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

[josh987654321]

I would also like to quickly add the truth argument aswell incase you have never heard of it before.

C.S. Lewis explains it well I believe.

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” - C.S. Lewis

The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words ‘true’ or ‘false’. C.S. Lewis

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. - C.S. Lewis

John Lennox also explains it well I believe

I believe in God because I believe there is evidence for God, for example, in the very fact that we can do science, we believe that the universe is rationally intelligable. Why does a scientist believe it is rationally intelligable? Atheism tells us that the human mind is the human brain and it’s the end product of a mindless unguided process, why should I believe anything it tells me if thats the case? Whereas theism tells me that there is intelligence behind the universe and behind the human mind which fits perfectly with science. So part of the evidence for God would be the fact that we can do science.

Infact the rise of science in the 16th and 17th century came about because people expected law in nature, because they believed in the Law giver (God). So science and faith in God fit perfectly together. - John Lennox

So I believe It’s not science and theism that are in conflict as most atheists like to claim, it’s actually science and atheism that are in conflict, because atheism cannot trust the cognitive faculties we use to do science, as C.S. Lewis say’s atheism and science is like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

I believe by denying God, the honest skeptic becomes skeptical of his skepticism.

This argument actually came from Charles Darwin himself, I think it’s known as ‘Darwins Doubt.’ (Interestingly those who espouse Darwins theory for thier atheistic/materialistic views seem to neglect/ignore this doubt, otherwise they wouldn’t believe their convictions to be true).

*"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” *- Charles Darwin

I believe this doubt arises when people deny an intelligent creator behind the universe and subsequently us. As John Lennox say’s “theism tells me that there is intelligence behind the universe and behind the human mind.” I believe only if there is intelligence behind the universe and behind the human mind can the words ‘true’ or ‘false’ be made sense of.

“therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” - C.S. Lewis

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I would also like to share with yu this piece from Anthony Flew (Atheist turned Theist)

"Some have said that the laws of nature are simply accidental results of the way the universe cooled after the big bang. But, as Rees has pointed out, even such accidents can be regarded as secondary manifestations of deeper laws governing the ensemble of universes. Again, even the evolution of the laws of nature and changes to the constants follow certain laws. 'We’re still left with the question of how these “deeper” laws originated. No matter how far you push back the properties of the universe as somehow “emergent,” their very emergence has to follow certain prior laws.'1 So multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind.” - Anthony Flew

Also, just to conclude my posts here (Sorry for the length)

I believe there are many men and women today who are like Pilate, upon having the Truth in front of them, they can only think of saying, ‘what is truth?’ As Pilate, they refuse to see the truth, because they are afraid, because truth makes demands, because truth implies obligations, because truth implies commitment and once we acknowledge the truth, living with the status quo becomes harder.

But as I say in my signature, People who live in darkness hate the light and won’t come into the light, because it clearly shows what they have done, but as the light uncovers our sins, love is also there ready to cover them so do not be afraid, God prefers a loving sinner to a loveless ‘saint’ Jesus will not reproach us for our crimes, he will not throw our sins in our face, what he will do is wash us with the blood of his wounds, so do not be afraid. He loves us very much.

For love of souls, Jesus remains a prisoner in the Holy Eucharist, so that in our sorrow and grief we are being consoled by the most tender of Hearts, by the best of Fathers, by the most loyal friend. But that Love, which is consumed for the good of mankind, is not returned.

Jesus lives amongst us sinners to be our salvation and our life, our doctor and medicine; yet in return, in spite of our sick nature, we distance ourselves from Him.

We should not distance ourselves from Him. He waits for us night and day at the Tabernacle. He will not reproach us for our crimes; He will not throw our sins in our face. What He will do is to wash us with the Blood of His wounds. So do not be afraid;

Jesus did not die on the Cross, and go through a thousand tortures to populate Hell with souls, but rather, to populate Heaven with chosen ones.

Can faithless, rebellious, atheistic, unbelieving men and women possibly say that Jesus Sacrifice at the hands of His executioners was not true, so that they could unleash their rage against Him?

