How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God

[KingCoil]

Everyone who have transmitted your thoughts here, thanks.

Now, please give your contribution to the thread, “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God,” in not more than 200 words."

From my part, here is my exposition in less than 200 words:

We have the concept of God as the creator of the universe, scientists tell us the universe has a beginning, so we go to the universe to look for the cause of the beginning of the universe, and we have found the cause which we identify it as corresponding to the concept of God in the Christian faith, namely, as the creator of the universe: for the Christian Bible describes God in Gen. 1:1 thus, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”, and in their Apostles’ Creed Christians profess proclaim God thus: “I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth.” [Total words 105 ]*

* From MS Word 2000


​

KingCoil

 

[CandideWest]

To Candide:

You say that there are alternatives other than the three you presented, but on request from me you refused to accommodate.

Your adopted argument depends on demonstrating that the three options presented in point 2. are the only possible options. So in order to proceed you will need to demonstrate this to be the case. Now, you have asked me to provide another alternative. Ok, I can’t. Now all that remains is for you to demonstrate that the three options presented in point 2. are the only possible options.

See how my inability to provide an alternative has not changed your position at all?

I don’t see how our exchange can continue when you do not cooperate.

Well it’s quite simple really, you need to show that your adopted argument is sound. You are currently working on point 2. which needs to be demonstrated to identify all the possibilities (in other words an exhaustive set).

So I’d suggest you start there.

You are committing the fallacy of non-cooperation, thus stalling the exchange of thoughts with me on the topic how to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.

Ok, firstly, “non-cooperation” is not a logical fallacy. Secondly, I’m not stalling the exchange, I’ve bent over backwards to help you along.

I mean I even provided the argument that you’ve now adopted as your own. Alas I cannot help you further, as I don’t know how to support points 2, 3 and 4. therefore I don’t believe this to be a sound argument.

But if this is the argument you want to use then you’ll need to demonstrate that it is sound. This is the challenge before you.

 

[KingCoil]

Dear Candide, don’t waste the time of readers with your quibbling.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11852200&postcount=147

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11852200&postcount=147

Candide:

Not withstanding your misunderstanding of the scientific method, we both believe that:

1. We exist
2. The universe exists
3. The universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.

So why don’t you simply proceed from there?

Tell readers what you know by inference from the fact that “3. The universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.”

KingCoil

 

[CandideWest]

Dear Candide, don’t waste the time of readers with your quibbling.

Quibbling? You mean asking you to support your adopted argument? Well if you don’t want to make this argument then don’t. Just don’t expect anyone to accept it as it stands.

Just to be clear, do you now wish to abandon this argument? Or are you just going to have a digression onto something else for a while then come back to it at the same point again and ask me for addition alternatives to write into point 2. again?

Tell readers what you know by inference from the fact that “3. The universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.”

I can make all kinds of inferences about things in our universe. For example about the ages of stars, the number of generations of particular types of stars, with sufficiently advanced knowledge I can estimate the likely proportions of different elements in our universe.

Of course I cannot make any inferences regarding anything outside our universe. That would be unreasonable.

 

[KingCoil]

Of course I [Candide] cannot make any inferences regarding anything outside our universe. That would be unreasonable.*

This is your fallacy of arguing from impotency, by alleging impotency.

We are concurred on the universe having a beginning, so we do know from logic that as anything with a beginning has a cause, so also the universe has a cause.

Like as you have a beginning, so also you have a cause, namely, your parents – unless of course your parents claim you are not from them because they are both impotent.

In which case they have the proof from evidence of impotency on their part to deny that you are their child.

Similarly, since you are impotent in making inference, therefore you are disqualified, excluded, and disallowed to know by inference, that the universe has a cause.

As that is your insistence, then you are dispensed from participating in this thread, because you have no potency to do inferential knowing.

You are wasting the time of readers, with your quibbling all the time.

Dear readers, earlier he said he knows alternatives to the three choices but he will not name even just one, by this irrational stubbornness he stalls the process of argumentation between us.

