How certain are we that God exists?

[jochoa]

In brief:
Your point is that I cannot equate the cause of the universe with the creator of the universe, but you have not really explained what is the difference to you between the cause of the universe and the creator of the universe, except to say that creator of the universe is a living entity, whereas you have the potential to suspect that I am into only causes that are not living entities.

So, I will just tell you that when I use the word cause, it includes anything and everything including living entities that satisfies the criterion of bringing to existence other things.

You see, you want to delimit my concept of cause to non-living entities and then you insist that my cause of the universe is not the creator of the universe, because the creator of the universe is a living entity, etc., etc., etc.

Will you just bring forth my words verbatim to the effect I said explicitly that when I use the word cause I understand it to be only non-living entities.

I apologize for coming across as though I am indicating that you cannot believe or dictate your use of words. On that note, would you please share any personal perception of distinction between causer and creator?

As for my personal distinction between to cause and to create, here are other words to describe the distinction:
-All creators are causers, but not all causers are creators. All creators are living causers, but not all causers are creators because some causes are non-living, and non-living causes cannot create.
-Causers can be creators or destroyers, in that one can bring about creation or one can bring about destruction.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

For folks who are all the time into insisting that they have already said everything and I just have to look it up, if you will not bring up again at the top of your post next time you post, in regard to definition and explanation of certain, certainty, or in regard to your position on God exists how certain you are, and explain it, then it is useless for me to be investing time and trouble to look up what you said earlier.

Well that’s clearly directed at me. Though giving the post# is not quite the same as only saying to look it up. No need for the passive aggressive tone. If you no longer wish to interact that’s fine. I wish you well in your journey for the meaning of “certain .”

 

[VincentChristop]

KingCoil you will always get the same argument from people who are christian.

The reason is they take the bible, and teachings of the church as truth.

Through my logic religion are for those who fear hell.

This is the reason I am no longer religious nor christian/catholic. This is the reason I no longer believe in a abrahamic God as the true God.

There is no absolute truth to God because everyone has different obstacles in life therefore creating different understandings. Religion is a force to create the same understanding to all people through fear/guilt.

This is why I will forever refuse religion. I speak everyday to God, and he answers in my daily life through what I can understand.

I will pick being spiritual over being “holy” anyway of my life

 

[KingCoil]

KingCoil you will always get the same argument from people who are christian.

The reason is they take the bible, and teachings of the church as truth.

Through my logic religion are for those who fear hell.

This is the reason I am no longer religious nor christian/catholic. This is the reason I no longer believe in a abrahamic God as the true God.

There is no absolute truth to God because everyone has different obstacles in life therefore creating different understandings. Religion is a force to create the same understanding to all people through fear/guilt.

This is why I will forever refuse religion. I speak everyday to God, and he answers in my daily life through what I can understand.

I will pick being spiritual over being “holy” anyway of my life

I concur with you.

And I see that for you as for me: we exist, the universe exists, God as creator of the universe exists.

Now, what do you say, religion is the drama man makes out for God and man to play out; that is why there are so many religions as there are humans who are pretty inventive to produce dramas for them and God to play out, which covers the whole existence of man.

Can you concur with me on that idea from me about religion being a man-made drama?

Of course there are humans who insist that the drama they invented for man and God to play out is not invented by them, but imposed by God, wherefore based on divine revelation.

Thanks for your post, it is a great welcome from me that I meet a soul that thinks the way I do, that is, to do intelligent reasoning grounded on logic and facts.

Yes, I am a Christian because I choose to play the drama of the Christian faith, at present in the evangelical denomination or whatever church segment.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil

Dear Sapien, please do not leave me.

Tell you what, please write about your latest words on what is certain, certainty, what is your position on the certainty or uncertainty of God existing, and what do you think about my latest exposition on what is inferential thinking and inferential certainty.

