Wanted: posters to talk on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

[Kurisu35712]

KingCoil, the reason I claim you believe nothing existed prior to the Big Bang is because that is essentially what you mean in saying the universe had a definitive beginning.

This is how I interpret your assertion.

God is Creator of the universe.
At some point God created the universe (the point at which the Big Bang occurred)
Prior to God creating the universe, God had created nothing material.
Thus, there was nothing material prior to the Big Bang, as God had not created it.

ThinkingSapien is (I think) saying that while the Big Bang is the “beginning” of the universe, as in the point to which observations can be made by our human senses and mathematical processes, it is not necessarily the starting point of existence for the materials (I.e. the atomic, quantum, and energy components of the universe) as we cannot observe prior to the point of their current states of existence. As a result, we cannot know with certainty from science that the universe began to exist at the Big Bang. We can only know that it began to exist as it currently does, I.e. in it’s current pattern of expansion of matter and space-time.

 

[KingCoil]

• Paragraph enumeration added by King ]*

[1] KingCoil, the reason I claim you believe nothing existed prior to the Big Bang is because that is essentially what you mean in saying the universe had a definitive beginning.

[2] This is how I interpret your assertion.

[3] God is Creator of the universe.
At some point God created the universe (the point at which the Big Bang occurred)
Prior to God creating the universe, God had created nothing material.
Thus, there was nothing material prior to the Big Bang, as God had not created it.

[4] ThinkingSapien is (I think) saying that while the Big Bang is the “beginning” of the universe, as in the point to which observations can be made by our human senses and mathematical processes, it is not necessarily the starting point of existence for the materials (I.e. the atomic, quantum, and energy components of the universe) as we cannot observe prior to the point of their current states of existence. As a result, we cannot know with certainty from science that the universe began to exist at the Big Bang. We can only know that it began to exist as it currently does, I.e. in it’s current pattern of expansion of matter and space-time.

Thanks, Kurisu, for your reaction, you are a good cooperating poster, you are a good human; but and forgive me, you are a deficient researcher, I suspect you never wrote a genuine critical research paper on what the definitive final and unchanging position of a writer is.

To [3], is this the only text and that without the link, you can find which indicates to you what to you is my position, namely:

[1]KingCoil, the reason I claim you believe nothing existed prior to the Big Bang is because that is essentially what you mean in saying the universe had a definitive beginning.

[3] God is Creator of the universe.
At some point God created the universe (the point at which the Big Bang occurred)
Prior to God creating the universe, God had created nothing material.
Thus, there was nothing material prior to the Big Bang, as God had not created it.

Have you ever written a research paper on what a writer has for a definitive position on an issue, where you have only one text and that without the context from the writer you are talking about?

Have you read my latest invitation on what I am asking you and everyone to do, namely:

QUOTE=KingCoil;12145789]

…]

Okay, dear ThinkingS and everyone humans of good will and sincerity to communicate successfully, please reply to my two questions here in this post:

1. Where and when (with text and links) have I ever said that I “believe that nothing -](aside from God I * assume)/-] existed prior to this point [the beginning of the universe].”

1. Is it a fact that the universe has a beginning?

/QUOTE]​

You will now tell me, Kurisu, that I said:

Where and when (reproducing the text and the links) have I ever said that I “believe that nothing -](aside from God I * assume)/-] existed prior to this point *[the beginning of the universe]**.”

You will tell me, I said:

text and the links

therefore I demand only one text because I wrote text, singular, and not texts, plural.

That from you is what I mean by nitpicking.

Do you notice that word – if nitpicking is all you are up to – ‘links’ which is plural?

Anyway, Kurisu, please give me the link to that quote, no need to reproduce the whole post where you got the quote, because you have already presented what to you is the most important words for your purpose; I can do that myself.

Do not go away now, that is what I mean by working together to concur on what I said and what you or another poster said, etc., etc., etc., in order to come to concurrence on what we really want to understand from each other.

So, for the present when you post again to me:

Anyway, Kurisu, please give me the link to that quote, no need to reproduce the whole post where you got the quote, because you have already presented what to you is the most important words for your purpose; I can do that myself.

Do not go away now, that is what I mean by working together to concur on what I said and what you or another poster said, etc., etc., etc., in order to come to concurrence on what we really want to understand from each other.

So, for the present when you post again to me:

Anyway, Kurisu, please give me the link to that quote, no need to reproduce the whole post where you got the quote, because you have already presented what to you is the most important words for your purpose; I can do that myself.

One point at one time: for your next post here, just cooperate with me by accommodating me with the request immediately above.