In courts of law, the judge will require him to produce his alternatives, otherwise the judge will charge him with contempt.

Now, he claims to not have the potency to do inferential knowing.

Lastly, as I have experienced with die-hard fanatical bigot atheists of the same ilk as Candide, he will insist that man cannot be certain of his own existence, man cannot prove that he exists: so there is no certainty because man is not certain of anything at all, starting with the certainty of his own existence.

Let us not waste time with him anymore, as Linus2 advised me.

Let us just wait for folks here who will with an open-mind and with no quibbling heart and soul make their contribution to the topic of this thread, “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”

You will notice that there are always characters like Candide whose ill intention in any thread is to stymie it with quibbling all the time, resorting to all kinds of tricks to stall the whole process of argumentation.

No more further posting from me to react to his quibblings.

Do you recall, someone here said that I am not being charitable in calling him a quibbler, but that is the fact, the man [Candide] is an endemic pathological quibbler.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Dear readers, I am signing off, but I love to leave you with this invitation to look for the source of this excerpt from a debate, between someone to the ilk of Candidate and a theist Christian:

• Y is the Christian, X is of the ilk of Candide. ]*

…]

Y: It may be that the scientist doesn’t hope to obtain more than probability, but in raising the question he assumes that the question of explanation has a meaning.

But your general point then, X, is that it’s illegitimate even to ask the question of the cause of the world?

X: Yes, that’s my position.

Y: Well, if it’s a question that for you has no meaning, it’s of course very difficult to discuss it, isn’t it?

X: Yes, it is very difficult. What do you say – shall we pass on to some other issue?

…]

KingCoil

 

[Sochi]

Yeah, I’m going with Linus on this one.

Nevertheless, for further entertainment:

Diagram~KingCoil

HUMAN KNOWLEDGE

A. In the realm of the objective existing universe
B. In the realm of the thinking mind

1. Non Fictions​

2. Fictions​

* Fictions concording with logic and facts​

[ii] Absurd fictions contrary to logic and facts​

Please be guided accordingly.

*Please prove your categories, as they are not congruent with examination of the nature of experience, or of logic, necessarily. There are some glaring lacunae in your unexamined premises. And as CandideWest point out, your transit suffers from non-sequiturs, especially in that it is not a transit from concept to proof, only to another unsupported concept by means of unsupported “transitory” terms .

However, having been in your position of belief, none of this is meant in a way of argument with the end of convincing you. It is just an exposition of the fact that many people (probably most, including the scientists you seem to rely on,) see the Universe in far different terms and perspectives than do you, and manage to live, prosper, and be at peace within themselves, and with, for sake of lack of a better place holder in you terms, God.

Further, “Please be guided accordingly”–in type comes across as somewhat pedantic in the context of the tone of most of your posts. Perhaps a survey of other world views than your inculcated habituated one might be in order, so that at least you may allow for the explanation of holes in your view from other vantage points.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am into the exposition of my idea that there is a transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.

Will you contribute your ideas on this topic in not more than 200 words?

You might reply that you have contributed already, only I have not attended to your contributions.

Please, just now please give your contribution in not more than 200 words, and I promise you that I will exchange thoughts with you on your contributions to my thread on how to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.

I have already said more than necessary, certainly more than is sufficient to establish that your line of thinking makes no sense.

Linus2nd

KingCoil

KingCoil

 

[CandideWest]

This is your fallacy of arguing from impotency, by alleging impotency.

Again, firstly that is not a fallacy.

Secondly, if you believe you have some route to infer something else from the universe having a beginning then please provide it and we can discuss. If you don’t, then why the surprise that I cannot infer anything beyond the universe from it either?

We are concurred on the universe having a beginning, so we do know from logic that as anything with a beginning has a cause, so also the universe has a cause.

No, I don’t know that. You have asserted this, and I have asked you to justify that assertion. Thus far you have failed to provide a supportable justification. Thus your assertion is of no value.

