Experimenting on God (or religion) -- silly, concur first on the concept of God

[KingCoil]

Thanks for your reaction, ThinkingS, but no need to write so many words, just keep to the present issue

…]

http://i60.tinypic.com/fa7pmt.jpg

…]

You are definitely writing so many words when you should just keep to the issue, and no longer bring in more and more words to confound and divert readers from the issue at hand.

Please, if you have to explain further, keep to the issue, don’t bring in more and more materials to dilute the issue, and definitely with your even though unconscious intention certainly to muddle up the issue.

Use many words to explain your point but never muddling up the issue at hand.

You bring in the issue from some ‘materia’ or no ‘materia’ God created the universe, but the issue is not into that area of the beginning of the universe, the issue is that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, therefore we can and do infer by intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, that the universe needs a cause outside itself to bring it into existence.

That ‘creatio a nihilo’ whatever is not within the issue of scientists telling us that the universe has a beginning, and therefore we infer that it has a cause outside itself, period.
ThinkingS:

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Who ask you to talk about the material or no material from which the universe was created by God, when the issue is that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago according to scientists?

I’m pointing out a potential ambiguity in the hopes of illiminating it before a lot more has been invested in this conversation…

See? What ambiguity are you talking about, I don’t think I write with ambiguous words.

Okay, tell me where I am ambiguous.

You have got to acquire the skill and habit of being concise and precise with your reading and writing.

No need to bring in so many materials to show readers you know many things, if these things are not material i.e. within the issue at hand.
ThinkingS:

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Just answer yes or no to my question:

• Do you accept the fact that: To (i), the fact involved is that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.*

If by “create” you mean “form” than yes only insofar as the wall of our ignorance is 13.798 billion years back. In other words 13.798 billion years back might not be an absolute beginning. With the qualifier:

See? Where do you see the word ‘create’ in my quote above you are reacting to?

You have got to read and react with concise and precise grasp of the text you are relating to.

So, tell me, what are my ambiguous words in the issue I am propounding in the present instance of the thread, namely:

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Who ask you to talk about the material or no material from which the universe was created by God, when the issue is that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago according to scientists?

And where do you find the word ‘create’ in the quote from me you are relating to, namely:

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Just answer yes or no to my question:

• Do you accept the fact that: To (i), the fact involved is that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.*

Please don’t write so many words unless to bring readers attention to focus on the issue; but no, please no muddling up of the issue by introducing surreptitiously extraneous matters i.e. alien matters.

Anyway, you seem to want to go into how God created the universe, how He confected the universe, etc.

That is not science, and in the present instance of the thread I want to stick to science: for scientists want to keep out of God’s action, it is a taboo area for them – they could lose their jobs in the non-sectarian university, if they so much as mention anything redolent of God when they talk about the universe.

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Please don’t write so many words unless to bring readers attention to focus on the issue; but no, please no muddling up of the issue by introducing surreptitiously extraneous matters i.e. alien matters.

I can’t make any promise to comply with the above. You’ve asked for yes/no answers, but I don’t think that “yes” and “no” are always sufficient replies.

Please, if you have to explain further, keep to the issue, don’t bring in more and more materials to dilute the issue,

I’m not.

and definitely with your even though unconscious intention certainly to muddle up the issue.

Please don’t pretend to know my unconscious mind.

the issue is that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago

Our narrative for the formation of the universe begins with events said to happen 13.798 billion years ago. This may or may not also be the initial state of the universe.

therefore we can and do infer by intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, that the universe needs a cause outside itself to bring it into existence.

That’s incorrect, we’ve not achieved agreement here. Giving only consideration to myself and you the inference that the universe came into existence because of a cause outside the universe is your inference but not mine. Can you explain what you mean by “bring it into existence”?

That ‘creatio a nihilo’ whatever is not within the issue of scientists telling us that the universe has a beginning

It may be related to your earlier declaration depending on what you mean by “bring into existence.”

See? What ambiguity are you talking about, I don’t think I write with ambiguous words.

There are multiple possible interpretations to some of the phrases that have been used within the exchange. Until the possible interpretations are restricted there is ambiguity. This is the very definition of ambiguous.

Okay, tell me where I am ambiguous.

Explaining what you mean by “bring into existence” would lower ambiguity. You made mention of “logic” many times. Sharing the logic would make the claim less ambiguous. If you are familiar with prepositional calculus that may be a good way to express the logic. When you refer to “beginning” are you referring only to an earlier state or to the initial state of the universe?

You have got to acquire the skill and habit of being concise and precise with your reading and writing.

