God is known by intelligent thinking on logic and facts

[KingCoil]

Part 1 ]

Time and again my exchange of thoughts with atheists on the existence of God gets nowhere: because atheists stubbornly refuse to think intelligently on logic and facts.

Atheists who want to appear clever define themselves as just simply lacking in any belief in the existence of a deity.

That means that you cannot blame them for not coming to know God because they lack some kind of faculty to come to the knowledge of God’s existence.

It is like you try to explain what is sugar which is sweet to the tongue, but the anti-sugar-existence human (corresponding to the atheist in regard to God’s existence) insists that he just lacks the kind of taste buds for experiencing the presence of sugar to his tongue.

See my last comment (to date it has not come out) in Time and again my exchange of thoughts with atheists on the existence of God gets nowhere: because atheists stubbornly refuse to think intelligently on logic and facts.

Atheists who want to appear clever define themselves as just simply lacking in any belief in the existence of a deity.

That means that you cannot blame them for not coming to know God because they lack some kind of faculty to come to the knowledge of God’s existence.

It is like you try to explain what is sugar which is sweet to the tongue, but the anti-existence sugar human (corresponding to the atheist in regard to God’s existence) insists that he just lacks the kind of taste buds for experiencing the presence of sugar to his tongue.

See my last comment (to date has not come out) in this blog of an atheist:

blogger.com/comment.do

You say, "Iʼm sorry, but belief in my tree, (and you assert trees do exist)
is quite relevant to the discussion. If you cannot answer this question
intelligently, then Iʼm afraid we will not be able to continue this
discussion logically. "

Forgive me, but you are now in the stage and state of mind where and
when you want out from taking up the difference between knowing
something i.e. thinking to the existence of something by employing
intelligence grounded upon logic and facts, and believing in the
existence of something.

And you are now taking cover with your insistence on discussing: If you
tell me there is tree in your backward, how do I come to the belief or
disbelief of the hypothetical tree in your backyard?

Please, let you apply yourself to the examination of your words which is the focus of my comments in your blog:

“I you ] lack any belief in a deity.”

So, please be focused and concentrated on your words:

“I lack any belief in a deity.”

I see that to be the whole justification of your being an atheist, and the whole orientation of your blog.

But it is no genuine justification, and you will see why as soon as you
accept how we know the existence of something by thinking on it
intelligently with grounding ourselves on logic and fact.

So, let you and me work on the distinction between knowing the existence
of something by applying our intelligence on it with grounding
ourselves on logic and facts, as opposed to accepting the existence of
something on belief, which you profess to lack.

My point is that the existence of a deity is not all founded exclusively
on belief, but it is essentially a conclusion from intelligent thinking
on logic and facts.

That formula of atheists, lacking any belief in a deity, they see to be
clever; but they should look at it with sincerity and see it to be no
different from saying, “Don’t blame me for not knowing the existence of
sugar, I just lack the taste buds for experiencing sugar.”

• Continuation of quotation follows in next post. ]*

 

[KingCoil]

Part 2 ]

• Continuation of quotation ]*

So, let you and me examine your words:

“I lack any belief in a deity.”

On the basis of how we know something to exist by intelligently thinking
on it grounding ourselves on logic and facts.

At this point, are you now planning to leave our exchange, by resorting
to declaring you can’t make any sense of what I am saying?

That is one escape maneuver of atheists.

You have resorted to it earlier:

“’ from me ] … no spontaneity with your mind…’ from you ] this
comment sounds like nonsense to me. Is that spontaneous enough?”

About your insistence on my answering your question on the hypothetical
existence of a tree in your backward, do I believe it or disbelieve it?

Okay, no need to believe it or disbelieve it, let you and I take the
exercise of going to your backyard and looking for it, then agreeing
that we from actual search know that there is yes a tree in your
backyard or there is no tree in your backyard.

I really can’t accept that you are into, forgive me, silly irrelevant
hypotheticals -– unless it is your habit of resorting to distractions,
and warning that if I don’t answer your hypothetical issue, you will not
continue the conversation.

Well, this is your blog, you can just stop our conversation anyway you
want.

I am curious, though, what exactly is your point about your hypothetical
tree in your backyard?