Do it this way (forgive for my instruction), put at the top of your post this notice, my latest words on what is certain, certainty, or my latest words on what is my position on God certainly existing or certainly not existing, or my latest words on my critique of inferential thinking and inferential certainty.

So, you need no longer feel bound to reproduce your previous texts whatever on a concern I am addressing to you.

Cheers,

KingCoil

 

[VincentChristop]

I concur with you.

And I see that for you as for me: we exist, the universe exists, God as creator of the universe exists.

Now, what do you say, religion is the drama man makes out for God and man to play out; that is why there are so many religions as there are humans who are pretty inventive to produce dramas for them and God to play out, which covers the whole existence of man.

Can you concur with me on that idea from me about religion being a man-made drama?

Of course there are humans who insist that the drama they invented for man and God to play out is not invented by them, but imposed by God, wherefore based on divine revelation.

Thanks for your post, it is a great welcome from me that I meet a soul that thinks the way I do, that is, to do intelligent reasoning grounded on logic and facts.

Yes, I am a Christian because I choose to play the drama of the Christian faith, at present in the evangelical denomination or whatever church segment.

KingCoil

Unfortunately I do not 100% agree with you. I believe religion in the beginning was made through people communicating with spirits/deities to better understand the universe. Then over time it has been corrupted due to greed/fear/hate. Man has found the perfect way to manipulate people through religion. The spirits continually guide you, but religion teaches that these spirits are demons. Just like people who are athiest/pagan etc etc. cannot guide you from religions point of view. This is what causes suffering limiting yourself to learning good from one thing and learning bad from another. Everything thing in this world is made up of positive/negative. You need to learn from everything around you. People in religion the first thing that comes to mind when something bad happens to them is

-demons are trying to make my day bad
-god is testing me
-blame it one the source from which you can percieve
-oh I’m a sinner I need to repent

They fail to see the good in that unfortunate event. They don’t stop to think.

“What is the universe trying to tell me. What are they trying to guide me towards”

This is the reason people suffer. Because the truth is right in front of them, but they are so fixated on religion that they think they are supposed to suffer.

NO. THIS IS NOT IT. YOU ARE BEING GUIDED TO YOUR HAPPINESS, BUT YOU FAIL TO ACCEPT IT BECAUSE RELIGION IS TELLING YOU OTHERWISE.

Religion can be used in many ways.

-Find God
-Learn Morals
-Create fear
-Teach kindness

etc etc.

Religion in the wrong hands can create evil.

Religion with the wrong understanding can create evil.

It just depends on who is the master mind behind the religion, and who the audience is.

It’s all a matter of perspective on how you bring things to life.

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
In brief:
Your point is that I cannot equate the cause of the universe with the creator of the universe, but you have not really explained what is the difference to you between the cause of the universe and the creator of the universe, except to say that creator of the universe is a living entity, whereas you have the potential to suspect that I am into only causes that are not living entities.

Thanks, Jochoa, you have settled it, that I never delimited my concept of cause to only non-living causes.

Now, you have this distinction of cause vs creator, namely: all creators are causes but not all causes are creators, because to be a creator cause an entity has got to be a living entity.

From my part, based on my stock knowledge, a creator cause is distinct from a generic cause (a generic cause is any entity whatever that brings into existence another thing whatever): in that a creator cause does not have to use any pre-existing things to cause the existence of another thing.

So a creator cause is in a more narrow category than a generic cause, because a creator cause has an additional credit of causing the existence of something without having to use pre-existing things.

For example, a carpenter is not a creator cause of cabinets, tables, chairs, etc., for he uses wood and nails, etc., to bring into existence pieces of furniture.

But God in the definition of Christian theists is a creator cause because he brings forth the existence of the universe without having to use pre-existing things.

That brings in the question, can something at all be caused into existence from nothing at all?

Or can an entity whatever bring forth something into existence without using pre-existing things?

Yes, paradoxically and ironically according to fanatical irrational atheists who claim to be scientists, for them there is an entity which they call ‘nothing’, this cause could and did bring forth the universe from nothing.