I think that we are likely to have differences in the evaluation of my writing style. I also get the feeling that machine translation is involved in our communication. Am I correct in assuming that English isn’t your primary language? If it’s not that’s fine. But it also means that there will be more obstacles than would otherwise be present to communication. Especially if your first language is not one of the the languages with Latin or Germanic roots.

See? Where do you see the word ‘create’ in my quote above you are reacting to?

It’s one of the possible interpretations when referring to the beginning of the universe. If I’ve chosen the wrong interpretation then it can be resolved by further defining or explaining your stance.

Anyway, you seem to want to go into how God created the universe

Nope. My only reference to “God” was asking if you are presenting the infinite regress argument with “God” as the terminator for the regress. (AKA Kalām cosmological argument)

That is not science, and in the present instance of the thread I want to stick to science: for scientists want to keep out of God’s action, it is a taboo area for them – they could lose their jobs in the non-sectarian university, if they so much as mention anything redolent of God when they talk about the universe.

I disagree here. But we need not elaborate on the disagreement. BTW: Isn’t that (to use your phrase) an “alien matter.”

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Thanks for your reaction, Fr of Jazz.
I like to ask you whether in your concept of “God as the being than which none greater can be conceived,” you have thought of the idea of going into the universe, the one which scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, to look for a being greater than anything you can conceive?

Yes, I have. And it’s a definition, not a concept. “Conceived” in the definition means “thought of.”

You have obviously never thought of such an idea of going forth into the universe to look for a being greater than which nothing can be conceived.

This is not true. My undergraduate degree is in biology and chemistry–I took graduate courses in both as an undergraduate.

Suppose we two go forth and look for such a being, what do you say about my proposal?

Fine

My point is that you are talking and talking and talking in the realm of concepts in your mind, and hopefully also doing really intelligent thinking on logic and facts in your mind, but you never ever think of going forth into the universe to look for the things or events you think about and talk and talk and talk about in the realm of concepts in your mind.

Time to always when you are not talking fictions, to as you think and talk on concepts in your mind, you also get into the universe of objective actual existence of things and events outside your mind, to look for the things and events you think about and talk about only in your mind in a world of concepts only.

Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses. We grasp individual, real, existing things outside the mind in sense perception and from that we abstract concepts.

Anything I spoke of conceptually is rooted in reality and our experience of it, as I made clear.

“Time to always when you are not talking fictions, to as you think and talk on concepts in your mind"
Question: Do you always speak like Yoda?

So, what do you say, will you accept my proposal that we two go into the universe, the one scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, to look for a being greater than which nothing you and I can conceive?

Sure. I’ll certainly consider truths about the universe uncovered by science as they relate to God, if that’s what you mean.

Don’t write so many words, just answer that proposal from yours truly.

OK.

 

[KingCoil]

Dear ThinkingS, I don’t see any intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts in your writing here.

Just the same, tell me what is your point, and please say it in not more than fifty (50) words.

Dear Fr of Jazz, I do not see any communication from you by which you accept or reject in clear definite words my proposal that we two go into the universe to search for the being greater than which nothing can be conceived.

You two represent folks who talk but do no intelligent thinking on logic and facts: the first by doing nothing of intelligent thinking based on logic and facts, and the second by in effect evading the proposal to go forth into the unversed to look for the being greater than which nothing can be conceived.

Anyway, what is your point, put it in not more than fifty (50) words.

And what is my point in the present instance of the thread?

Here, and I have said it repeatedly very concisely and precisely:
The fact is that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, we therefore know that it has a cause outside itself.

Twenty-seven words (27) words.

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Dear ThinkingS, I don’t see any intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts in your writing here.

I’ll take this to mean that you are running into trouble understanding what I have said. If you need clarity on something ask and I’ll provide more detail. But I also ask you to do the same.

Just the same, tell me what is your point, and please say it in not more than fifty (50) words.

That doesn’t sound like a valid question. I’m not the one that is trying to drive a point here. You are. Please refer back to the original post for a reminder of what your point was. I’ve been responding to your request to answer questions.

You two represent folks who talk but do no intelligent thinking on logic and facts: the first by doing nothing of intelligent thinking based on logic and facts,

On that note I have to agree with the assessment of the other posters in the previous thread you’ve started. The phrase “intelligent thinking on logic and facts” has been repeated but you’ve not shared much that can be classified as facts and nor have you laid out your logic.

**Try this. **
Share a list of relevant facts. Then state the logical principals or processes applied to get from those facts to inferences that you’ve made from them. Also share the logical principals or processes that you would use to make inferences from the previous inferences. Repeat this until you’ve reached the conclusion that you wanted us to come to. From that we can then look at your facts, logic, and inferences and discuss further where we agree or disagree and why.

and the second by in effect evading the proposal to go forth into the unversed to look for the being greater than which nothing can be conceived.