And please do not tell me and everyone that at this rate we will never get to the bottom of things; why not? because we can stay here until Catholic Answers closes up, and if Catholic Answers closes up, we can together look for another forum to continue our exchange of thoughts.

KingCoil*

 

[frobert]

Thanks for your post.
Now, I want to convey to you the fact that when you say that I demand that posters accept 100% my definitions of terms, that is a fact that you are into an exorbitant exaggeration which is to me a fallacy.

I presented the above premise to you, it is up to you to falsify it before resorting to ad hominem accusations

 

[KingCoil]

I have gathered the recent posts of myself and ThinkingS, and put them into consecutive chronological order; you will notice that the last one from ThinkingS is the point from which point onward ThinkingS does not do anything anymore except to bring up his link of post #85.

You see, everyone, and forgive me, this is what I have noticed all the time even in other forums, that posters just want to tell mankind what they have read and stop there, instead of doing intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, and conclude to a definite position, and be ready to support it, what is their finding on a particular issue.

That is why I always ask people that we work together on what we mean by certainty, evidence, etc., reason, logic, facts, etc.; because those concepts are crucial for us to support our intelligently thought out position, grounded on logic and facts, on an issue involved.

I will now reproduce the posts from myself and from ThinkingS, in consecutive chronological order, one post per one transmitted message, prefaced by a number followed by the sentence, The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog: why? Just so that I can see the preview of the post, because a post without any new materials except the quoted post being reacted to will not be accepted by the software.

If you notice that I am doing any tricky manipulation of posts, let me know, the texts and the links, and I will try to convince you that there is no intention from me for such insincere behavior, at most it is an honest error – and correct the error.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Jun 29, '14, 12:50 pm page 5 #75

Thanks for your reactions, ThinkingS, appreciate it very much.

Dear ThinkingS, that is always my difficulty with you, you say I have not presented any argument, I say I have but you went away.

We can go on and on and on with this way of exchange.

Let me just now give you again my argument on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, again, for the existence of God in concept the creator of the universe.

The universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

Therefore there is a cause of the universe, that is logic.

Therefore there is God creator cause of the universe, that is logic.

The whole argument is founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Jun 29, '14, 6:44 pm page 6 #85

Since you are willing to conceded (1) my response here may not matter much. But I’ll share my understanding should it become relevant.

A part of the Big Bang theory is that earlier in the existence of the universe all of the material of the universe was concentrated in a common “place” (I’m ignoring how the the expansion of space-time impacts the meaning of the word “place” in this context) and a rapid expansion of this material around 13.74 billion years ago that lead up to the universe that we see today. As to what happened before this or whether or not there is a before this is something that is unknown. The beginning of this expansion is sometimes present by people as the “Beginning of the universe.” However this is the beginning of the universe in the same sense that an egg and cake mix are the beginning of a cake; it’s about the transformation of pre-existing material. There are varying opinions about what the pre- Big Bang universe may have been like and whether or not there was one but no one really knows…

 

[KingCoil]

1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Jun 30, '14, 12:00 pm page 6 #90

QUOTE=ThinkingSapien;12127529 ]

…]

Quote ] Originally Posted by KingCoil

Let me just now give you again my argument on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, again, for the existence of God in concept the creator of the universe.

The universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

/quote ]​

Nope, science doesn’t tell us this. If it does please state the theory on which the above statement is based.

If that’s an inference that you are making on your own that’s fine with me as long as it is attributed as such.

…]

/QUOTE ]
​

If memory serves, I asked everyone to react to my argument in line #1, so let us all keep to that line #1.

QUOTE=KingCoil;12126960 ]

Here is my argument for God existing on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Let me just now give you again my argument on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, again, for the existence of God in concept the creator of the universe.

1. The universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

1. Therefore there is a cause of the universe, that is logic.
2. Therefore there is God creator cause of the universe, that is logic.

The whole argument is founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Now, I will just request you to concentrate on argument line #1.

Please keep to #1, because it is better for the sake of focus and thus my comprehension of your ideas.

/QUOTE ]
​

So, ThinkingS, please just concentrate on reacting to my line #1, and keep to intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Okay, this is what you want me to do.

quote=ThinkingS ]

Nope, science doesn’t tell us this. If it does please state the theory on which the above statement is based.

If that’s an inference that you are making on your own that’s fine with me as long as it is attributed as such.

/quote ]

Please be definite what exactly you want me to do, tell you the theory etc., or what?

I say, “1. The universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.”