No one can possibly deny it and prove their denial. And why do you believe that He did so? no one dies for anyone who is not intensely loved.

(Thank you all for reading my posts here, I hope I have helped)

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…

Hey Josh, I’m trying to encourage participants of this thread to avoid conversing on Atheism vs Christianity and Hitler to prevent this thread from getting locked. One is a prohibited topic, the other seems to lead to less than constructive conversations, and neither contributes to the topic of this thread.

Thanks.

 

[josh987654321]

Hey Josh, I’m trying to encourage participants of this thread to avoid conversing on Atheism vs Christianity and Hitler to prevent this thread from getting locked. One is a prohibited topic, the other seems to lead to less than constructive conversations, and neither contributes to the topic of this thread.

Thanks.

oops.

I’ll bow out from any further conversation in that regard than, my apologies.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[KingCoil]

Okay, I will stick to the topic of the thread: “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”

First, I want to get Candide to concur on the information of the most important concept of God in the Christian faith is that God is the creator of the universe.

That has to do with information of the concept, so if Candide does not have that information, there is no sense in exchanging thoughts with him about how to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.

I really cannot make out what is the answer of Candide, so I will ask him again:

Do you have the information of the most important concept of God in the Christian faith, which is the concept that God is the creator of the universe?

Just answer yes or no.

KingCoil

 

[CandideWest]

Ok, I had not intended to but as there has been this flurry of posts I’ll offer some brief thoughts on each of those with whom I’ve been having discussions unrelated to the topic at hand.

If they so wish they may then have the last word, I will reply no further beyond this.

Nope.There is nothing in my religious belief that causes me to do horrible things such as the ones you so theatrically pile up on each other. So I think your tank is still running on empty. I guess your case is too feeble to make.

Ok, clearly this must in fact be some kind of strange joke. There is no possibility that you could possibly STILL not understand after so many iterations, that some people do horrible things BECAUSE OF their religious beliefs.

So yes, well done, ha ha. You made a good joke.

Now I’ll offer some thoughts to more serious people.

You are trying to draw an inference from “all existential propositions are false” to “non-existence exists”? That is pretty obviously invalid. And I have explicitly argued that “nothing exists” cannot be read as a non-negated first or second order predication of existence to some entity “nothing.”

If this is the case then I’m not sure what you mean when you say “nothing exists”. It appears in order to make what you’ve written above valid, then “nothing” can only ever be a concept, and never a state of reality. Which takes us back to my original position.

In any case you’ve raised some interesting points, and I’ll have a think through them and perhaps set to work writing the argument out formally for discussion on another thread.

Hitler was a poliltician who had to assure a large Catholic and Protestant public that he was one of them, of course he would say those things.

Indeed, the Christian majority in his country who actually carried out the holocaust. “Gott mit uns” indeed.

But the fact that he murdered hundreds of thousands of Catholics and Protestants who disagreed with him proves he was no believer but an atheist.

That does nothing to disprove his Christianity, surely you’re aware of the number of Christians who’ve been killed by other Christians for thousands of different reasons down the centuries? If you apply your standard here then none of those Christians were Christians either.

So I would judge Christianity and Atheism on their philosophy and not their abuse.

Josh, you’ve written a lot of text here, but this is the key misunderstanding running throughout the whole. Atheism is not a philosophy. It is a lack of belief of a single set of claims.

There are of course non-religious moral systems like secularism which is the basis of governance in most western democracies. But atheism entails nothing other than this disbelief in god claims, so it has no tenets, no dogma etc.

So no, I don’t think anyone has ever gone to war because they don’t believe in any gods. There is nothing in that position in itself to motivate you to any action, either good or bad.

So, atheists have of course gone to war for a host of different reasons, WHILE not having a belief in any gods. However, there are a lot of people who not only went to war WHILE having belief in some god, but specifically BECAUSE OF their belief in that god.

That’s the key difference.

Now from here out I’ll focus on the topic at hand.