My point is that it has nothing to do with belief or disbelief, it is
just a matter of you and I going over to your backyard and searching for
the tree.

Now, of course, I cannot be going to your backyard all by myself without
your consensual accompaniment.

So, what is really and honestly the point you are trying to make?

Going back to your declaration:

“I lack any belief in a deity.”

Please, let you and me consider that knowing something to exist means
applying our intelligence on it with grounding ourselves on logic and
facts, it need not be at all by belief which then is not knowing but
believing and is tantamount to taking a fiction to be a reality.

Isn’t that the fondest wish of atheists, that God be a fiction.

Best regards.

I like to invite atheists here and Catholic theists to react to my observation on how atheists are dodging all the time to use their intelligence and grounding themselves on logic and facts to explore the reality of God’s existence.

They love to put up blogs which they can control so that they need not come out of their shell to explore the question of God’s existence by using their intelligence as they ground themselves on logic and facts.

Kingcoil

 

[JackieO123]

It’s well known that Atheism is foolish.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atheism is an ancient philosophical position, maybe as old as religion itself. It believes something. It believes, probably based on the corruption of the body at death, that there is no soul and no afterlife. There is therefore no reason to believe in anything else supernatural, including God. There is a certain consistency to atheism that goes contrary to the hopes and beliefs of the vast majority of mankind.

Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas exerted themselves to offer arguments in favor of the existence of God first, after which you might deduce the existence of the soul and immortality. Atheists used to be able to confidently affirm the eternity of the universe. After all, there was no evidence to the contrary. However, thanks to the Big Bang, that can no longer be confidently asserted. All of Creation did begin at some point, and this point is affirmed in Genesis. It is difficult to find other religions that affirm this Creation as confidently as Genesis.

Atheist Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Part 1 ]

Time and again my exchange of thoughts with atheists on the existence of God gets nowhere: because atheists stubbornly refuse to think intelligently

I stopped reading right there.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I stopped reading right there.

There is somewhat an *ad hominem *there. Your thought is not an irrational one if it is restricted to the question of religion, which I assume it is. Atheists can think intelligently on other subjects. I do believe that being intelligent about God must be rooted both in the brain and in the heart. The atheist has no heart for God. If he gets one, then his intelligence about God is multiplied exponentially. Former atheists have become great champions of God. C.S. Lewis is probably the most famous one in the 20th century.

 

[Lynxdk]

I don’t know many atheists who say they “lack some kind of faculty” to know God…as if they are missing something in their brain or whatever…and that they can’t be “blamed” for not “coming to know God”.
In fact, I have never heard an atheist or agnostic say this.
Most atheists I’ve met–and I’ve met hundreds—don’t believe in a deity after much thought, research, debate, and investigation of facts.

.

I would say most of the Atheists I know started out as A Theist

Time and again my exchange of thoughts with atheists on the existence of God gets nowhere: because atheists stubbornly refuse to think intelligently on logic and facts.

Maybe God doesn’t want them to know Him, for a Reason.

Maybe they Do know Him, but just not in a way they would express the way we might.

For all I know, some of the folks I’ve argued with could have been “God in disguise”, just trying to see what kid of a mood I’m in… I can be a bit of a jerk sometimes and He catches me every freakin’ time

But I have a lot of experience with stubbornness, and I don’t think you’re gonna dent that armour by trying to break through it

Kyrie Eleison,

Sean

 

[valekhai]

I like to invite atheists here and Catholic theists to react to my observation on how atheists are dodging all the time to use their intelligence and grounding themselves on logic and facts to explore the reality of God’s existence.

They love to put up blogs which they can control so that they need not come out of their shell to explore the question of God’s existence by using their intelligence as they ground themselves on logic and facts.

My reaction is to consciously give you the benefit of the doubt. When you say things like “atheists stubbornly refuse to think intelligently on logic and facts,” I’m going to go ahead and assume that you’re referring to the majority of atheists you yourself have spoken to and not that you mean to imply that of all atheists. And I’m going to assume that this is actually a correct assessment of the atheists you have spoken to; perhaps you usually speak to atheists you find in places like Reddit or the comments of Youtube videos. There is a lot of dumb to be found in some atheist circles, I will admit.

