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

  • Thread starter Thread starter KingCoil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
ThinkingSapien said:
Jul 3, '14, 11:56 am page 9 #133

It’s not necessary to have an argument to recognize flaws in some one else’s argument.

But it’s not a good argument or a complete one.

Those are not the choice adjectives I would use for the argument.

Well no, none of us can require any one to respond. However, people may reciprocate your responsiveness (or lack there of) or just leave the conversation.

Correct. You won’t get a balanced exchange with this manner of steering the conversation.

I think people have already tried to do this and found it futile. This thread is approaching it’s death unless something changes radically to revive it.

I’m so glad I blocked that domain so that those pictures don’t show up in my messages any more! 🙂
Click to expand...
 
  1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
ThinkingSapien said:
Jul 3, '14, 12:07 pm page 9 #134

I think it’s just recognized this thread isn’t going anywhere. I think it would be a good idea to review the other threads that you started on this same topic and how none of them ever reached a conclusion and how the participants of all of these different threads had the same complaints. I don’t think there’s a collaborative lie going on. There’s some constructive criticism in their complaints.

On that note, I’ve had my fun and I know you won’t answer any of the questions that I’ve asked. So unless there’s an answer to my questions in your next response this is my last message in this thread. Time to go prepare for the 4th of July! (USA Holiday).
Click to expand...
 
  1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
KingCoil said:
Jul 3, '14, 3:28 pm page 10 #136

Dear ThinkingS, do you notice that when we are not getting anywhere I eventually come to fundamental ideas like what is certainty?

As I already know beforehand, you as per routine have not accorded me the cooperation of telling me what is your concept of certainty, or at least as I have done, give an example of certainty like of the nose in our face, or certainty in regard to as from me the information that there has always been something.

Please cooperate.

Stop already from sniper’s tactic of shooting at lines, and you have not produced any integrative argument for whatever idea you are pursuing here.

Dear readers, do you now see in actual reality that ThinkingS is into again not cooperating but into sniper’s tactic of shooting at lines, by which he thinks he can divert the attention of readers here, when I ask everyone in particular him to talk about what is certainty.

Unless we come to concur on what is certainty, it is just talking past each other’s head in the broad perspective.

Now, he will come up with this declaration, “It is impossible to come to certainty the concept that is which will be concurred on by everyone.”

See?

How do we react to that kind of an attitude, not trying at all and then coming up instead with a categorical pronouncement of impossibility?

You ask or we ask him, “You have no certainty of the nose in your face?”

So that this post from me will not be useless owing to just responding to ThinkingS, I will ask readers to tell me, Are we not certain of the nose in our face?

Next, something more challenging, Are we not certain that there has always been something?

That is what I am asking everyone to do now, starting with ThinkingS and company, and also Skeptic.

You see, dear readers here, it is thinking on what example we have of things we are certain t exist, and how to present them to others and explain why we are certain, that is the exercise of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Dear readers, try it, bring up some examples of things we are certain to exist.

Dear ThinkingS, are you now into vacuity here with useless posts just to stay put here so that you will not suffer the stigma of taking to flight again?

Do something useful to yourself and everyone here, bring up examples of things you are certain to exist.

Wait, wait, ThinkingS, I will attend to your words about or in reaction to my “universe having a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact,” as soon as I have attended to Skeptic.

And stop with your mantra that this thread is dying, is that the only busy-ness you are occupied with in this thread, praying for its death?

KingCoil
Click to expand...
 
  1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
KingCoil said:
Jul 3, '14, 3:54 pm page 10 %139

ThinkingS, you want me to mention the name of the theory on which is stated that the universe has a beginning?

Did you not read my mention of the standard model of the beginning of the universe in previous posts earlier?

And also about how scientists working on the facts in astronomical space and in sub-atomic space, namely, empirical evidence obtained with exacting detection technology, from which facts or empirical data they infer to the existence of a beginning of the universe some 13.8 billion years ago?

Let me read your reaction to this post, and please do not anymore resort to sniping, just tell me whether you have read in my previous posts on:

Did you not read my mention of the standard model of the beginning of the universe in previous posts earlier?

And also about how scientists working on the facts in astronomical space and in sub-atomic space, namely, empirical evidence obtained with exacting detection technology from which facts or empirical data they infer to the existence of a beginning of the universe some 13.8 billion years ago?

I am very keen to read your reaction, but please no sniping, just keep to the issue here, about scientists working on empirical evidence in astronomical space and in sub-atomic space inferred to the existence of the event of the beginning of the universe.

KingCoil
Click to expand...
 
  1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
KingCoil said:
Jul 4, '14, 2:59 pm page 11 #156

Dear readers here, as the author of this thread it is my competence to make sure that posters here are not into sabotaging the thread by endless irrelevant nitpicking and other unprofitable postings
That is an allegation.