Suppose, from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, so that we will not be into vague directions: there are three statements in line #1:

• The universe has a beginning,
  [ii] science tells us,
  [iii] that is the fact.

Is that all right with you, to just choose one statement from the above three, and we will talk on it, your choice?

LIke this:

• The universe has a beginning, [No or yes, then explain.]
  [ii] science tells us, [No or yes, then explain.]
  [iii] that is the fact, [No or yes, then explain.]

You will now complain that I am dictating on you how you are to react to my #1 line.

No, I am not dictating on you, but just suggesting to you to be concisely and precisely most specific on what you are reacting to.

Besides, why should it be difficult for you to just keep to one choice of the three choices up there above?

At this point you will go away and say that I am dictating on you, etc., etc., etc.

No; but I am the author of this thread and it is possible and easy for you to make a choice, then we can continue from there.

Or you will complain that at that rate we will never get to finish anything.

No, that is not correct, we will finish faster than otherwise, just keep to my suggestion to pick one of the three choices above, and then we will witness how the whole issue is already settled so quickly, without going into all kinds of directions to no purpose at all, except for people to display their irrelevant learning.

KingCoil

**

 

[KingCoil]

1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Jul 1, '14, 10:32 am page 7 #102

Thanks a lot for your reactions!

You want me to respond to you, but please put in 100 words or less what response you want from me – because you write so many words, read them over and tell me in 100 words or less what is your point, the main essential one.

Now I will expatiate on what I mean by the universe having a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

Certainty in science is founded on observation and experimentation, but man cannot ever observe and experiment adequately as to exhaust the totality of reality in the objective world of the material universe; so man’s contact with the universe, I mean the material universe, is limited.

Still within that limited window to the universe man has direct empirical certainty like of the fact there is a nose in our face, and also inferential certainty grounded on intelligent thinking, i.e., inferring from observation on direct empirical data.

That inferential certainty is arrived at by a judgment on a poll by number, just like also with the Catholic Church (and Christian denominations) defining what is dogma and what is moral by voting in ecumenical councils, which are then endowed with infallibility.

So also in science there is a voting but it is done quietly albeit conspicuously among scientists, by which they produce standard answers like standard model of the beginning of the universe.

So, what do I say. about the universe having a beginning? I say that it is the common position of scientists that the universe has a beginning some 13.7 billion years ago.

That is the conclusion scientists come to from thinking on the empirical data obtained by observation and more observation, on what I call events and objects in the astronomical space and also into the sub-atomic space.

Now, you have written long posts and I commend you for your time and labor, but will you put a concise and precise focus into your posts, and react to my idea that the universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

You can react to the whole compound clause, or to one or two of the sub-clauses.

• The universe has a beginning,
  [ii] science tells us,
  [iii] that is the fact.

Ask yourselves, do I you ] deny that science tells us the universe has a beginning, and from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, answer why you deny.

Put your thoughts in a 100 words or less, so that you will not be going into vague directions without concentration and focus, which is an indication of your neglect to do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

I know that you find my repetitious utterance of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, to be annoying; but that should be in your foreheads like as devout Jews put God’s words in a small box tied to their foreheads.

Okay, in 100 words or less, tell me why you deny that it is a fact from science that the universe has a beginning.

Of course you will say and repeat that I am not responding to your posts, will you just put some concentration and focus on your words; abstain from going into several directions, just choose what is for you the most important in regard to my stating that the universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

You want to go into endless argumentosity with me, that is not the ideal in a forum; for myself a forum is into mutual exchange of ideas to reach a consensus.

KingCoil

ANNEX

Tefillin | Jewish Virtual Library
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/tefillin.html*
Tefillin are two small black boxes with black straps attached to them; Jewish men are required to place one box on their head and tie the other one on their arm each … within the context of several laws outlining a Jew’s relationship to God. … it means only that one should always be preoccupied with words of Torah, as if they …
Courtesy of google search ]

http://i62.tinypic.com/30wtlw8.jpg
Look at the image a bit farther away, it will come out better. ]

 

[KingCoil]

1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Jul 2, '14, 10:57 am p8 #113

Well, do you two deny that the universe having a beginning is inferentially certain on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, or you are going on and on and on, and not concentrating on my request to you to react to my submission that the universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact?

And do what I ask of you in 100 words or less.

Now, you will say that I am dictating on you how to post; no, that is not the fact on intelligent understanding of my request grounded on logic and facts.

Please just write in 100 words or less why you deny the universe has a beginning.

Now, if you don’t deny, then say so, and I will no longer ask you to react to my submission that the universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

Then you and I can go into another point of my argument on the existence of God as creator of the universe from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, because the universe has a beginning, etc.