Similarly, since you are impotent in making inference, therefore you are disqualified, excluded, and disallowed to know by inference, that the universe has a cause.

No, as I’ve already said, I can make inference from the universe having a beginning. Loads of them, but none of them apply outside the universe. Again, that would be unreasonable.

As that is your insistence, then you are dispensed from participating in this thread, because you have no potency to do inferential knowing.

Thanks, but I’m happy to take part anyway. And again, I am quite capable of making inferences.

You are wasting the time of readers, with your quibbling all the time.

What is it with you and quibbling? You seem to be of the view that if someone asks you to support an assertion that they are quibbling. Well I’m afraid if you try to make logical arguments without supporting your premises, then anyone and everyone will be “quibbling” at you to do so. That’s how logic works.

Dear readers, earlier he said he knows alternatives to the three choices but he will not name even just one, by this irrational stubbornness he stalls the process of argumentation between us.

No, this is a complete misrepresentation. I said that you need to demonstrate that that possibilities in point 2. are the only possible ones. You asked me to identify an alternative, I have said that I cannot think of any alternatives. So now all that remains (as it did at the start) is for you to demonstrate that the possibilities in point 2. are the only possible ones.

In courts of law, the judge will require him to produce his alternatives, otherwise the judge will charge him with contempt.

No, in a logical argument you have to support your premises, they are not held to be true unless someone else can disprove them. Or to put it into court terminology “innocent until proven guilty”.

Now, he claims to not have the potency to do inferential knowing.

Incorrect, I said that you cannot infer anything about things outside our universe based only on our universe having a beginning. It would help if you read my posts before replying (I’m charitably assuming that your misrepresentations are accidental).

Lastly, as I have experienced with die-hard fanatical bigot atheists of the same ilk as Candide, he will insist that man cannot be certain of his own existence, man cannot prove that he exists: so there is no certainty because man is not certain of anything at all, starting with the certainty of his own existence.

So in the absence of any anything constructive to say you are going back to insults and your silly predictions (which so far have 0% accuracy).

I’d hoped for so much better from you.

You will notice that there are always characters like Candide whose ill intention in any thread is to stymie it with quibbling all the time, resorting to all kinds of tricks to stall the whole process of argumentation.

I have helped you with every step to get to this point. To try to get some kind of argument which we could discuss. It’s ludicrous for you to accuse me of having stalled the process. The problem here is that you do not have a supportable argument, so you keep playing games of evasion to avoid this being apparent.

Alas, in that absence of a supportable argument nobody will be able to concur with you on your conclusion. So you are stuck at the starting gate.

I’d suggest you start again, write out your argument and then state how you know each point in the argument is true. That would be progress.

 

[CandideWest]

Dear readers, I am signing off, but I love to leave you with this invitation to look for the source of this excerpt from a debate, between someone to the ilk of Candidate and a theist Christian:

Y is the Christian, X is of the ilk of Candide. ]
…]

Y: It may be that the scientist doesn’t hope to obtain more than probability, but in raising the question he assumes that the question of explanation has a meaning.

But your general point then, X, is that it’s illegitimate even to ask the question of the cause of the world?

X: Yes, that’s my position.

Y: Well, if it’s a question that for you has no meaning, it’s of course very difficult to discuss it, isn’t it?

X: Yes, it is very difficult. What do you say – shall we pass on to some other issue?

…]

KingCoil

Again, a complete misrepresentation. Here, I’ll fix it for you.

Y: It may be that the scientist doesn’t hope to obtain more than probability, but in raising the question he assumes that the question of explanation has a meaning.

But your general point then, X, is that it’s illegitimate even to ask the question of the cause of the world?

X: No, not at all. The cause of the universe is an active and exciting area of research which is making regular progress.

We may or may not ever be certain of the cause, but we have for example already determined some possible causes, for example that it was caused by nothing. We don’t know this to be true, but we now know it’s possible. Which is hugely exciting in itself.

Y: Oh, ok. So we don’t yet know what the caused the universe, but people are working on finding out?