The common stock knowledge of people who follow on developments in science are cognizant of the idea from majority of scientists today that there is the fact of the universe having started some 13.8 billion years ago.

Dear ThinkingS, is it your intention to go on and on and on with irrelevant nitpicking, like asking about or alleging something that is against already common knowledge?

Please don’t.

May I just ask you whether you are going to engage me with the fact of the universe having a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, or not?

You can say that it is not the fact that the universe has a beginning.

That is one way of being profitable in this thread.

Or think up other ways by which you can be profitable to readers who want to find out how the universe having a beginning is the evidence from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts that God is the creator of the universe, or is not the creator of the universe…

KingCoil
Click to expand...
 
There! ThinkingS has come to the limit of his programmed brain, from this point onward he would repeat that link again and again and again, like what, forgive me, a robot that has been addressed the question:

Please tell me from your own intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, whether the universe in fact has a beginning or not.

Anyway, let me now reproduce his post #85:

Begin post of ThinkingS ]

View Single Post
Page 6 #85
Jun 29, '14, 6:44 pm

ThinkingSapien
Regular Member Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,464
Religion: I’m a Software Engineer

Re: Wanted: posters to talk on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
Quote]
Quote]
Originally Posted by polytropos

I am not conversant with the scientific findings on the beginning of the universe to say whether (1) is in fact scientifically established. I do know that there is no scientific consensus on this issue, so it does seem like you would have to state the particular theory you take to establish (1).
/quote]

Since you are willing to conceded (1) my response here may not matter much. But I’ll share my understanding should it become relevant.
  • Paragraph enumeration courtesy of King ]*
  1. 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.
  2. As to what happened before this or whether or not there is a before this is something that is unknown.
  3. The beginning of this expansion is sometimes present by people as the “Beginning of the universe.”
  4. 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…
__

​
庭に出て
物種蒔くや
病み上がり

End post from ThinkingS]​

Now, I ask you again:

First, please don’t assume that you have to act like a dvd player in play back mode, regurgitating what you have read of your sources, like Skeptic who gets lost once he is faced with the proposal to do without sources, but to think intelligently grounded on logic and facts (of course he can avail himself of facts established by explorers and researchers into the environment of the universe, whether in deep astronomical space or in the subtle recesses of sub-atomic space).

Now, tell me and the whole registered readership of Catholic Answers and also visitors to this forum, Is the beginning of the universe a fact or not?

That is the mentality of a lot of posters, they think that they are being smart with repetition of sources, that is rote memory worthy of a dvd player, but not of an intelligent thinking conscious human grounded on logic and facts.

KingCoil
 
onenow1 said:
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:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the devotional, please however just proceed to any boards in Catholic Answers that are into devotionals.

This thread is not into devotionals, but into:

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

Do some intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts in re whether the universe having a beginning is fact or not fact, and report back here; otherwise please don’t post here, just read and try to understand what I am trying to impart to readers.

Or talk with Linus2, but not here, he is into divine revelation; I am into intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, to prove that man can and does come to the existence of God as creator of the universe, by doing intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, even without divine revelation.

KingCoil
 
Dear readers of this thread, do you get what I am telling you all, all the time here in this thread and also in all my posting here, namely:

The posters who interact with me don’t or cannot get it into their heads that they should do their own personal intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, to prove or to disprove that God creator of the universe exists.

What they want to do is all the time to flaunt their rote memory of things they picked up from reading of other people’s writings, and already presume that they are doing something terrific.

But it is all I said it already nth times here in Catholic Answers, they are just flaunting their vain and useless learning, but nothing of their own personal intelligently thought out findings grounded on logic and facts, and feeling oh so smart.

This morning I am going to look up that text brought forth by Kurisu supposedly from me but without any links from him, and find out whether he got my words correctly or not.

This Kurisu poster, he appears to me to not ever have done any at all any critically conducted research work and presented it with all intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, AND quoting words and their links faithfully.

What is that text supposedly from me quoted by Kurisu but without any links?

Here, read the text in big font below allegedly written by me:
Kurisu35712 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Notice to Frobert and Davidv:

Dear Frobert and Davidv, if you insist on playing dumb in this thread, that is your privilege, but I am not going to invest time and labor to humor you.

Okay, I have now to look for that text alleged by Kurisu to have been written and posted by me in this thread.

KingCoil
 
I can’t find that text brought forth by Kurisu, allegedly written by me.

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.

In all probability, Kurisu just pieced various patches of words from me just to prove that I had that thought in the patched-up text allegedly written by me.

Now, addressing Kurisu, tell me, and I will send you a pm also, will you just come forth and give me the links whatever of that text you alleged to have been written by me, in all honesty and sincerity?

Otherwise I will always have to bear the temptation to call you a sniper without any purpose in life except to snipes with mischievous intents in threads authored by folks, who just want to get some profitable exchange of thoughts with fellow honest and sincere posters in internet forums.

KingCoil
 
Dear readers, please forgive me, I am getting emotional.