That is why I call them fanatical irrational atheists, they are crazy, and good for us non-atheists, that they the fanatical irrational atheists and their ilk are not violently crazy, except in their thinking and talking – otherwise the rest of sane society for their own safety and order in everyday life must put these atheists in high security asylum.

The power to produce something from nothing, that makes God most radically unique among existing causes, He alone can bring forth something to existence without using pre-existing things.

That is the conundrum of theists like for examples, Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

KingCoil

 

[ynotzap]

Brother Coil Sorry that I took so long to answer your request, life side-track me for a few days. What I offer is not infallible:

The B part of your statments Direct Certainty:
Based on the experience of an internal object within the person like his brain or mind so it not based on an object external to man but only internal to man. (this makes certainty uncertain because it is subjected to man’s reasoning which may or may not be in agreement with reality (objective evidence) but may be influenced by predjudice, or bias, ignorance.

Perhaps if you stated this way: Inductive reasoning based on external evidence, right logic.( in other words external evidence makes it objective.in contact with reality

The A part of your statment can be said: Knowledge or truth acquired by objective reasoning by humanity by the sensing of the material world (sensing of the object)

We witness so much subjective reasoning in society, truth is relative to a persons desires, it makes man his own god Hope this helps.

 

[ManOnFire]

Logic, process of elimination, and lack of science to prove otherwise:

If the cosmos had a birthday, only a magical supernatural power could have popped it into existence. The Big Bang is illogical and only a theory. What created the gravity? If the gravity already existed, then that’s not really the beginning. A spontaneous and godless beginning of the cosmos is forever illogical and unscientific since absolutely nothing cannot magically pop into something without a god.

If the cosmos had no birthday, then it always existed in some form or dimension, forever unanswerable by science, by definition, which is illogical and unscientific for a cosmos that can allegedly be explained by logic and science.

We humans are forever screwed into not EVER knowing the answer. So, which lifestyle is best for love and peace?

 

[opusAquinas]

How do you know what is a fact? How can you know what a fact is or any certainty if you don’t know what the truth is or establish it.

youtube.com/watch?v=y6DtYC9N8RM

Here - this is where the enlightenut project has gotten us so far.

 

[KingCoil]

How do you know what is a fact? How can you know what a fact is or any certainty if you don’t know what the truth is or establish it.

youtube.com/watch?v=y6DtYC9N8RM

Here - this is where the enlightenut project has gotten us so far.

Have you come to your idea above from your own intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts?

If so, I can’t understand why you have to give a link.

When a human has arrived at human certainty of a fact, then there is no need to bring in links, all he has to do is to expound and explain and thus convince another human with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, that he the latter can and is certain of the fact in question, by also doing genuinely intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Now, you keep on into a litany of true, truth; I am telling you that that is a very big field that you and anyone with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts can dispense himself from, to come to certainty on the existence of a fact in the universe outside his self, and/or inside his self – by just focusing on logic and facts as he does intelligent thinking.

Okay, I will just again expound on my idea of what is certain, certainty with humans.

I always I bring up this item of ‘human, humans’ to tell folks that they must always keep in mind that it is man who is doing everything insofar as he is concerned, not any God or other entities not human; do you understand me?

I mean: talk from the standpoint of a human, not impersonally without any reference as to who or what is talking (which is always man); and it must be from the standpoint of a human, like in this utterance from some ancient thinker, man is the measure of everything.

See next post on my exposition of what is certain, certainty, in regard to a fact inside man and/or outside man.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Okay, here we go; but first we must recall and keep in mind that the topic of this thread is on “How certain are we that God exists?”

That is why the words, certain, certainty, are very important, please keep that in mind; otherwise you might go into a self-complacent recitation of your vain rote learning to no useful purpose for this thread.

Let us or me start with the distinction between the realm inside the self, that means me, you, he or she (no *it * here, because we are dealing or humans are dealing here with this thread), and the realm outside the self, that means all and everything that is not inside the self.