**Note: **We all live, work, and die in the universe. Asking us to go forth into the universe is like asking a deep sea fish to go out into the ocean. If you disagree then could you explain what you mean by “go forth into the universe.” Please don’t ignore this request for clarity.

Anyway, what is your point, put it in not more than fifty (50) words.

See above where I responded when you previously asked me about my point.

And what is my point in the present instance of the thread?

Here, and I have said it repeatedly very concisely and precisely:

The fact is that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago,-] we therefore know that it has a cause outside itself/-].

I responded to this in post #19. The “outside itself” is undefined. I struck through the parts that are not from the scientific narrative.

Twenty-seven words (27) words.

See post #22, my first sentence.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Dear ThinkingS, I don’t see any intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts in your writing here.

Just the same, tell me what is your point, and please say it in not more than fifty (50) words.

Dear Fr of Jazz, I do not see any communication from you by which you accept or reject in clear definite words my proposal that we two go into the universe to search for the being greater than which nothing can be conceived.

You two represent folks who talk but do no intelligent thinking on logic and facts: the first by doing nothing of intelligent thinking based on logic and facts, and the second by in effect evading the proposal to go forth into the unversed to look for the being greater than which nothing can be conceived.

Anyway, what is your point, put it in not more than fifty (50) words.

And what is my point in the present instance of the thread?

Here, and I have said it repeatedly very concisely and precisely:
The fact is that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, we therefore know that it has a cause outside itself.

Twenty-seven words (27) words.

KingCoil

I said “Fine,” “OK,” and “Sure” to your proposal. What else do you want?

I’m fine with your statement. I would add that the universe is specific regarding the relative proportions of elements; and, given that there is nothing necessary in these proportions–they could have been otherwise–the cosmos as it is show contingency and perhaps even choice.

 

[HelenRose]

Scientists are wrong.

God would not need that length of time to create the world, what would be the point in that? If I created the world that would be a good guess although still too long.

You are right that God did not need time. But then again He certainly had Time on and in His hands.

I see no argument with Faith and Science. I do believe that it has been a mistake to force young scientists to make a choice between the God and science. It is an argument that need not take place.

Quoting from Father Baron’s blog. “May I mention just a handful of the literally thousands of Catholic clerics who have made significant contributions to the sciences? Do you know about Fr. Jean Picard, a priest of the seventeenth century, who was the first person to determine the size of the earth to a reasonable degree of accuracy? Do you know about Fr. Giovanni Battista Riccioli, a seventeenth century Jesuit astronomer and the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a free-falling body? Do you know about Fr. George Searle, a Paulist priest of the early twentieth century who discovered six galaxies? Do you know about Fr. Benedetto Castelli, a Benedictine monk and scientist of the sixteenth century, who was a very good friend and supporter of Galileo? Do you know about Fr. Francesco Grimaldi, a Jesuit priest who discovered the diffraction of light? Do you know about Fr. George Coyne, a contemporary Jesuit priest and astrophysicist, who for many years ran the Vatican Observatory outside of Tucson? Perhaps you know about Fr. Gregor Mendel, the Augustinian monk who virtually invented modern genetics, and about Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, a twentieth century Jesuit priest who wrote extensively on paleontology, and about Fr. Georges Lemaître, the formulator of the Big Bang theory of cosmic origins.”

I am especially attracted to Fr. Georges Lemaître, the formulator of the Big Bang theory of cosmic origins.

 

[CandideWest]

Hey,

I’d like to offer a few thoughts if nobody minds.

Religion is not God, God is not religion, but in that article God and religion are nonsensically mixed up – that is my impression; and I see it also to be the fact with atheists who write against God and against religions.

The issue here is that as atheists we are only able to respond to the god concepts we are offered. Virtually all of the god concepts we are offered come from religions, so most of the responses we end up giving are inevitably to concepts from religions.

Since scientists tell us that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, then we infer on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts – with certainty, that the universe has a cause outside itself

This is where you have started going wrong. We cannot logically conclude that the universe has a cause outside itself simply because it has a beginning. Aside from the fact that this is not a position which can be reached by logic without additional assumptions (which were not stated in your post) but it is also contrary to at least some of the hypotheses regarding the origin of the universe.

and this cause let us concur calling it God.

And I’m afraid here you’ve gone off the rails entirely. Even if your previous statement had been justified there would still be absolutely no sense in renaming your “first cause” in this way. After all doing so inevitably implies additional totally unjustified characteristics to the first cause (such as self awareness for example).

In summary, at the moment we don’t know what (if anything) caused the Big Bang. And even if for the purpose of discussion we assume that something caused the universe then we have no reason to believe it was any kind of self aware being.