Or you want to point out that my argument is all fallacious, in which case you point out where is the fallacy or fallacies, like it is founded on argument from ignorance as with a hard core antiGod poster no longer seen in my present threads.

Allow me to tell you again, that in this thread I am acting as the guide as I see any author of a thread is into, to lead folks to like say water, and if they are logical or thinking intelligently grounded on logic and facts, they will cooperate with me.

I have seen posters who are always into presenting a new thread but after his OP or a second post from them, they disappear.

Yours truly is not that kind of an author of a thread.

I notice that Linus2 is no longer participating in my thread, because he has seen that I am not into divine revelation and authorities from 1000 years ago, but into intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, while he is into divine revelation and Catholic medieval authorities dating to a 1000 years back.

That is what he wants to play here, the role of a watch-dog, to keep posters to the what he thinks are the acceptable ideas in the Catholic Church as it was a 1000 years back.

So, and forgive me, what do you think is your role in this thread?

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Jul 2, '14, 11:29 am page 8 #115

As said before, it’s an unknown. And then we’ve already had a discussion on the multiple interpretations of what you might mean by “beginning.” Oracle touched on this in his response to you:

I’ve directly replied to this.

I’ll use as many words as necessary, no more, no less. That may end up being more than, less than, or equal to 100 words. If you want to know how many words are in my post feel free to count them. If you want to use a more character limited media you might find Twitter to work better. But count the words in which I replied to the above. It’s less than 100.

Well, no. Neither of us here is in a position to dictate. We can make suggestions to each other and either of us is free to reject, ignore, or consider the suggestion. Our liberties to do so have not been impacted.

Is it fallacious? Does whether or not it is fallacious matter to you?

I see every participant in this thread as just that. I’ve personally got no need or motivation to further classify the participants.

 

[KingCoil]

1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Jul 2, '14, 6:05 am page 8 #109

For the sake of addressing something that came up in another discussion in this thread I’m posting a link to your last message to help KingCoil out.

 

[KingCoil]

1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Jul 2, '14, 10:22 am page 8 #110

Thanks ThinkingS for your reaction.

I have not read any new posts coming after my latest previous post here in this board, but I will reply to you right away because your post comes after my last post here.

[noparse][/noparse]

[The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog, that sentence is used by me to see how my post will turn out in preview, even as I use the [noparse][/noparse] code to cover your post to make sure that when you quote a quote in your next post to me, the forum software will not omit your quote within a quote; but you get my concern, I can’t keep the software from omitting a quote within a quote… you are a software engineer, please tell me how aside from my own efforts with snapshot and now with [noparse][noparse][/noparse][/noparse] code, and previously with a space after the in quote ], etc. etc. etc. ]

As I was worried already, and it has come out again from you, you do not cooperate with my last post prior to this one, let me just reproduce my last post.

See my next post after this one, I am going to do a new post to reproduce my last post prior to this one, because I fear that the software again will tell me that I have exceeded the maximum of 6000 words in a post, if I put my continuation in this post also.

See next post, thank you.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Jul 2, '14, 10:49 am page 8 #112

This kind of validates claims that you’ve been ignoring post. I think that if this is continued others may be demotivated from interacting.

Nope, you can’t.

I’ve already weight in on my opinion on this. Accumulating the text of the previous message and the message before that and before that results in a post that is unnecessarily long and potentially more difficult to read.

I disagree. But perhaps it will help if I model my behaviour after yours.

And let me reproduce to you my last response

See my next response after this one.

I will do a new post to reproduce my last without concern of whether or not I would have excedded the 6,000 character limit (not word) in a post, if I put my continuation in this word also.

See next post, welcome.

ThinkingSapien

 

[KingCoil]

1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Jul 2, '14, 10:57 am page 8 $113

Well, do you two deny that the universe having a beginning is inferentially certain on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, or you are going on and on and on, and not concentrating on my request to you to react to my submission that the universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact?

And do what I ask of you in 100 words or less.

Now, you will say that I am dictating on you how to post; no, that is not the fact on intelligent understanding of my request grounded on logic and facts.

Please just write in 100 words or less why you deny the universe has a beginning.

Now, if you don’t deny, then say so, and I will no longer ask you to react to my submission that the universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

Then you and I can go into another point of my argument on the existence of God as creator of the universe from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, because the universe has a beginning, etc.

Or you want to point out that my argument is all fallacious, in which case you point out where is the fallacy or fallacies, like it is founded on argument from ignorance as with a hard core antiGod poster no longer seen in my present threads.