Thanks

 

[CandideWest]

Do you have the information of the most important concept of God in the Christian faith, which is the concept that God is the creator of the universe?

Just answer yes or no.

Yes, you have stated that the most important concept to you about God is the status as creator of the universe.

Obviously I cannot say that this is the most important for other Christians in general as there are many different opinions about which part of the concept is most important. But if you believe that’s what’s most important then I’m happy enough to go with that for the sake of discussion.

So what now?

 

[Partinobodycula]

Yes, you have stated that the most important concept to you about God is the status as creator of the universe.

So what now?

Actually, now that King Coil has established this as his underlying premise, and we accept for the sake of argument that the most important concept is that God is the creator of the universe, then we can for the most part proceed without him. We can do this because the premise itself requires two distinct supporting concepts to be true, in order for the premise as a whole to be true. Those two concepts are:

1. The universe was created.
   Which itself requires that we establish two things as being true, that the universe hasn’t always existed, and that its coming into existence is the result of a willful act, and not just a natural process.
2. God is the agent of that willful act.
   King Coil has in this case already defined God as a “Thinking entity”

Furthermore King Coil has indicated that he believes that the universe came into existence from “nothing”. Which I presume to mean that neither the matter nor the energy that make up the universe existed prior to God’s willful act of creation.

This I believe is the argument in a nutshell. So the first thing to be established, is whether or not the universe was willfully created.

It would seem that the second point would naturally follow from the first one, as a willful act would almost of necessity require a “thinking entity”.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

We can do this because the premise itself requires two distinct supporting concepts to be true, in order for the premise as a whole to be true. Those two concepts are:

1. The universe was created.
   Which itself requires that we establish two things as being true, that the universe hasn’t always existed, and that its coming into existence is the result of a willful act, and not just a natural process.
2. God is the agent of that willful act.
   King Coil has in this case already defined God as a “Thinking entity”
   …]

It would seem that the second point would naturally follow from the first one, as a willful act would almost of necessity require a “thinking entity”.

If that is really his argument (and I don’t know if it is or not since his argument hasn’t been presented yet).looking at 1 that somehow looks like a form of assuming a conclusion. If this is really the argument then some one that accepts 1 was already at least a deist if not a theist. But according to post #1 KingCoil is targeting Atheist (which would not already be convinced of concept 1) that at best could treat premise 1 as true for a hypothetical discussion, but not necessarily a convincing one.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

St. Anselm’s definition of God is that he is a Being of which no greater being can be conceived.

That is the Supreme Being.

So whatever other way you have to describe God would have to be subsumed under that definition according to Anselm.

In other words, it follows that:

God must be infinite.

God must be eternal.

God must be the Creator of all other things.

God must govern all things created.

God must be all knowing.

God must have a plan for what he has created.

God must love what he has created.

God must be able to intervene in his creation (miracles).

Etc., etc.

It would seem that if God cannot do any of the above, God is not a being of whom no being greater can be conceived, for the simple reason that men can do some of these things while not even being infinite or eternal.

People call this an athropomorphic God. We are assured by scripture that God was not made by man, but God made man in his image and likeness. If man is great, God is supremely great and possesses some of the qualities we call human. That is, we have a personal God, not a mere machine that sets everything else in motion as the deists would have us believe.

 

[Partinobodycula]

If that is really his argument (and I don’t know if it is or not since his argument hasn’t been presented yet).looking at 1 that somehow looks like a form of assuming a conclusion. If this is really the argument then some one that accepts 1 was already at least a deist if not a theist. But according to post #1 KingCoil is targeting Atheist (which would not already be convinced of concept 1) that at best could treat premise 1 as true for a hypothetical discussion, but not necessarily a convincing one.

I believe that I understand KingCoil’s argument correctly. If not he will hopefully correct it where necessary.

We are not accepting it as a given, that point 1 is true, it is up to KingCoil to prove that it’s true. Not an easy task. His argument so far seems to consist of…scientists say the universe began 13.8 bya…anything that has a beginning must have a source outside of itself…and finally, for a reason KingCoil has yet to elucidate, that source must be a “thinking entity”.