X: Yes, it is very difficult but we’re making progress. Amazing isn’t it.

Y: Amazing indeed, I’ll look forward to future discoveries.

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
I am into the exposition of my idea that there is a transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.

Dear readers here, here as follows is the snapshot of the post from me he is reacting to.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11863170&postcount=238

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11863170&postcount=238

Now, dear readers here, anyone can utter with categorical but purely gratuitous declaration that some thought of a poster does not make sense to him, but I am inviting him to do genuine intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts to expound to the pubic here how it does not make sense to himself.

Here is my brief exposition of my advocacy and explanation on the topic of this thread: “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”

KingCoil:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11863314&postcount=241

We have the concept of God as the creator of the universe, scientists tell us the universe has a beginning, so we go to the universe to look for the cause of the beginning of the universe, and we have found the cause which we identify it as corresponding to the concept of God in the Christian faith, namely, as the creator of the universe: for the Christian Bible describes God in Gen. 1:1 thus, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”, and in their Apostles’ Creed Christians profess proclaim God thus: “I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth.” [Total words 105 ]

Dear Linus2, please present your counter exposition in advocacy of why to your mind you cannot make any sense of my advocacy and exposition, and please limit yourself to just 200 words or less.

Yes, dear Linus2, you will repeat that you have already made it most sufficiently clear to your own mind, that my position does not make any sense to your mind, please just the same render your thought again in not more than 200 words.

You could start with the charge that I am making assumptions all the time, in which case just present one assumption and we will get started on it.

Or if you prefer, you might charge me with the fallacy of arguing from ignorance: because you presume that I am going to premise that there are only three choices to the existence of the universe, namely: it created itself, or it was created by nothing, or some agent outside itself (the universe that is) created it.

I am not saying that I have three choices or even that there are only three choices, I am must imagining that you might resort to that kind of an approach, in which case we can work together to get to the heart of what is the fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

KingCoil,

 

[KingCoil]

To the rest, excluding Bodicula and Candide, please dispense with your routine token courtesies, start thinking intelligently grounding yourselves on logic and facts, how you can present another exposition distinct from mine, on how the concept of God does lead the rational man to come to the existence of God.

And do it in not more than 200 words.

Also in not more than 200 words, should you take to expounding a contrary advocacy.

You see, when you are required to limit yourself to few words, like 200 words, then you will definitely control yourself from loitering everywhere and spewing forth needless matters hoping to impress, you will concentrate on the gist of the issue and how to support your exposition all the time as you put it into words.

By the way, that excerpt of a debate for which I am inviting everyone to look up the source, the non-theist party was a great lover of women – and I dare say owing to a guilty conscience – though in formal circumstances he described himself as an agnostic, in actual life and words his behavior was to make fun of God and the Christian faith: as I said, in order to assuage his guilty conscience

KingCoil

 

[Sochi]

To the rest, excluding Bodicula and Candide, please dispense with your routine token courtesies, start thinking intelligently grounding yourselves on logic and facts, how you can present another exposition distinct from mine, on how the concept of God does lead the rational man to come to the existence of God.

KingCoil

Thanks, but due to the unproven nature of your premise, vagueness of your connections, the fact that the “existence” of God cannot be pinned to or by a rational conclusion, and mostly due to your pedantry, I decline.

 

[CandideWest]

To the rest, excluding Bodicula and Candide, please dispense with your routine token courtesies, start thinking intelligently grounding yourselves on logic and facts, how you can present another exposition distinct from mine, on how the concept of God does lead the rational man to come to the existence of God.

And do it in not more than 200 words.

I can do it in much less than that. Here you are:

"Thus far no supportable argument has been presented which leads from the concept of a god to belief in the existence of that god. "

Done in I think 24 words.

Also in not more than 200 words, should you take to expounding a contrary advocacy.

In the absence of any supportable argument to go from the concept of a god to belief in the existence of that god there is no need for a counter argument. There’s simply nothing to argue against here.