Inside the self there are facts, like the fact that you are now breathing, or you are feeling fine and comfortable reading this thread, or you are disgusted with me harping continuously on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

And I find you interesting because you are unsure of your ideas that is why you have to bring up links to try to impress your readers that you are saying something that has support from links – that is foolish.

At his point you will seek escape and ostrich safety from the incursion into your faculty of intelligence, by resorting to telling me that you find my English un-intelligible to you; in which case please just ‘evacuate’ yourself from this thread – hehehehe.

Now, certain and certainty are predicated here of a human, that means you, me, he and she: a human is certain or has certainty about a fact inside himself and/or outside himself; inside himself and/or outside himself, notice the self there? It is a very big realm, it means your body, your heart, your brain, your mind, your soul, your mood, etc., etc., etc., all that makes up the realm inside you, your self.

The realm outside your self is everything that exists even when you were not yet existing or mankind was not yet existing, and this outside realm will continue to exist when mankind leaves the stage of existence.

Do you understand the paragraph above?

If you do, do you concur to the idea in that paragraph?

If not, then please present your comments.

Okay, for the present in this post, here is the summary of what I am trying to convey to your understanding, so it is imperative that you employ intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts to get it into your head.

Certain, certainty have to do with the firm judgment of a human on the existence of a fact inside his self and/or outside his self.

For an example of a fact outside his self, look at the computer monitor in front of you, that is a fact outside your self, and a fact outside yourself can be an object, an event, or a situation outside your self.

For an example of a fact inside yourself, consider that at present you are feeling thirsty, that is a fact you are aware of inside your self, and a fact inside your self can be an object, an event, or a situation inside your self – an object, say, your appendix (as in appendicitis), an event, say, digestion, a situation, say, calmness.

What about a fact that is both inside and outside your self, okay, the nose in your face.

So, I said at the start of this summary, “Certain, certainty have to do with the firm judgment of a human on the existence of a fact inside his self and/or outside his self.”

Now, do you understand what a human is certain or has certainty about? Use your intelligent reading and thinking grounded on logic and facts, and you will get what I am telling you about what is certain, certainty.

But if you resort to telling me that you find my English un-intelligible to yourself, then don’t blame me, blame yourself for a deficient intelligence; what to do with yourself? Please just evacuate from this thread.

Let me continue, how can we arrive at the firm judgment of the existence of the fact inside our self and/or outside our self?

By experiencing it again and again and again, and again if you still doubt the existence of the fact.

So, let me tell you that if you are not certain of the nose in your face, then look at your face in the mirror, or touch your nose in your face, etc., and look at the face of other people, etc., then you will have the firm judgment that there is a nose in the face of humans.

That is what I call direct human certainty, it is the most fundamental of all human certainties.

The other human certainty is what I call inferential human certainty.

I will continue tomorrow with inferential human certainty, but right away I tell you, inferential human certainty is founded ultimately on direct human certainty, by way of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

So, to my intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, humans do not have direct certainty of the existence of God as creator of the universe, but inferential certainty.

More tomorrow on inferential certainty.

PS Sorry, the summary turns out to be not so short.

KingCoil

 

[jochoa]

Thanks, Jochoa, you have settled it, that I never delimited my concept of cause to only non-living causes.

Thanks for further clarification! I know your concept of cause includes living causes, but does your concept of cause include non-living causes.

For example, from an inferential perspective based on logic and facts, without consideration of God, what caused the earth?
From my analysis, the earth was somehow generically caused by a bunch of non-living matter interacting according to non-living laws.

 

[opusAquinas]

What establishes that a fact is true?

Logic - no contradictions.

Ok, we establish facts by consensus like in Court. But that does not give the fact a positive truth value. The Truth is out there but we can’t get it - the-thing-as-it-is-in-itself. Or the Truth *is *available to a select few but the rest are chained up staring at shadows.