In regard to that text alleged by Kurisu to have been written by me:
Code: 
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.
What I always say is the following:

God is the creator of everything existing that is not God Himself.

Now, what about did God create something material prior to His creation of the universe?

The way I will answer that question is like this as follows.

I will need a divine revelation from God to know about that, but from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, as I know only the universe where we are parts of and residents in I will say that on logic and facts from this universe which is the only one we know about and we are living in and are parts of, I don’t know.

Now, dear readers here, that sentence “I don’t know” is not similar to the “I don’t know” of hard core skeptics and similar ilks of self-emasculated thinkers – if that word thinker can at all apply to them, because with them they no longer care to take into account their experience of objective reality where they know that everything with a beginning has a cause, so that they need not – but that is gross bad faith – think beyond the existence of the universe with a beginning to the existence of the cause of the universe, because everything with a beginning has a cause.

But what is the point of Kurisu with that text allegedly from me?

Paging Kurisu, please tell me what is your point if you have one at all, because the way you go about in this thread, you seem to have neither head nor tail, as some folks in my society use the phrase neither head nor tail to refer to people who talk without neither beginning nor ending, so you can’t figure out what they want to communicate, except you suspect that they are just into talking with both ends open, with the idea that then they can claim to be saying something in particular or to be saying nothing in particular.

That is also the gimmick of ThinkingS.

KingCoil
 
KingCoil said:
Dear readers of this thread, do you get what I am telling you all, all the time here in this thread and also in all my posting here, namely:
The posters who interact with me don’t or cannot get it into their heads that they should do their own personal intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, to prove or to disprove that God creator of the universe exists.What they want to do is all the time to flaunt their rote memory of things they picked up from reading of other people’s writings, and already presume that they are doing something terrific.

But it is all I said it already nth times here in Catholic Answers, they are just flaunting their vain and useless learning, but nothing of their own personal intelligently thought out findings grounded on logic and facts, and feeling oh so smart.

This morning I am going to look up that text brought forth by Kurisu supposedly from me but without any links from him, and find out whether he got my words correctly or not.

This Kurisu poster, he appears to me to not ever have done any at all any critically conducted research work and presented it with all intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, AND quoting words and their links faithfully.

What is that text supposedly from me quoted by Kurisu but without any links?

Here, read the text in big font below allegedly written by me:

Notice to Frobert and Davidv:

Dear Frobert and Davidv, if you insist on playing dumb in this thread, that is your privilege, but I am not going to invest time and labor to humor you.

Okay, I have now to look for that text alleged by Kurisu to have been written and posted by me in this thread.

KingCoil
Click to expand...
 
KingCoil said:
Thanks for the devotional, please however just proceed to any boards in Catholic Answers that are into devotionals.

This thread is not into devotionals, but into:

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

Do some intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts in re whether the universe having a beginning is fact or not fact, and report back here; otherwise please don’t post here, just read and try to understand what I am trying to impart to readers.

Or talk with Linus2, but not here, he is into divine revelation; I am into intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, to prove that man can and does come to the existence of God as creator of the universe, by doing intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, even without divine revelation.

KingCoil
Click to expand...
No devotional !. Our lives are not dependent on science logic or facts; they are merely educational tools dealing in this reality, if we could prove positively God’s reality through logic that would make us Gods. Call the life sustaining force what you will; we do not sustain ourselves in this reality or even in the next that is called heaven. We can only reasonably say through logic something is greater by things we cannot explain. By the beauty of the universe, held together in a mathematical harmony by gravity that science only explains in generalities.

God Bless
onenow1
 
KingCoil said:
Dear readers of this thread, do you get what I am telling you all, all the time here in this thread and also in all my posting here, namely:

The posters who interact with me don’t or cannot get it into their heads that they should do their own personal intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, to prove or to disprove that God creator of the universe exists.

What they want to do is all the time to flaunt their rote memory of things they picked up from reading of other people’s writings, and already presume that they are doing something terrific.

But it is all I said it already nth times here in Catholic Answers, they are just flaunting their vain and useless learning, but nothing of their own personal intelligently thought out findings grounded on logic and facts, and feeling oh so smart.

This morning I am going to look up that text brought forth by Kurisu supposedly from me but without any links from him, and find out whether he got my words correctly or not.

This Kurisu poster, he appears to me to not ever have done any at all any critically conducted research work and presented it with all intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, AND quoting words and their links faithfully.

What is that text supposedly from me quoted by Kurisu but without any links?

Here, read the text in big font below allegedly written by me:

Notice to Frobert and Davidv:

Dear Frobert and Davidv, if you insist on playing dumb in this thread, that is your privilege, but I am not going to invest time and labor to humor you.

Okay, I have now to look for that text alleged by Kurisu to have been written and posted by me in this thread.

KingCoil
Click to expand...
That is ok with me. I still find your posts humorous and entertaining.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top