 

[valekhai]

My reaction is to consciously give you the benefit of the doubt. When you say things like “atheists stubbornly refuse to think intelligently on logic and facts,” I’m going to go ahead and assume that you’re referring to the majority of atheists you yourself have spoken to and not that you mean to imply that of all atheists. And I’m going to assume that this is actually a correct assessment of the atheists you have spoken to; perhaps you usually speak to atheists you find in places like Reddit or the comments of Youtube videos. There is a lot of dumb to be found in some atheist circles, I will admit.

Oh, also, the large section you quoted, the response you put on the atheist blog? It didn’t make a lot of sense out of context. I’m not sure if the link was supposed to go to the blog; if so, it’s broken.

 

[KingCoil]

Atheism is an ancient philosophical position, maybe as old as religion itself. It believes something. It believes, probably based on the corruption of the body at death, that there is no soul and no afterlife. [Etc.]

You describe yourself as Catholic Revert and I describe myself as Defector from Catholicism.

That is interesting!

What is it to be a Defector from Catholicism?

I guess it is to be a heretic or a schismatic or an apostate.

What about Catholic Revert, that means you left the Catholic i.e. the Roman Vatican Catholic Church, and now you are back in?

That is interesting!

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Oh, also, the large section you quoted, the response you put on the atheist blog? It didn’t make a lot of sense out of context. I’m not sure if the link was supposed to go to the blog; if so, it’s broken.

Try this: blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5736821&postID=1351504333661851099

I will make a preview of this post from me to see whether it works.

…

I just did a preview of this post, and the link above works, but my last comment to the said link of the atheist Calladus’ blog has not come out – and I fear it never will: it’s been suppressed.

When I could not transmit my last comment as to see a notice that it had been received and was being moderated for release or not, I tried to send it to his facebook page, and it came out; but now today his facebook page is all blank, at least to my access.

That is what I know from experience that atheists who are into internet exposition of the why’s they take up with being atheist, that they will hide when they cannot think as to be sincerely and perseveringly intelligent grounded on logic and facts, to explore with me the existence of God as the creator of the universe.

That is also the maneuver of Dawkins: he insists that he will not debate Craig, giving the lame excuse that he does not debate with a person who believes in a sadistic genocidal God – the one supposedly in the Old Testament.

And atheists who have attained some measure of fame as socalled scientists or philosophers will say that they will not debate with theists: because they are not going to give glamor to theists, who are not at all as famously intellectual and academically accomplished as they atheists are.

Suppose you tell me how you will describe yourself as an atheist; is it going to be namely that you simply lack any belief in a deity?

My point is that the knowledge of the existence of God is not founded on belief but on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

So, what is your justification for taking up with being an atheist, or how will you describe what it is to be an atheist?

Will you stay with me, or now leave this thread altogether?

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Here is the beginning of my comments to atheist Calladus’ blog ( I am Odrareg – Marius – de Jess – there):

blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5736821&postID=1351504333661851099

Post a Comment On: The Calladus Blog
“What I believe”

10 Comments - Show Original Post Collapse comments
1 – 10 of 10

…]

odrareg said…
You say: “I lack any belief in a deity. “

Well, that is a belief although a negative belief, but a belief just the same.

But why do you use the term, lack, in regard to no belief in a deity?

Why don’t you just say “I don’t believe in a deity?”

What kind of—if I may—mental acrobatics are you playing with your mind?

Forgive me, but suppose you and I do some intelligent thinking, intelligent knowing, of which the most important component of intelligent thinking is logic.

Nothing to do with belief or as you want to put it, lack of belief, or the opposite, possession of belief.

I am inviting you and me together to do thinking, the intelligent kind of, the intelligent pursuit of knowledge, and of which the most important and critical component is logic.

So, you know that science tells us of the fact that the universe has a beginning, or you have some mental reservations on that fact?

I await your reaction to my inquiry.

Please, I really like to exchange thoughts with you, i.e., intelligent thinking and knowing with you, absolutely nothing to do with belief, lack of or possession of.

I await with zest your response to this comment.

Please do not go away.

Do not go away from us two together engaging ourselves in intelligent thinking and knowing, nothing to do with belief, lack of or possession of.

On the question of the existence of a deity.

Your notice:
”Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.”