As you say, his argument so far is not necessarily a convincing one.

 

[polytropos]

If this is the case then I’m not sure what you mean when you say “nothing exists”.

As I’ve said, said “nothing exists” is a locution for “it is not the case that anything exists”.

It appears in order to make what you’ve written above valid, then “nothing” can only ever be a concept, and never a state of reality. Which takes us back to my original position.

That doesn’t follow.

Compare to a sort-of nominalist position with regard to artifacts. Suppose we say that a skyscraper is not an object in its own right, but is just a collection of materials arranged according to some schematic.* A skyscraper would be a concept. “Skyscraper” is not a state of reality; there are, rather, materials which are arranged in a fixed way that we call a “skyscraper”. But it clearly wouldn’t follow that that which is denoted by our concept cannot be a state of reality, ie. that it cannot be the case that some list of materials are arranged in the way specified by our schematic.

Likewise, that the concept “nothing” is not itself a state of reality does not imply that that which it denotes (that “it is not the case that anything exists”) cannot obtain.

*I don’t agree with this analysis of artifacts, but that is beside the point.

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks, everyone, in particular posters here who do try and do succeed to get my thinking correctly.

Now, let us all who get my thinking correctly start from the fact that we are in the universe, that universe which scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

Why listen to scientists?

Because that is what atheists are always harping about, that science in effect scientists do not accept the existence of God.

So, we are going to base our thinking on the finding of scientists that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

And of course scientists will also tell us that we do really exist in the universe, the one which they tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

You will notice that I tend to repeat my words time and again, the purpose is to make folks like Candide attend to them.

You see, posters here who get my thinking correctly, you will agree with me that atheists have a strategy on how to deny God’s existence.

First, they will insist that the concept of God is impossible of existence, impossible of existence means that God cannot exist like a non-square-square cannot exist, or the more familiar square-circle; but the non-square-square is a more drastic and exhaustive example of things that cannot be conceived at all, so they cannot come to existence for being impossible: for how can something that is not something exist, for it means it is not-existing in all the aspects and circumstances by which it is existing, which is an intrinsically diametrically self-contradictory entity in concept, thus also in reality it cannot be, i.e., cannot be and not be at the same time in the same aspects of and circumstances of not existing, and existing.

In this respect, we notice that atheists love to insult God by calling him an invisible pink unicorn, a flying spaghetti monster, tooth fairy, Santa, etc., and they justify this by insisting that God in concept is no different from these funny concepts.

But why bring in funny fictional entities when they can just state that God in concept is an intrinsically impossible of existence concept?

The reason is because atheists want to muddle up the issue by diverting people’s attention through ridicules on God.

Second, atheists will insist that the concept which we are getting them to concur with us on, for the purpose of afterwards going into the universe to find God in the universe, they will insist that it is not the concept of God in the Christian faith, or not the important one, namely: that God in relation to man and the universe is the cause of man and the universe in which man resides.

Third, atheists will insist that they cannot understand what we are talking about, so don’t blame them if they cannot at all concur on concepts and steps to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God: wherefore, period, they will not talk with us any further.

Do you notice, dear posters here who get my thinking correctly, there are “Ask Atheists Questions” websites and or blogs and they will answer your questions, but they will never allow comments from you; or if you come to an atheist who will exchange thoughts with you, still he will suppress your comments when he sees that he is being led into concurring with inevitably concurring with you, as he continues with genuinely intelligent thinking grounding himself on logic and facts: so it comes to the same end, that like all die-hard atheists he will not listen or read anything at all, unless he can twist it as to at least claim that he cannot understand you, and suppress your comments.

Now, with Candide, for an example of a die-hard atheist, he is into all three parts of the strategy I have described above.

Let us now see whether he will fulfill our prediction, that he is into the three parts of atheists’ strategy to in ultimate objective to justify i.e. excuse himself like all die-hard atheists: that he and all die-hard atheists just do not believe in any God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, etc., and they might as well add (for that is in their minds and hearts): invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, tooth fairies, and Santas.