Until those two gaps are closed I don’t see why anyone would “concur” with the existence of some creator god concept.

 

[KingCoil]

…]

Since scientists tell us that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, then we infer on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts – with certainty, that the universe has a cause outside itself

Assuming that you can do intelligent thinking grounding yourself on logic and facts, what assumptions do you have to make in order to know that as the universe has a beginning it has a cause outside itself?

For myself as I do intelligent thinking grounding myself on logic and facts, there are no assumptions to make, in order that I know from the fact that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, it has a cause outside itself.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Dear ThinkingS and Fr of Jazz:

The original intention from yours truly is to try to see if you will concur with me that based on intelligent thinking on logic and facts, the universe has a cause outside itself because scientists tell us it has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

1. Do you two agree with me that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, the fact?
2. Do you two agree with me that everything with a beginning has a cause outside itself, the logic?

Please just answer without so many useless words the two questions above, yes or no – and no need to make a lot of reservations and qualifications and exceptions, and bringing in so many things you want to show readers here you know but not material to the issue here, etc., etc., etc.

Now, about the existence of a being greater than which nothing can be conceived:

1. Do you two agree that we can go forth into the universe and seek for that being as per concept that it is the being greater than which nothing can be conceived?

Yes or no?

Yes means you or we agree that we can and will profitably go forth into the universe to search for this being greater than which, etc.

No means you don’t agree with me that we can and will profitably go forth into the universe to search for this being greater than which, etc.

So, there you have it, three questions which you can answer with yes or no, if you can and do engage yourselves in intelligent thinking on logic and facts.

And please do without that trick of evasion by which you want me to clarify etc., what I mean by the words I use, etc., etc., etc.

If you cannot understand my English, then better you don’t communicate with me at all, better you don’t get started and then go into claiming you have to get me to explain words I use because you find my English something alien to your verbal comprehension of my English – this late in the day.

What I see a lot of posters here are into: they want to show readers they know many things, but they are not focused on the issue at hand; that is why an issue gets diverted into alien matters with no one knowing that it is already no longer the issue at all.

And everyone so self-satisfied that he has shown readers oh what learning he possesses, but in most instances it is rote memory learning.

Okay, ThinkingS and Fr of Jazz, attend to those three questions above, reply with an yes or a no, and then if you want to bring in exceptions, reservations, qualifications, and yes of course what oh what learning you possess, you can go ahead with all those extraneous alien matters outside the issue at hand, but first answer yes or no.

Dear readers, they will not be concise and precise, but will again go into all manners of evasion and quibbling, just to get their pretentious learning published but not material to the issue at hand.

KingCoil

 

[CandideWest]

Assuming that you can do intelligent thinking grounding yourself on logic and facts, what assumptions do you have to make in order to know that as the universe has a beginning it has a cause outside itself?

For myself as I do intelligent thinking grounding myself on logic and facts, there are no assumptions to make, in order that I know from the fact that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, it has a cause outside itself.

KingCoil

Ok, so forgive me but we may need to do a bit of basic logic here. Apologies if this is trivial to you, but without this your idea really isn’t going anywhere.

So the first question is - is the statement “the universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago” logically identical to the statement “the universe had a cause outside itself”?

Clearly the answer is no. The two statements are completely different both in their subject and content. So, if you want to get from one to the other we need some route to do so. Let’s write your premises for clarity.

1. The universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.

…

Now where can we go from here? Well nowhere, because we have one premise and nothing to work with. So we’re stuck. Obviously simply stating your conclusion would be a complete non-sequitur.

Now, as I can’t read your mind I can’t guess at what additional assumptions you might have made to get to your conclusion. But to help you out I can create an argument of my own to demonstrate how you MIGHT have done so.

1. The universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.
2. The universe was either caused by itself, caused by nothing or caused by something else.
3. Something cannot be caused by nothing (assumption)
4. Something cannot cause itself (assumption)
5. Given 2. , 3. and 4. the universe must have been caused by something other than itself.

Now, that is a valid argument which gets to your conclusion, which is a start. However, it isn’t a sound argument as 2. is not necessarily exhaustive, and 3. and 4. are unsupported assumptions.

A good next step would be to state your assumptions and show your reasoning so that others can follow your argument and either agree or offer challenges. Until you’ve done that all you’ve really got is an assertion.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Hello KingCoil. In reading through your latest response and some of the previous ones one of the themes that I’ve noticed is that request for clarity are received as being off topic and divergent from the topic. As you interact in this forum (or many other philosophy forums) you’ll find that such request are an inescapable; so much in philosophy hinges on the nuances of an expression.

Even a a seemingly simple word such as “good” can refer to different concepts. It refer to a positive moral evaluation, giving pleasure (which might not be aligned with what is moral), and many others.