Allow me to tell you again, that in this thread I am acting as the guide as I see any author of a thread is into, to lead folks to like say water, and if they are logical or thinking intelligently grounded on logic and facts, they will cooperate with me.

I have seen posters who are always into presenting a new thread but after his OP or a second post from them, they disappear.

Yours truly is not that kind of an author of a thread.

I notice that Linus2 is no longer participating in my thread, because he has seen that I am not into divine revelation and authorities from 1000 years ago, but into intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, while he is into divine revelation and Catholic medieval authorities dating to a 1000 years back.

That is what he wants to play here, the role of a watch-dog, to keep posters to the what he thinks are the acceptable ideas in the Catholic Church as it was a 1000 years back.

So, and forgive me, what do you think is your role in this thread?

KingCoil

 

[onenow1]

Thanks for your post.

First, please reply to my two requests in the post from me immediately preceding the present one.

Now, just between you and me, you say:

“Reason is a cousin to wisdom and wisdom relies in God’s creation through Jesus because He told us so. The way the truth and the life.”

Forgive me, but you are into a devotional mood, while I am into an intelligently thinking mood grounded on logic and facts.

Just for the present, reply to the two requests of my post above, trying your best to do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Do not go away; if you have to, then just tell me that you are no longer interested in this thread, for your personal reasons whatsoever, which you are not obliged to disclose, period.

Forgive me, but I thought that I might do with some luxury here, to remind you that I already asked folks not to engage in sniper’s shooting here in this thread; my impression is that your post above is an example of sniper’s shooting.

We can engage in a side issue on what is a sniper’s shooting post, but first reply to my two requests in my post prior to this one.

KingCoil

First I am not sniping ! You need to, use the historical view point of Jesus Christ as a man He gave us information as a man, that was part of His purpose in becoming man, relaying the truth in history, that there is a God. His testimony is as valid as any other logical thinking man, yesterday today or tommorow. He used logic in the scene of the lilies in the field using creation as proof, and probably many other analogies to the existence of God. As ST. John said if he were to tell all the stories of Jesus, the whole world could not contain the books needed. John 21:25. The gospels are histories of a man teaching other men truths with logic and they have relayed them to us in human in logical terms.This is as logical as it can get.

God Bless
onenow1:coffeeread:

 

[KingCoil]

1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Jul 2, '14, 11:29 am page 8 #115

As said before, it’s an unknown. And then we’ve already had a discussion on the multiple interpretations of what you might mean by “beginning.” Oracle touched on this in his response to you:

I’ve directly replied to this.

I’ll use as many words as necessary, no more, no less. That may end up being more than, less than, or equal to 100 words. If you want to know how many words are in my post feel free to count them. If you want to use a more character limited media you might find Twitter to work better. But count the words in which I replied to the above. It’s less than 100.

Well, no. Neither of us here is in a position to dictate. We can make suggestions to each other and either of us is free to reject, ignore, or consider the suggestion. Our liberties to do so have not been impacted.

Is it fallacious? Does whether or not it is fallacious matter to you?

I see every participant in this thread as just that. I’ve personally got no need or motivation to further classify the participants.

 

[KingCoil]

1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Jul 2, '14, 11:32 am page 8 #116

Oh yeah, here is the repost to my response to your repost, as promised

 

[KingCoil]

1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Jul 2, '14, 12:20 pm page 8 #120

 

[KingCoil]

1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Old Jul 2, '14, 2:29 pm page 9 #127

Do you have any sources?

The standard cosmological model ΛCDM] doesn’t address the “beginning” of the universe.

Didn’t that thread get locked?

I think that is contingent on how responsive you are to people’s questions. In the last several days a lot of them have just plain out been ignored or dismissed. For example, you’ve not responded to request to name the scientific theory that you are using to establish the “begining” of the universe. If a person isn’t being responded to he or she may find further participation futile and their participation will be impacted. Do you remember what participation levels went to in your last discussion?

Ditto. Though with a large portion of your last post being the content of your previous threads that’s not a good start. Since that is material that has already been posted and has received a response before I ignored it in this message.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[KingCoil]

1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Jul 3, '14, 10:28 am page 9 #130

Okay, dear posters, as the matter of certainty in human knowledge is of the utmost importance with humans in their quest for contact with reality, please accord me the cooperation that we talk about what is certainty.

Please take my instruction above re-presented in big font, and no longer go into sniper’s shooting with the intention of evasion from the real work of thinking with an integrative outlook.

Here, let me repeat, before you go again into sniper’s shooting:

Best regards,
KingCoil