• The text that you have entered is too long (6111 characters). Please shorten it to 6000 characters long. – Admin ]*

Okay, read the continuation in my next post.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

• Continuation ]*

Okay, let us start with asking Candide:

1.Candide, do you accept as facts that we are existing in the universe, that universe scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago? yes or no

1. Candide, do you accept the fact that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago? yes or no.

We are going to start on firm ground, before we go into the realm of thinking in our minds, with Candide.

That is one distinction in my way of seeing things and comprehending them in the big picture of ideas and realities: the distinction namely between the realm of thinking in our mind, and the realm of objective actual real world of things and events in the universe, which (repeat) universe scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

Okay, guys here who get my thinking correctly, let us sit back and wait for the reaction from Candide on my two questions to him.

We want to get him to concur with us that we are factually i.e. in fact as a matter of fact existing in the unversed, and that in fact as a matter of fact, factually, the universe exists and has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

Afterwards we will get him to concur with us on the concept of God, on the bridge (transit) to God’s existence that is the universe which has a beginning, etc., and then get him to join us to look for God in the universe.

By the way, some atheists also insist that they cannot be sure of anything at all outside the certainty of their own existence, that means they are not sure of the food that they are eating, that gets to their stomach, and not sure of the excrement from the food they have digested in their intestinal tract.

Please, atheists or skeptics with that kind of an attitude and fake philosophy, please just do not participate in this thread.

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You will notice that I tend to repeat my words time and again,

It’s noticed. Though I don’t think it’s having a positive impact on the thread. I sometimes get the impression from it that you may have missed where some one already answered a question in a previous message.

First, they will insist that the concept of God is impossible of existence

Some people present god-concepts that are logically inconsistent or illogical arguments. When this occurs as noted in another thread “…]even theists can reject certain arguments for God’s existence as illogical.” Some god-concepts are impossible and this can be noted by anyone, regardless of their stance on the god proposition.

But why bring in funny fictional entities when they can just state that God in concept is an intrinsically impossible of existence concept?

A non-religious person doesn’t necessarily consider all god-concepts to be impossible. S/he is non-religious because s/he is not convinced or not confident that the concepts encountered thus far are true. The statement that “God in concept is intrinsically impossible of existence” isn’t necessarily the person’s stance and that may be why s/he isn’t saying it.

Second, atheists will insist that the concept which we are getting them to concur with us on …] they will insist that it is not the concept of God in the Christian faith

That’s not what you’ve encountered in these threads. It’s been acknowledge that there are many god-concepts that could all be said to be under the umbrella of the Christian faith. Many in this thread are awaiting further development of the description of the god-concept of relevance to the argument that you plan to present.

or not the important one, namely: that God in relation to man and the universe is the cause of man and the universe in which man resides.

I’ll add that to the god-concept description that’s accumulating. Though I think that’s implied by the first attribute of the god-concept; *universe *is a very inclusive concept. If any of these are incorrect please say so.

1. 
   *]created the Universe (and caused man)
   *]Operates the Universe.
   *]is not machine like.
   *]is Thinking
   *]is non-changing
   *]Produces things that are subject to change
   

   Third, atheists will insist that they cannot understand what we are talking about, so don’t blame them if they cannot at all concur on concepts and steps to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God: wherefore, period, they will not talk with us any further.

   Sometimes some one says “I don’t understand” because s/he doesn’t understand. What seems to be happening in this thread seems to be the opposite of the above. Instead of a refusal of communication more information is being requested. Though I do have concern that if the thread continues and no argument is presented that over time people may loose interest. I’m not sure how many among us can demonstrate the patience of Job.
   

   Do you notice, dear posters here who get my thinking correctly, there are “Ask Atheists Questions” websites and or blogs and they will answer your questions, but they will never allow comments from you;…]

   There’s a possibility the motivations behind what you are seeing are misunderstood. I run a few blogs and I ended up disabling comments on a few and I only allow approved comments on another .This is because of problems with spam and seriously off topic post. You don’t have to worry about that in this thread. Every one is on even footing and no one can mute your voice or prevent you from posting with the exception of a moderator locking a thread or banning a user. That only seems to happen when a thread dwells on a prohibited topic and/or has a negative tone (which I’ve made efforts to prevent in this thread) or when a poster is abusive.
   