So, please abstain from moderating this comment from yours truly as to prevent it from coming out altogether.

Marius de Jess
7/2/14 2: 49 PM

• More exchanges follow, see file attachment below. ]*

For the rest of my comments and his replies, open the file attachment below.

This is jolly fun, although I am not really very good at writing posts with all kinds of fancy work like for the first time, I include an attached file.

I will now do a preview to see whether this post comes out all right.

…

Oh good! Everything comes out all right. I just hope that Calladus does not suppress all my comments in his blog, except for the last one which I reproduced above in my first post here.

I routinely save a post or comment prior to transmitting it, and then when I see it having come out in the blog or forum, I also save the published comment or post to my hard disk…

PS Thanks, Catholic Answers Forum; I hope I don’t run foul with the authorities here.

KingCoil

 

[Lynxdk]

Oh good! Everything comes out all right.

PS Thanks, Catholic Answers Forum; I hope I don’t run foul with the authorities here.

KingCoil

“I” have, so don’t worry about that overmuch

If someone shuts you out, it’s because they are ~afraid~ of the Living Truth that is within All of Ys.

Sing it Brother!

Amen,

“I’m Alive”

I love your name, btw =) You would think after 2000(plus many more) years, people would pay attention to John 3:15

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up”

We left Him Hanging.

Pax,

Sean, the Jesuit.

P.S. Don’t be so hard on the Atheists. Yahweh loves them too

 

[valekhai]

That is also the maneuver of Dawkins: he insists that he will not debate Craig, giving the lame excuse that he does not debate with a person who believes in a sadistic genocidal God – the one supposedly in the Old Testament.

That excuse does strike me as a cop-out, but so do the reasons that Craig gives for not debating Jeff Lowder or John Loftus.

And atheists who have attained some measure of fame as socalled scientists or philosophers will say that they will not debate with theists: because they are not going to give glamor to theists, who are not at all as famously intellectual and academically accomplished as they atheists are.

Craig plays that card, too. He said he won’t debate Matt Dillahunty because Matt doesn’t have a Ph.D.
Aside from Dawkins, the only atheists I can think of who flatly refuse to debate theists are either people who just don’t do debates or are scientists who specifically refuse to debate young-earth creationists about evolution. There are probably others, but I don’t know of them.

Suppose you tell me how you will describe yourself as an atheist; is it going to be namely that you simply lack any belief in a deity?

I do prefer that definition of the word “atheist,” but I don’t mind using it differently in conversations with people who insist on other definitions.
I personally believe the God does not exist, if we are talking about a personal, interventionist sort of deity. If we’re talking about a more deistic, non-personal, “ground of being” sort of God, I’m agnostic.

My point is that the knowledge of the existence of God is not founded on belief but on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Knowledge is a subset of belief, so I’m not sure what you mean here.

So, what is your justification for taking up with being an atheist, or how will you describe what it is to be an atheist?

I do describe an atheist as someone who simply does not believe in God(s), not necessarily as someone who believes that God(s) does/do not exist.
Personally, I believe that the specific personal, anthropomorphic Gods worshiped in various religions do not exist. I think those religions make too many incorrect claims about history and nature to be generally trustworthy, and the defenses they give to make up for those shortcomings strike me just as ad hod rationalizations.
I also believe that there is no sort of general, non-specific personal God. Gods of this kind (whether a specific one like Allah or just a generalized concept) are usually described as intelligent, and we only know intelligence to be rooted in some sort of physical structure like a brain. The idea that a conscious mind can not only exist unsupported by some sort of brain but also that this mind is the first uncaused thing to ever exist does not strike me as reasonable.

Will you stay with me, or now leave this thread altogether?
I don’t think this thread will be around for much longer, but I plan to stick with it until it’s gone.

 

[KingCoil]

…]

That is what I know from experience that atheists who are into internet exposition of the why’s they take up with being atheist, that they will hide when they cannot think as to be sincerely and perseveringly intelligent grounded on logic and facts, to explore with me the existence of God as the creator of the universe.

…]

…]

I personally believe the God does not exist, if we are talking about a personal, interventionist sort of deity. If we’re talking about a more deistic, non-personal, “ground of being” sort of God, I’m agnostic.