Now, getting back to the matter at hand. I think I see a few logical fallacies coming up. I’ve added links to what I think to be fallacies.

The original intention from yours truly is to try to see if you will concur with me that based on intelligent thinking on logic and facts, the universe has a cause outside itself because scientists tell us it has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

OK. Well at the start I don’t immediately agree with your conclusion. But said “intelligent thinking and logical facts” have not yet been shared for me to evaluate for making conclusions.

1. Do you two agree with me that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, the fact?

Sure, but only for a specific meaning of the word “beginning.”

1. Do you two agree with me that everything with a beginning has a cause outside itself, the logic?

Nope. Can’t evaluate that part. It seems you have started off asking if I already agree with your conclusion. Seems to be a form of begging the question.

Please just answer without so many useless words the two questions above, yes or no

Let’s continue. If we do I think you’ll find why the other words are not “useless.”

1. Do you two agree that we can go forth into the universe

I’m already in the universe.

and seek for that being as per concept that it is the being greater than which nothing can be conceived?

Yes or no?

Sorry, I’m not sure how I would search for an inconceivable being that I don’t know to exist. How does one do this?

No means you don’t agree with me that we can and will profitably go forth into the universe to search for this being greater than which, etc.

Not sure what “go forth into the universe” means. Perhaps you could demonstrate?

So, there you have it, three questions which you can answer with yes or no, if you can and do engage yourselves in intelligent thinking on logic and facts.

Limiting replies to only “yes” and “no” can be forcing the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

And please do without that trick of evasion by which you want me to clarify etc., what I mean by the words I use

It’s no evasion and something you will frequently encounter if you continue to interact in these forums. Though framing such questions as evasions may be a form of poisoning the well.

– this late in the day.

If there’s another time of the day that you find more convenient for replying perhaps you will want to consider posting at that time. The participants of these forums are in several different time zones. It would seem odd to give special accommodations to participants based on their time zone. Just respond when you can.

What I see a lot of posters here are into: they want to show readers they know many things, but they are not focused on the issue at hand; that is why an issue gets diverted into alien matters with no one knowing that it is already no longer the issue at all.

I think you may be misinterpreting what is going on. I speculate that there is no one else interpreting our interactions that way.

And everyone so self-satisfied that he has shown readers oh what learning he possesses, but in most instances it is rote memory learning.

If that’s how you feel:shrug:

Okay, ThinkingS and Fr of Jazz, attend to those three questions above, reply with an yes or a no, and then if you want to bring in exceptions, reservations, qualifications, and yes of course what oh what learning you possess, you can go ahead with all those extraneous alien matters outside the issue at hand, but first answer yes or no.

No puedo. There’s no way for me to honestly reply to your questions with the above constraint.

I speculate that you specifically want to only speak to people that have already come to the conclusion that the universe has a cause outside itself and that you are not trying to convince those that have not come to that conclusion since you’ve not shared the “facts” that support that conclusion. Am I correct?

 

[z_0101]

unsubscribe… oh, there it is…

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks, Candide for your reaction.

Ok, so forgive me but we may need to do a bit of basic logic here. Apologies if this is trivial to you, but without this your idea really isn’t going anywhere.

So the first question is - is the statement “the universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago” logically identical to the statement “the universe had a cause outside itself”?

Clearly the answer is no. The two statements are completely different both in their subject and content. So, if you want to get from one to the other we need some route to do so. Let’s write your premises for clarity.

1. The universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.

…

Now where can we go from here? Well nowhere, because we have one premise and nothing to work with. So we’re stuck. Obviously simply stating your conclusion would be a complete non-sequitur.

Now, as I can’t read your mind I can’t guess at what additional assumptions you might have made to get to your conclusion. But to help you out I can create an argument of my own to demonstrate how you MIGHT have done so.

1. The universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.
   2. The universe was either caused by itself, caused by nothing or caused by something else.
2. Something cannot be caused by nothing (assumption)
3. Something cannot cause itself (assumption)
4. Given 2. , 3. and 4. the universe must have been caused by something other than itself.

Now, that is a valid argument which gets to your conclusion, which is a start. However, it isn’t a sound argument as 2. is not necessarily exhaustive, and 3. and 4. are unsupported assumptions.

A good next step would be to state your assumptions and show your reasoning so that others can follow your argument and either agree or offer challenges. Until you’ve done that all you’ve really got is an assertion.

I am trying to observe you whether you have the skill and habit of doing:

Intelligent thinking grounding yourself in logic and facts.

And my conclusion is that you have the self-fascination with what I call segmentic thinking but nothing of wholistic thinking.

