall message means) but it is ultimately irrelevant to me. And it is still knowledge I possess.


You know, Pachomius, one day you may actually write something I agree with.
Until then, keep chugging away "thinking on facts and logic". Only please actually understand what a fact is, demonstrate why what you think are facts should be considered as such, and also please be logical.
 
It's Jason Marshall spidergoat.

Regarding Pachomius, what is with using the same stock phrases over and over "verbosity in aid of vain pomposity", "thinking on facts and logic", "the existence of God in concept the creator and operator of the unversed and everything with a beginning", "Dear reader".

You make it hard for anyone to take you seriously.
 
Seattle said:
It's Jason Marshall spidergoat.

Regarding Pachomius, what is with using the same stock phrases over and over "verbosity in aid of vain pomposity", "thinking on facts and logic", "the existence of God in concept the creator and operator of the unversed and everything with a beginning", "Dear reader".

You make it hard for anyone to take you seriously.
Click to expand...
he is frozen at the event horizon.
 
Dear Spider:

I speculate on the totality of existence which was the concept of the universe prior to modern cosmologists' concept of the universe which has a beginning in time and in space with the Big Bang.

Modern cosmologists don't ever deny the existence of the totality of existence which is broader than the Big Bang universe, because it is not their competence in their adherence to only deal with the physical universe which is accessible to their senses directly and/or indirectly by inference with mathematics aided by the detecting instrumentality of technology.

Now, you speculate on, let me cite your words:

"I agree that the universe could be both eternal and have had a local beginning in the Big Bang. This is similar to a theory that I often mention, which is called the inflationary bi-verse theory. It requires no God, and violates no known physical laws. It states that the cause of our universe lies in another universe, moving backwards in time relative to ours.
​
That is some speculation, it does not seem only not seem to differ from my speculation, insofar as speculation goes.

And you think that your speculation will do away with God in concept as the creator and operator of our universe and everything with a beginning.

How does indeed your speculation do away with God creator etc. of our universe which is the one studied by modern cosmologists. who tell us it has a history of some 13.8 billion years ago, with the beginning in the Big Bang?

There seems to be some probable confusion from your part, namely, you are talking about our universe as one of your bi-verse, or you are talking about a purely fictional theory of a bi-verse namely composed of two verses: verse A and verse B, where some entity in verse A is accredited with the existence of verse B?

Please expatiate more precisely.



Annex

{quote from Spider]
Last edited: Yesterday at 11:26 AM
spidergoat, Yesterday at 11:05 AM Report
#157



Pachomius said: ↑
So, let us speculate that there is an entity in the totality of existence that is eternal, and it is in charge of the universe the component that is called universe by scientists today, namely, the one which began in time and in space with what is now called the Big Bang.
​
I agree that the universe could be both eternal and have had a local beginning in the Big Bang. This is similar to a theory that I often mention, which is called the inflationary bi-verse theory. It requires no God, and violates no known physical laws. It states that the cause of our universe lies in another universe, moving backwards in time relative to ours. It shrank in an inverse Big Bang (only from our perspective, from their perspective it seems perfectly normal), destroying it completely, and this was the primordial particle that then expanded forwards in time to create our universe. A diagram of it would look like an hourglass, with arrows pointing in opposite directions from the center indicating the direction of time.

Last edited: Yesterday at 11:26 AM
spidergoat, Yesterday at 11:05 AM Report
#157

{/quote]
 
If you can talk about a speculative concept, so can I. But naturalistic explanations always beat a supernatural one, since nothing supernatural has been shown to exist.
 
spidergoat said:
If you can talk about a speculative concept, so can I. But naturalistic explanations always beat a supernatural one, since nothing supernatural has been shown to exist.
Click to expand...
you said 10 years ago that you believed in "ghosts"!?

EDIT: i am joking :D
 
Last edited:
Spider, you say: "
{quote]
spidergoat, Saturday at 11:30 PM Report
#176

If you can talk about a speculative concept, so can I. But naturalistic explanations always beat a supernatural one, since nothing supernatural has been shown to exist.

{/quote]
​
There is speculation and speculation.

My speculation is tied to the universe we are resident in and scientists are investigating and have come to the finding that it has a history going back to the beginning of time and space in our universe.

I am asking you about your speculation on a bi-verse, how is it tied to the universe we are residing in, and scientists have come to the finding that it has a history dating to the beginning of time and space in our universe?

Your bi-verse is based on a purely fictional speculation.



​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top