…]

Dear valekhai, were you ever a Christian?

If you were, did you know the first verse of Genesis,
“In the beginning God created heaven and earth”?

And if you were ever a Christian did you know the first verse of the Apostles’ Creed,
”I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth”?

Best regards,

KingCoil

 

[valekhai]

Dear valekhai, were you ever a Christian?

If you were, did you know the first verse of Genesis,
“In the beginning God created heaven and earth”?

And if you were ever a Christian did you know the first verse of the Apostles’ Creed,
”I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth”?

Best regards,

KingCoil

Yes to all three.

 

[KingCoil]

What time zone are you in?

I am eight hours in advance of Greenwich.

It is now 1009h hours, or 10:09 a.m., Feb. 16, 2014, Sunday, in my place,

---

You were a Christian before and know the first verse of Genesis and also the first verse of the Apostles’ Creed.

So, you know that before anything else about God, we know God as the creator of the universe.

From the existence of the universe beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, we think intelligently grounded upon logic and fact to the existence of God as the creator of the universe.

Let me read how you think intelligently on logic and facts to the non-existence of God.

KingCoil

 

[valekhai]

What time zone are you in?

US Center (GMT -6).

You were a Christian before and know the first verse of Genesis and also the first verse of the Apostles’ Creed.

So, you know that before anything else about God, we know God as the creator of the universe.

From the existence of the universe beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, we think intelligently grounded upon logic and fact to the existence of God as the creator of the universe.

The only knowledge we get from the first line in Genesis and the first line in the Creed is that there are people who believe that God created the universe. It doesn’t allow us to claim that we know that that is what happened.

There may in fact be something uncaused and uncreated that exists (or existed) outside of our material universe that was responsible for bringing the universe into existence. That’s a bit hard to swallow, but not any harder than the idea of the universe itself being infinite and uncaused.

So even if we assume that this uncaused cause exists, and even if people insist on calling it “God” (because being the uncaused cause is part of what say the word “God” means), we still don’t know anything else about it just from that. We don’t know that it’s intelligent, personal, omniscient or omnipotent, or that it had a particular plan, or that it cares about what goes on in the universe, or that it defines morality and will judge or actions, or that it responds to prayer and intervenes on our behalf. You can’t assume any of those things just from some sort of cosmological argument, so they would need their own arguments. I haven’t heard any that sounded reasonable. Most of the time they appear to just be ad hoc rationalizations for the things that the person presenting the argument already believes.

 

[KingCoil]

My purpose in bringing up Genesis 1:1 and Apostles’ Creed 1 is to tell you that God as creator of the universe is the fundamental quintessential concept of God among theists of the Abrahamic religions.

That defines God in relation to the universe and to man who is a part of the universe.

The truth and fact being that the existence of the universe has a beginning, that is the basis on which humans who can and do think intelligently, grounding themselves on logic and facts, arrive at the ascertainment of the existence of God, namely, as creator of the universe.

1. Tell me, do you accept that the universe has a beginning?
2. Tell me next, do you know from logic and experience that anything with a beginning has need of a cause outside itself?

Please answer the two questions, and abstain from bringing in so many words which are not focused on answering the two questions, but – and forgive me – are into dodging the issue of these two questions.

Just answer yes or no to the two questions.

KingCoil

 

[valekhai]

My purpose in bringing up Genesis 1:1 and Apostles’ Creed 1 is to tell you that God as creator of the universe is the fundamental quintessential concept of God among theists of the Abrahamic religions.

That defines God in relation to the universe and to man who is a part of the universe.

The truth and fact being that the existence of the universe has a beginning, that is the basis on which humans who can and do think intelligently, grounding themselves on logic and facts, arrive at the ascertainment of the existence of God, namely, as creator of the universe.

1. Tell me, do you accept that the universe has a beginning?
2. Tell me next, do you know from logic and experience that anything with a beginning has need of a cause outside itself?

Please answer the two questions, and abstain from bringing in so many words which are not focused on answering the two questions, but – and forgive me – are into dodging the issue of these two questions.

Just answer yes or no to the two questions.

KingCoil

I haven’t dodged anything. I was trying to be specific so that I wouldn’t dodge anything.
But if you want to keep it simple, okay. I’ll say yes to both questions.