   Side note: does any of this further your argument any? If Candide West ever did refuse to interact with you there are others here more than willing. The lost of interaction of one person won’t inhibit the development of your argument. Though he’s been with you over the last two threads. I don’t think he would cease to interact unless this thread doesn’t go anywhere.
   

   1.Candide, do you accept as facts that we are existing in the universe, that universe scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago? yes or no
   ​

   
   He answered “Yes” in the previous thread and in this thread and has gone along with the assertion several times.
   #107, #69, #73, #4, and others. For example
   

   1. The fact, from scientists, the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

   CandideWest in Post #4;11835953:
   

   1. Is the best information we have currently regarding the origin of the universe. So I’m happy to accept that (provisionally) as true.

   We want to get him to concur with us that we are factually i.e. in fact as a matter of fact existing in the unversed, and that in fact as a matter of fact, factually, the universe exists and has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

   That’s been done.​

 

[CandideWest]

You will notice that I tend to repeat my words time and again, the purpose is to make folks like Candide attend to them.

I was wondering why you keep doing that. Please stop, it makes your posts really repetitive and actually a lot harder to read.

You see, posters here who get my thinking correctly, you will agree with me that atheists have a strategy on how to deny God’s existence.

Er, I can’t speak for others, but I feel I’ve already stated my reason for rejecting god claims - the lack of a rational justification for believing them.

First, they will insist …

Seriously? More of these silly predictions? Don’t you kinda feel embarrassed when you make predictions over and over again and they keep not coming true?

In this respect, we notice that atheists love to insult God by calling him an invisible pink unicorn, a flying spaghetti monster, tooth fairy, Santa, etc., and they justify this by insisting that God in concept is no different from these funny concepts.

In that there is the same amount of rational justification for believing that each of them are true. That’s correct.

But why bring in funny fictional entities when they can just state that God in concept is an intrinsically impossible of existence concept?

Because it isn’t impossible. Just like like the others aren’t impossible. We just have no reason to believe that they are real. So we reject the claims of them being real. It’s pretty simple really.

Second, atheists will insist …

I’m just gonna ignore your predictions from here out, there’s really no value in them whatsoever.

Third, atheists will …

As above.

…so it comes to the same end, that like all die-hard atheists he will not listen or read anything at all, unless he can twist it as to at least claim that he cannot understand you, and suppress your comments.

Sigh, most debates I’ve had with Christians I’ve discovered that they don’t know either their own religion, it’s history, or it’s holy book as well as I do. Why? Because I’ve listened to the arguments and read a lot about the subject. And I’m certainly no expert.

Now, with Candide, for an example of a die-hard atheist, he is into all three parts of the strategy I have described above.

I’ve done none of them yet, so this looks likely to be another embarrassing failed prediction to me.

• Continuation ]*
  1.Candide, do you accept as facts that we are existing in the universe, that universe scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago? yes or no

I’ve already answered this. Yes, the best information we have is that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago.

1. Candide, do you accept the fact that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago? yes or no.

As above, I’ve already answered this, in previous posts and in my reply to 1.

Why are we going back over the same points again?

Afterwards we will get him to concur with us on the concept of God,

Haven’t we already done that as well? You said you wanted me to understand that you consider being the creator of the universe the most important characteristic of your god concept.

on the bridge (transit) to God’s existence that is the universe which has a beginning,

That is the part I’m looking forward to, where you present your argument. Then we’ll have something meaningful to discuss.

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks, Candide, for your reaction.

Let us go about this matter step by step.

Originally Posted by KingCoil

To #1, why don’t you just answer in this manner:
Yes, I “do accept as facts that we are existing in the universe, that universe scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.”

To #2, why don’t you just answer in this manner:
Yes, I “do accept the fact that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.”