We Catholics believe Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Truth and the Way.

You should read the New Testament - do you believe the truth of it or not?

 

[KingCoil]

Welcome to this thread, please read post 1 and post 101, for a proper orientation to the thread. Thanks. * See below for the reproduction of posts 1 and 101. ]*

================================

What establishes that a fact is true?

Logic - no contradictions.

Ok, we establish facts by consensus like in Court. But that does not give the fact a positive truth value. The Truth is out there but we can’t get it - the-thing-as-it-is-in-itself. Or the Truth *is *available to a select few but the rest are chained up staring at shadows.

We Catholics believe Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Truth and the Way.

You should read the New Testament - do you believe the truth of it or not?

You have read what I have been telling you, that we just leave aside what is true, truth, because we can already get to be certain or arrive at certainty of God existing from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts – without ever having to mention and no need to use the idea of true, truth.

You are back to your litany about true, truth.

You want to dibrrt this thread into a discussion with you on true, truth, but I do not see any need for that.

Okay, tell me, can you come to certainty of God existing without mentioning and also without using the concept of true, truth in your investigation of the issue of God existing, but only doing intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts?

I have come to certainty, the inferential certainty that is of God existing, by way of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, without having to use the words, true, truth.

Please read the text below on how I come to the existence of God in the ANNEX of this post below.

Afterwards, we can talk further on inferential thinking which brings us to inferential certainty.

Here, I will take the trouble to reproduce for you my proof of God existing:
"KingCoil:

For all affairs of mankind, inferential certainty is necessary and is sufficient when we cannot have direct certainty.

So, let me show you how we arrive at the inferential certainty of God’s existence:

1. The universe exists.
2. In the universe everything in it has a beginning.
3. Wherefore everything in the universe has need of a cause to bring it to existence.
4. Next, scientists tell us the universe as a whole has a beginning.
5. Wherefore the whole universe as one item has need of a cause to bring it to existence.
6. Let us go into the universe to observe and examine everything and come to conclusion that everything in it has a beginning: so everything in the universe has a cause.
7. For the universe as a whole and as one item, scientists tell us it has a beginning: so the universe as a whole and as one item has a cause.
8. Conclusion: we have inferential certainty of the existence of the cause of the universe as one whole, one item, and also everything in the universe that makes up the composition of the universe, and we identify the cause of the universe as corresponding to the concept of God in the Christian faith, namely, as the creator of the universe.

That is the argument from the concept of God to the existence of God by way of inference from the logic and the facts: that everything with a beginning has a cause (the logic) and the facts that everything making up the universe does have a beginning, and scientists tell us the whole universe has a beginning.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11900782&postcount=55

KingCoil

ANNEX

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 1
http://i60.tinypic.com/28ipxme.jpg

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 2
http://i58.tinypic.com/2qu53s9.jpg

Apr 19, '14, 3:41 pm #101
​

Well. let’s go back to the topic of this thread.

Here are the snapshots of my division of human certainty and my argument for the inferential certainty of God’s existence.

Part 1 division of human certainty
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11893837&postcount=25
http://i62.tinypic.com/20rmph0.jpg

Part 2 argument for God
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11900782&postcount=55
http://i61.tinypic.com/vdmn15.jpg

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Thanks, Jochoa, you have settled it, that I never delimited my concept of cause to only non-living causes.

I have been telling you for the nth time, but you keep on and on and on nitpicking.

When I use the term cause, it includes any and all entities that bring forth the existence of another entity; so on whatever note you want to qualify cause, if it is an entity that brings forth the existence of another entity, then it is a cause, period.

Now, you are into bringing in ultimate cause and intermediate causes; that is also taken into account in the term cause, namely, any entity that brings forth the existence of another entity even though it is just intermediate and not the final ultimate and of course primordial cause of all other causes, which depend upon for their existence on the final, ultimate and also thus primordial cause, which in the present thread is God, the creator of the universe.