Eventually you will lapse into attacking my English when you realize but will not admit it that you have no habit much less skill in doing wholistic thinking, but only very clever from intellectual perversity with segmentic thinking.

Now, before you start seeking to escape by challenging me to argue with you endlessly about what is segmentic thinking and what is wholistic thinking, if you know language you should know what I mean about segmentic (from segment) and what I mean with wholistic (from the word whole): two words which you will being clever but not substantially and honestly intelligent, will insist that they are not in your dictionaries therefore you cannot know their meanings, and wherefore you cannot understand what I am talking about.

Ultimately you will resort to what everyone who will not be substantially and honestly intelligent, resort to insistent stubborn-ness that you and the whole of mankind cannot know anything outside of what you claim mankind can only know. and bring in also the pleading that we must be humble (as though humility has anything to do with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts), and not arrogant as to usurp to ourselves the hubris to dare to know about things beyond our nose.

Okay, to make a long story short, you say:

***2. The universe was either caused by itself, caused by nothing or caused by something else.

#2 is not necessarily exhaustive. ***

Now, keep in mind that you have what I call a perverse segmentic mind but not a wholistic mind, tell me what other choices in #2 do you have as you proclaim that:

***2. The universe was either caused by itself, caused by nothing or caused by something else.

#2 is not necessarily exhaustive.***

You have what I call the self-clever vice of intellectually self-fraudulent manipulation of concepts and words, but never seeing the big whole picture of the thing in issue.

Time to develop the skill and habit of intelligent thinking grounding yourself in logic and facts.

You are the one making all the silly assumptions because you do not occupy yourself with wholistic thinking but only self-fraudulently in segmentic thinking.

KingCoil

ANNEX

 

[KingCoil]

This thread is about

" Experimenting on God (or religion) – silly, concur first on the concept of God."

The thrust of the thread is to invite folks who do want to talk about God pro or contra, but in particular to experiment on Him, that they first concur on the concept of God, and then of course concur on whether He exists in the universe, by going forth into the universe to locate Him, starting with our nose which is a part of the universe, and on and on to the most outer fringes of the universe.

But just with our own anatomical and physiological living body, there is already a universe we can and should go into to locate God’s existence: because the whole universe is essentially linked together, every particle, field, force, laws of nature and laws of physics whatever, linked together and linked to God as its author and operator.

So, at least, folks who don’t accept the existence of God in the objective actual existing universe, but just limiting yourselves and ourselves to ideas in our mind, don’t you have to first concur with us folks who do know the existence of God, concur that is at least in ideas in our mind, in the concept of God?

Or you want to keep on and on and on bringing in invisible pink unicorns, tooth fairies, Santas, whatever, but never settling down to use your brain which is designed for intelligent thinking grounding oneself in logic and in facts, to work seriously to, yes in the realm only for the purpose of discussion, in the realm of concepts or ideas in our mind, that you do have a concept of God and that it is the same concept of God Which folks who do know from intelligent thinking on logic and facts that God exists in the universe?

Or you want to for example parade before your audience of admirers that you know a lot of the repertory of fallacies, while you never do any intelligent thinking based on logic and facts, but only inure yourselves in silly attitudes like as I said earlier, making funny figures of your kind of concepts of God, like invisible pink unicorns, tooth fairies, Santas.

Just say that you don’t care for intelligent thinking based on logic and facts, but you want to indulge in making fun of God, by comparing Him to unicorns, fairies, and Santas: because you have the freedom to use your brain any way you care to or don’t care to.

Now, for folks who do accept the concept of God as first and foremost in His relation to man and the universe, do you concur with me or don’t we have to first concur among ourselves that God is known from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts to be the creator cause of the universe, the one scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago?

If not, then tell me how you want me to agree with you your way of coming to know the existence of God, by pure faith, or by intelligent thinking based on logic and facts; if the latter, then tell me how you reason to the existence of God in the universe.

And don’t bring in a lot of unrelated learning like God’s creatio a nihilo of the universe, etc., etc., etc., just to make people wonder and feel amazed how you know so much about how God works when it is all speculative.

We know from reasoning that God created the universe and is the continuous operator of the universe, how he did the creation and how He operates the universe, we can only speculate. but even then in our speculation we have also to keep in mind logic and facts, not ultimately by proclamations of your religious leaders meeting in socalled councils to establish doctrines and morals.

But that is another story, if you have already come to the existence of God and also have adopted a drama on how to deal with God, ascribing to yourself a theistic religion.

KingCoil

 

[CandideWest]

Thanks, Candide for your reaction.