You see, Candide, you are a quibbler, that is why I want you to repeat your concurrence in my word formulation of the statements from me that you are concurring on, in my word formulation of the statements.

KingCoil

 

[Partinobodycula]

KingCoil, I have tried my best to patiently consider your posts, and I do believe that I understand your argument, but it has some very definite shortcomings.

First, although scientists do refer to the universe’s beginning 13.8 bya, that does not mean that it began from nothing, it may have a very natural and explainable cause, with no need of any divine intervention. Having a beginning, does not imply a beginning from nothing.

Second, if there is ultimately some first cause, there appears to be no logical reason that I can think of, that that first cause must involve a “thinking entity”. The natural laws seem quite capable of producing both consciousness and intelligence.

If there is some reason that you believe either of these objections to be in error, please explain why. If you could keep your explanations as clear and brief as possible, it would probably be of some help to both myself and others.

By the way, some atheists also insist that they cannot be sure of anything at all outside the certainty of their own existence, that means they are not sure of the food that they are eating, that gets to their stomach, and not sure of the excrement from the food they have digested in their intestinal tract.

I assume that this point is referring to me, as I believe that I am the only solipsist on this site. Let me clarify that I in no way consider myself to be an atheist. Solipsism and theism are not mutually exclusive. I was raised a good Catholic boy, baptized and confirmed. I consider myself to be as much of a Christian as anyone here, in that I try to reflect the spirit of Christ in my life. I’ve read the bible cover to cover, including all those monotonous begets and begots. I’m probably the only one here who has fasted for forty days, and I still fast one day per week. I may only have a ninth grade education, but that does not mean that my beliefs are born of ignorance, for I consider them carefully, as I do the beliefs of others. If I object to something that you have said, it is not without first attempting to understand it.

You may refer to me as an atheist if you so choose, but I thought that I should make it known to the users here, that I do not consider myself to be one. Although I can understand why some men would.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

To #1, why don’t you just answer in this manner:
Yes, I “do accept as facts that we are existing in the universe, that universe scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.”

…]
You see, Candide, you are a quibbler, that is why I want you to repeat your concurrence in my word formulation of the statements from me that you are concurring on, in my word formulation of the statements.

Wow, that’s a unique method of arguing. It sounds like you are asking CandideWest to type what is requested and abandon expressing his current thoughts. Conformance to such a request isn’t the same as agreement. That’s asking him to play the role of an echo automaton.

I took a look at the thread you reference and some of the other blogs in which you were engaging in similar discussion. Unfortunately it appears in all of them there was never an actual argument presented. . It seems to primarily be repeating of the same statements.

I think this one was referenced in the word document you posted.

Comment on DiscoverMagazine.com

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, and this cause let us concur calling it God.

Now, having concurred that the universe is brought about by a creator cause and we call Him God, here is where as from a starting point we can talk about how we should relate to the creator God of the universe.
…]
My purpose in writing this comment is to invite people to first concur on the concept of God as the creator cause of the universe, not to talk about religion…]

So, people who talk about the experiencing by man of God, please let us all focus our attention on God the creator cause of the universe; otherwise we are not thinking and not talking intelligently grounding ourselves on logic and facts as we talk about the experiencing by man of God, but never concurring on what is God and most important in relation to man and the universe of which man is a part.

All talk about the experiencing of God by man but without stating first what is God, in particular in His relationship to man and the universe,
that is all silly nonsensical thinking and talking.

Now I don’t know if you have new information to share that isn’t already in the other posts that you’ve made. But if there is no information in addition to the above I have my doubts that agreement will be achieved on your argument.

 

[polytropos]

You see, Candide, you are a quibbler, that is why I want you to repeat your concurrence in my word formulation of the statements from me that you are concurring on, in my word formulation of the statements.

KingCoil, in my view you are not debating charitably in this thread. If you have strong arguments to present, present them, and let them speak for themselves. If you do not, then study up, reformulate, and try again. I don’t find the second-order discussions about Candide or about atheists to be very constructive.