Okay, your point is that I should have enumerated all kinds of causes, like when I use the term male, then you will tell me or ask me do I include boys, guys, men, gentlemen, fathers, grand-dads, brothers, uncles, etc. etc. etc.?

You know, Jochoa, you keep on and on and on, but you are not into what I like you to get on with, namely, how is inferential certainty achieved with the existence of God?

When are you if ever going to get to that matter, this thread is on “How certain are we that God exists?”

KingCoil

 

[jochoa]

When are you if ever going to get to that matter, this thread is on “How certain are we that God exists?”

Fair enough. Based on your inferential analysis:

So, let me show you how we arrive at the inferential certainty of God’s existence:

1. The universe exists.
2. In the universe everything in it has a beginning.
3. Wherefore everything in the universe has need of a cause to bring it to existence.
4. Next, scientists tell us the universe as a whole has a beginning.
5. Wherefore the whole universe as one item has need of a cause to bring it to existence.
6. Let us go into the universe to observe and examine everything and come to conclusion that everything in it has a beginning: so everything in the universe has a cause.
7. For the universe as a whole and as one item, scientists tell us it has a beginning: so the universe as a whole and as one item has a cause.
8. Conclusion: we have inferential certainty of the existence of the cause of the universe as one whole, one item, and also everything in the universe that makes up the composition of the universe, and we identify the cause of the universe as corresponding to the concept of God in the Christian faith, namely, as the creator of the universe.

Since you are drawing a parallel in terms, “cause” to “creator,” which we, in this discussion, do not concur, we cannot have inferential certainty. Perhaps you can see my issue with your inferential certainty more easily with a substitution of “creator” for “cause” in your proposition:

1. The universe exists.
2. In the universe everything in it has a beginning.
3. Wherefore everything in the universe has need of a creator to bring it to existence.
4. Next, scientists tell us the universe as a whole has a beginning.
5. Wherefore the whole universe as one item has need of a creator to bring it to existence.
6. Let us go into the universe to observe and examine everything and come to conclusion that everything in it has a beginning: so everything in the universe has a creator.
7. For the universe as a whole and as one item, scientists tell us it has a beginning: so the universe as a whole and as one item has a creator.
8. Conclusion: we have inferential certainty of the existence of the creator of the universe as one whole, one item, and also everything in the universe that makes up the composition of the universe, and we identify the creator of the universe as corresponding to the concept of God in the Christian faith, namely, as the creator of the universe.

Now, I can arrive at inferential certainty with a slight modification to your proposal.

1. Every tangible life in the universe has/had a living creator, its parent(s). In other words, tangibly observable life cannot come from a non-living cause.
2. As time passes without interference, the quantity of lives naturally grow.
3. Therefore, there must be a single creator, parent, of all life, in the universe.
4. Since all life must come from a living creator, there must be a living creator prior to the first non-living cause of the universe.
5. Conclusion: we have inferential certainty of the existence of the Creator of all life in the universe, as one whole being, one livelihood, and also to the Creator of all life existing prior to the universe, and we identify the Creator of all life as corresponding to the concept of God in the Christian faith, namely, the Eternal Father.

Hope this helps!

 

[KingCoil]

Okay, I will now resume my exposition of what is inferential certainty; but first allow me to give readers here the division of direct human certainty, and also where in the division is inferential human certainty.

HUMAN CERTAINTY

• A. Direct certainty founded on immediate experience of a fact
• 1. On the existence of a fact outside the self of a human
• 1. On the existence of a fact inside the self of a human
• (a) That is common for every human, e.g., the fact of a stomach inside a human
• (b) That is in a group of humans or only in one particular human
• • Example of a group of humans, consider humans who have photographic memory,
• [ii] Example of one particular human, consider Einstein, author of theory of relativity
• B. Inferential certainty – founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts

What indeed is intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts?