No problem, apologies, but when in discussion I try to stick to the topic at hand so I’m going to ignore all the guesses and predictions you made in your last post and go straight to the relevant point for the subject of this thread.

tell me what other choices in #2 do you have as you proclaim that:

***2. The universe was either caused by itself, caused by nothing or caused by something else.

#2 is not necessarily exhaustive.***

KingCoil

Ok, so back to a bit of basic logic then. In the text above you appear to be aiming towards making an “argument from ignorance”. This is a formal logical fallacy where one person (say person A) suggests that if the other person (person B) cannot put forwards an alternative suggestion then the then the answer proposed by person A must automatically be correct.

This is incorrect because it ignores all the other possible answers which could exist to a question but which person A and B are unaware of.

Now in this particular case I can off the top of my head posit at least one additional alternative, but even if I couldn’t then we still wouldn’t be justified in saying that #2 is necessarily exhaustive.

The alternative that springs to mind is that the Big Bang wasn’t the start of our universe but rather just a change in it.

In any case, you still haven’t stated what logic leads you to your conclusion, it’s all well and good discussing my example as a tool, but it is not a strong argument so I would rather discuss how you reached your conclusion.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

This thread is about

" Experimenting on God (or religion) – silly, concur first on the concept of God."

Okay. What is the god-concept on which you would like for us to concur?

The thrust of the thread is to invite folks who do want to talk about God pro or contra, but in particular to experiment on Him, that they first concur on the concept of God, and then of course concur on whether He exists

Okay. Depending on the god-concept you present I may agree or disagree with it.

Or you want to keep on and on and on bringing in invisible pink unicorns, tooth fairies, Santas, whatever,
KingCoil;11823122:

while you never do any intelligent thinking based on logic and facts, but only inure yourselves in silly attitudes like as I said earlier, making funny figures of your kind of concepts of God, like invisible pink unicorns, tooth fairies, Santas.

Just say that you don’t care for intelligent thinking based on logic and facts, but you want to indulge in making fun of God, by comparing Him to unicorns, fairies, and Santas

I don’t think you need to worry about this happening. Looking over the past 5 years it appears that such concepts haven’t really been used as a counter argument in these forums. Nor have they been used in this thread.

you do have a concept of God and that it is the same concept of God Which folks who do know from intelligent thinking on logic and facts that God exists in the universe?

I’ve been acquainted with many god-concepts. They are not all compatible with each other and none of them are my own. I don’t think we can talk about all of them at once. What’s the god-concept that you use?

Or you want to for example parade before your audience of admirers that you know a lot of the repertory of fallacies

Apophasis aside, if we ignore logical fallacies then this discussion would not be based on “intelligent thinking and logical facts.” It would be based on logical fallacies and defective. I don’t know your level of familiarity but for the sake of any one that is unfamiliar I try to add links to descriptions so that every one can follow the discussion.

Being familiar with logical fallacies won’t gain one admirers in this forum. It’s a central point of discussion here. I did a search and I found this introduction to logical fallacies. I think that reading it may be helpful. I hope that you find it useful.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Feeling sure that we had interacted before I went ahead and did a search in the forums to see if you had presented a god-concept before. It seems a rather consistent response has been presented:

God in relation to man and the universe is the creator of everything that is not God Himself.
KingCoil;11381149:

God in relation to man and the physical universe is the creator of everything that is not God Himself.
…]
But only God is the creator of man and the physical universe, meaning everything that is not God Himself, while man and the physical universe depend on God for existence and operation.

God in relation to man and the universe is the creator of everything that is not God Himself

?

But it appears that no further details of this concept have yet been shared. If you can refine the concept a bit more the discussion could be more focused. Also, for the sake of reducing the amount of repetition that occurs I wanted to point out that we had started to engage in this conversation a few months ago before the conversation abruptly ended. You can refer back to the November conversation here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=828255&page=10

 

[KingCoil]

Dear Candide, I said that you have a segmentic mind but no wholistic mind at all.

And I have come to that conclusion because I notice that you argue by merely pointing out an imaginary fallacy in my exposition.

That is what a fallacy is all about, bringing in a segment of an exposition but not attending to the whole big picture of the exposition of an issue.

And that is your tack in argumentation, namely: segmentally engaging in an imaginary fallacy on the part of the proponent of an issue, but never wholistically examining the big picture of the exposition.

And that kind of an approach is all in the realm of ideas in the mind, but does not dare go into the objective actual realm of existing things and events in the universe, which universe scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

You don’t see it at all that you do have just a segmentic mind but no wholistic mind at all, that you have a truncated mind but not a whole mind, or anatomically and physiological a whole brain?

Okay, then consider that you engage in arguing by pointing out an imaginary fallacy in my reasoning from my statement that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago (that is fact, it is not assumption), therefore it has a cause outside itself: because anything with a beginning needs a cause outside itself to come into existence (that is logic, it is not assumption), you insist that my therefore conclusion is a non-sequitur because it is founded upon assumptions.