I will take the opportunity though to summarise the entire discussion regarding your idea of getting to some god from the universe having a beginning (again in a lot less that 200 words).

"Thus far no supportable argument has been presented which leads from the universe beginning 13.8 billion years ago to belief in the existence of a god. "

(26 words I think.)

You see, when you are required to limit yourself to few words, like 200 words, then you will definitely control yourself from loitering everywhere and spewing forth needless matters hoping to impress, you will concentrate on the gist of the issue and how to support your exposition all the time as you put it into words.

Very easy when to do when I’m not having to teach basic logic in my posts.

 

[Sochi]

Very easy when to do when I’m not having to teach basic logic in my posts.

 

[KingCoil]

This thread is about “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”

Folks who are into intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts will see and do see – if they do not play stupid or wicked as satanic obstructionists – that it is no different from the search for a missing person, in the present instance, God, the creator of the universe.

Now, with satanic obstructionists, they will sabotage every effort from the part of honest seekers of facts, to prevent the fact of God’s existence to be definitely encountered by them, i.e. the honest seekers who are into sincere intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

One of the stratagems they satanic obstructionists employ is to bog down the search into rancor from their part as satanic obstructionists, with insisting that the seekers continuously occupy themselves with proving that they the satanic obstructionists did say something or did not say something; and when seekers propose that they both sides first come to concurrence on everything as regards concepts and steps involved in the search for the missing person, God, they will insist that it is just all semantics, so they will not collaborate to come to concurrence on concepts and steps involved in the search for God, Who is the missing person in this thread, “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”

Now, there is also this stratagem from satanic obstructionists and their juniors, which juniors are not really satanic obstructionists but are what I call reluctanists, to collaborate in the effective search for God, namely, on the request from the part of yours truly to just start anew by presenting briefly say in not more than 200 words, what is their opposition to the search for God, will insist that they have already made it very certain and sufficiently clear that they don’t know or they cannot accept my attempts, or they cannot understand my expositions to advance the search for God: so they need not anymore further repeat their expositions whatever made in the past.

That will bog down the search into rancor from their part, the satanic obstructionists and their juniors the reluctionists, with compelling me to prove (but to their wicked repetitive denial) that they said this or that or they did not say this or that, or with declaring that I did not understand them the way they should be understood.

So, satanic obstructionists and you their juniors, the reluctanists, will you just finally collaborate with me in the search for God, the missing person, which search is the topic of this thread on “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God,” by first: ceasing and desisting from your malingering obstructionism and reluctanism.

Everyone here who is not among satanic obstructionists and neither their juniors, reluctanists, please join in and propose your ways and means to search for the missing person, the creator God, which search is the whole idea in the topic of this thread, “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”

KingCoil

 

[Sochi]

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think the horse has been thoroughly beaten and this thread is as good as dead. It was entertaining though.

 

[CandideWest]

Everyone here who is not among satanic obstructionists and neither their juniors, reluctanists, please join in and propose your ways and means to search for the missing person, the creator God, which search is the whole idea in the topic of this thread, “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”

Sure, I’m happy to help look for this God chap. First off let’s make sure we know this guy exists and get a good clear description of him. That way we can work out what to look for. When was he last seen? And where was he heading at the time?

Yes, I know, I’m being a little facetious here. But we seem to have reached the point in the discussion where you have realised that you don’t actually have anything showing the existence of any gods. Hence your sudden switch to calling us satanists. Usually it’s best at this point to take a step back rather than start throwing around more accusations etc. Especially at those who have tried to help you. It just looks kinda silly.

Incidentally, calling us satanists is quite comical in its own right. Satanists necessarily hold Christian beliefs (ie belief that the devil exists) so, by definition atheists cannot be satanists.

 

[CandideWest]

I think the horse has been thoroughly beaten and this thread is as good as dead. It was entertaining though.

Haha, I tend to agree. Thanks for keeping me company on here, and keeping me on topic when I veered off into the long grass. Much appreciated.