I am sure that an example of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts can drive into the mind of readers here, what it is all about, and then we will analyze the factors involved.

Okay, forgive me, but I will bring up the reasoning I use in coming to my inferential certainty on the existence of God as creator of the universe:

KingCoil:

For all affairs of mankind, inferential certainty is necessary and is sufficient when we cannot have direct certainty.

So, let me show you how we arrive at the inferential certainty of God’s existence:

1. The universe exists.
2. In the universe everything in it has a beginning.
3. Wherefore everything in the universe has need of a cause to bring it to existence.
4. Next, scientists tell us the universe as a whole has a beginning.
5. Wherefore the whole universe as one item has need of a cause to bring it to existence.
6. Let us go into the universe to observe and examine everything and come to conclusion that everything in it has a beginning: so everything in the universe has a cause.
7. For the universe as a whole and as one item, scientists tell us it has a beginning: so the universe as a whole and as one item has a cause.
8. Conclusion: we have inferential certainty of the existence of the cause of the universe as one whole, one item, and also everything in the universe that makes up the composition of the universe, and we identify the cause of the universe as corresponding to the concept of God in the Christian faith, namely, as the creator of the universe.

That is the argument from the concept of God to the existence of God by way of inference from the logic and the facts: that everything with a beginning has a cause (the logic) and the facts that everything making up the universe does have a beginning, and scientists tell us the whole universe has a beginning.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…2&postcount=55

I really must confess that I find it most intriguing to explain what is intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Right away I will say that intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts have to do with some guidelines which are not many, but are immediately obvious to people with a lot of experience in using their reason to examine facts and also sticking closely to the rules of reasoning, that is logic.

Factor 1. Everything is connected in our thinking that is intelligent thinking.
How’s that? I am using the term intelligent and defining intelligent by the word again of intelligent? Whoa, stop there, what’s going on? Don’t I know that I must not define a word with bringing in the word in its own definition?

No trouble there; because intelligent is qualified as connected thinking, so intelligent in the first instance is described as connected thinking, and in the second instance there is already the information to the reader that you are in fact doing intelligent thinking when your thinking is connected thinking.

The opposite of connected thinking is scattered brain thinking.

Scattered brain thinking is more the routine of folks than connected thinking.

So, for example, some poster here is always into referring to some authors, another one is always into some terms i.e. words, bringing in true, truth, in his thinking, when it is not relevant and needed in the issue concerned – but he won’t stop his litany of true, truth.

When thinking is not connected then it is not intelligent, when it is connected it is intelligent.

Factor 2. There is design in the realm of things i.e. facts outside our mind, outside our self, so also the intelligent thinker should monitor his thinking all the time in his mind that there is design among his concepts, ideas, thoughts, and not all random chaos tied together in a confused potpourri with himself insisting that nothing is the origin of everything and that order and stability can emanate from random chaos without any design.

Factor 3. There is hierarchy and order in the realm of things outside our mind, outside our self, so also in our mind, in our thinking, there must be hierarchy and order in our thinking, among our concepts, ideas, and thoughts.

Factor 4. Causality is the universal glue tying everything together into a connected whole in the universe and in the totality of existence.

I will go into these guidelines of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts in the days ahead.

KingCoil*

 

[Slaney]

First, before

What do you guys here say?

KingCoil

You don’t know what your talking about because it’s mumbo jumbo, …

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
First, before

Well. I propose it is you with a brain that is immune to intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts. Hehehehehe, full in fact of mumbo jumbo.

Here, try this test to certify whether your brain is full of mumbo jumbo or it can serve you to do some genuine intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Write in less than 100 words what do you understand by this statement:

“All existence is connected.”

Dear readers, he will go away or again say something that is in essence a flight from serious intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Dear Slaney, earn some self-respect and sense of achievement in this forum by doing some functional thinking grounded on logic and facts and expressing your thoughts in words worth transmitting in this forum.

God have mercy on you a non-thinker!

KingCoil