I have not examined at length and in depth arguments from people like yourself who to all appearances have a self-truncated brain, whose pseudo reasoning consists in attacking an exposition by merely segmentally pointing out an imaginary fallacy, but not wholistically going into the whole big picture of the exposition of a issue by a proponent for example, yours truly, on my inference, namely: as the universe has a beginning (the fact), therefore it has a cause outside itself (the conclusion) – because anything with a beginning (the fact) needs a cause to bring it to existence (the logic).

And in addition you never go into the universe to check on the validity of your pseudo reasoning all in the realm only of ideas in your mind.

All because people with a self-truncated brain cannot and therefore do not ever go into the objective actual realm of existing things and events in the universe, which universe scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

Now you have abandoned your previous attack of bringing in the fallacy of my supposedly engaging in assumptions, to bringing in the imaginary fallacy of my arguing from ignorance, namely, just because I do not know something does not justify my conclusion to another thing.

…]

1. The universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.

…

Now where can we go from here? Well nowhere, because we have one premise and nothing to work with. So we’re stuck. Obviously simply stating your conclusion would be a complete non-sequitur.

Now, as I can’t read your mind I can’t guess at what additional assumptions you might have made to get to your conclusion. But to help you out I can create an argument of my own to demonstrate how you MIGHT have done so.

1. The universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.
2. The universe was either caused by itself, caused by nothing or caused by something else.
3. Something cannot be caused by nothing (assumption)
4. Something cannot cause itself (assumption)
5. Given 2. , 3. and 4. the universe must have been caused by something other than itself.

Now, that is a valid argument which gets to your conclusion, which is a start. However, it isn’t a sound argument as 2. is not necessarily exhaustive, and 3. and 4. are unsupported assumptions.

A good next step would be to state your assumptions and show your reasoning so that others can follow your argument and either agree or offer challenges. Until you’ve done that all you’ve really got is an assertion.

…]

KingCoil:

…tell me what other choices in #2 do you have as you proclaim that:

• From Candide ]*

2. The universe was either caused by itself, caused by nothing or caused by something else.

#2 is not necessarily exhaustive.

Ok, so back to a bit of basic logic then. In the text above you appear to be aiming towards making an “argument from ignorance”. This is a formal logical fallacy where one person (say person A) suggests that if the other person (person B) cannot put forwards an alternative suggestion then the then the answer proposed by person A must automatically be correct.

This is incorrect because it ignores all the other possible answers which could exist to a question but which person A and B are unaware of.

Now in this particular case I can off the top of my head posit at least one additional alternative, but even if I couldn’t then we still wouldn’t be justified in saying that #2 is necessarily exhaustive.

The alternative that springs to mind is that the Big Bang wasn’t the start of our universe but rather just a change in it.

In any case, you still haven’t stated what logic leads you to your conclusion, it’s all well and good discussing my example as a tool, but it is not a strong argument so I would rather discuss how you reached your conclusion.

( End of two quotations )

• The text that you have entered is too long (7833 characters). Please shorten it to 6000 characters long. – Admin ]*

See next post.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

CONTINUATION

Okay, you are not anymore owing to your truncated brain leading you to engage only and exhaustively in segmentic pseudo reasoning, you are now into the tack of supposedly my arguing from the imaginary fallacy of ignorance.

I am not going to occupy myself with your lousy (infested with lice) * no offense intended, just comic relief ]* habit of segmentic pseudo reasoning: selectively concentrated in pointing out an imaginary fallacy but never attending to the whole big picture of an exposition of an issue.

You state solemnly but as I said already many times, segmentically – to my obvious notice:

Candide:

The alternative that springs to mind is that the Big Bang wasn’t the start of our universe but rather just a change in it.

Scientists tell us that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

You are attacking scientists.

Okay, how do you expound on your contrary claim: that the Big Bang wasn’t the start of our universe but rather just a change in it?

I have stated that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, and therefore the universe has a cause, because anything with a beginning has need of a cause outside itself to bring it into existence.

You now state an assertion contrary to the finding of scientists.

Suppose you expound how you come to the ‘alternative’ but contrary to the finding of scientists, and don’t talk all in the realm of ideas and lice in your truncated brain; go into the universe as scientists do, and find how there are indications in the universe that it did not start with the big bang but it was there all the time, and it just went through a change.

You are really but perversely engaged in self-fraudulent manipulation of concepts and words, but you are not fooling anyone with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, still though tragically only yourself – because you are all profusely self-marinated in your own sense of being clever, however of the diabolical kind of smart-butt-ness (just for comic relief, no offense really).

KingCoil