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

[KingCoil]

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 ]


Look at the image a bit farther away, it will come out better. ]

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I know that you find my repetitious utterance of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, to be annoying

Annoyance might reduce one’s motivation for engaging you in conversation. You made an observation earlier.

…]they are always into flight when …]

I suspect your understanding of why people “take to flight” here. Please consider your knowledge of how people may feel about the repitition.

On repeating, I can’t help but notice most of your message can be responded to by using previous responses. Let’s try this out.
"Déjà vu:

…]by the universe having a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

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

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.

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” …] 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 universe has a beginning,
  [ii] science tells us,

Nope, science doesn’t tell us this.

[iii] -]that is the fact./-]
[/indent]

This just seems to be an indirect way of repeating the above. That’s unnecessary. So there’s no need to further evaluate this statement.

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.

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…

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

…] 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…

Whew, I got through that and was able to respond to my satisfaction because of I have already responded to these messages before. Great progress we’re making. Why exchange new ideas when we can just post the ideas we’ve already posted!? What questions that have already been asked and answered will be asked next? Surprise me

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You sound like a better, more worthwhile, debating partner…Do you want to discuss and argument for the Existence of God that will be more fruitful then the OP? He seems to be stonewalling all attempts at debate, and hasn’t engaged with the beginning of an Argument I presented on the previous page.

Hmmmm…I would, but I don’t see myself as much of a debater. I did go back to read through your argument in post #87. I’ve got more to say but I’m going to take a break from all the copying and pasting of previous messages that I had to make in my response to KC. I just wanted to acknowledge your message for now. I’ll get back with you.

 

[runningdude]

QUOTE=runningdude;12127589 ]

quote ]
Originally Posted by KingCoil

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.

/quote ]
​

Earlier in this thread, I already demonstrated that science has does not definitively prove that the universe has a beginning. The current best models suggest as much due to the second law of thermodynamics, but this “law” could be wrong.

/quote ]
​

You mean one day science will tell us what, that the universe has always existed?

Or that it is probable or at least possible that one day science will tell us that the universe has always existed?

So, tell me that you don’t accept as a fact from science that the universe has a beginning?

You will say that it is only what, a theory?

And that one day science will tell us what, another theory?

Like that the universe has always existed.

Anyway, be coming out clearly, tell me that the universe has always existed, and that is a probable theory of science some day in the future.
…

No, I am not into any dilatory tricks, and we will see that as soon as you answer anyhow you care to the request immediately above.

KingCoil

You wish your thinking to be based on “facts”, and cite as a fact that the universe had a beginning. Your source of this fact is “science”. You then use this “fact” to construct a proof of God’s existence.

However, the “fact” that the universe had a beginning is not settled. There are several viable scientific theories that do not require the universe to have a beginning. No single theory can be proven however, only disproven. You may have constructed a logically valid argument, but the argument’s conclusion cannot be determined because the “fact” that it is logically based off of is uncertain.

God’s existence is known through non-scientific means. He has interacted personally with several members of our race. He became incarnate as man, walked the earth, died, and rose again before several witnesses. He continues to bless certain individuals with miracles to this day. God’s existence is knowable; however, we must have faith that those who have witnessed God are not lying.

 

[Skeptic92]

You wish your thinking to be based on “facts”, and cite as a fact that the universe had a beginning. Your source of this fact is “science”. You then use this “fact” to construct a proof of God’s existence.

However, the “fact” that the universe had a beginning is not settled. There are several viable scientific theories that do not require the universe to have a beginning. No single theory can be proven however, only disproven. You may have constructed a logically valid argument, but the argument’s conclusion cannot be determined because the “fact” that it is logically based off of is uncertain.

God’s existence is known through non-scientific means. He has interacted personally with several members of our race. He became incarnate as man, walked the earth, died, and rose again before several witnesses. He continues to bless certain individuals with miracles to this day. God’s existence is knowable; however, we must have faith that those who have witnessed God are not lying.

Actually; modern Physics & Finite Mathematics that informs Mathematical Physics currently has huge problems in allowing for an infinite past-time. I’ve cited a source above.

Also; just to remind some of the Catholics in here that are dangerously close to heresy
First Vatican Council:

If anyone says that
the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty
from the things that have been made,
by the natural light of human reason:
let him be anathema.

 

[runningdude]

Actually; modern Physics & Finite Mathematics that informs Mathematical Physics currently has huge problems in allowing for an infinite past-time. I’ve cited a source above.

Also; just to remind some of the Catholics in here that are dangerously close to heresy

Science and faith can never be at odds; however neither can directly support each other. There is no reason to expect that science can find the beginning of the universe, because it is unknown if God created the universe in such a manner to make the beginning observable.

Everything we know and can know about God comes from two sources: our human nature, and divine revelation. There can be no proof of God that does not rely on these sources.

 

[Skeptic92]

Science and faith can never be at odds; however neither can directly support each other. There is no reason to expect that science can find the beginning of the universe, because it is unknown if God created the universe in such a manner to make the beginning observable.

Everything we know and can know about God comes from two sources: our human nature, and divine revelation. There can be no proof of God that does not rely on these sources.

Have you ever read and studied the Thomistic Proofs of the Existence of God? They are both valid and sound; and rely solely on the natural light of human reason.

 

[Oreoracle]

…you are in heresy as per the anathema of Vatican I.

Also, KingCoil, I noticed that you haven’t addressed my post from a few days ago.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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.

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.

 

[runningdude]

have you ever read and studied the thomistic proofs of the existence of god? They are both valid and sound; and rely solely on the natural light of human reason.

human reason = part of human nature

to deny that human reason can, even if only in principle, reach knowledge of the one true god; you are in heresy as per the anathema of vatican i.

I HAVE DENIED NOTHING OF THE SORT. TO ACCUSE ME OF HERESY, BASED ON MISUNDERSTANDING FEW LINES OF TEXTS DISCUSSING A DENSE AND COMPLICATED TOPIC IS GROSSLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR A LAY PERSON TO DO.

 

[Skeptic92]

human reason = part of human nature

I HAVE DENIED NOTHING OF THE SORT. TO ACCUSE ME OF HERESY, BASED ON MISUNDERSTANDING FEW LINES OF TEXTS DISCUSSING A DENSE AND COMPLICATED TOPIC IS GROSSLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR A LAY PERSON TO DO.

The only argument that is made purely from human nature would be the Ontological Argument; which is of questionable soundness due to it attempting to move from essential existence to actual existence. This leap is questionable logically; I reject its validity as I do not see how that logical leap can be made.

Also capitals makes it appear as if you are shouting; if it was really just a misunderstanding there is no need to shout. I am now, however, unsure of your post based upon logical grounds- you appear to be rejecting the validity of arguments not based directly on human nature. Which is absurd.

 

[KingCoil]

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]

…]

On repeating, I can’t help but notice most of your message can be responded to by using previous responses. Let’s try this out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Déjà vu
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
…]by the universe having a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkingSapien View Post
Nope, science doesn’t tell us this. If it does please state the theory on which the above statement is based.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkingSapien View Post
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” …] 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. …]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post

• The universe has a beginning,
  [ii] science tells us,
  Quote:
  Originally Posted by ThinkingSapien View Post
  Nope, science doesn’t tell us this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
[iii] that is the fact.
[/indent]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkingSapien View Post
This just seems to be an indirect way of repeating the above. That’s unnecessary. So there’s no need to further evaluate this statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkingSapien View Post
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…

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
Okay, in 100 words or less, tell me why you deny that it is a fact from science that the universe has a beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkingSapien View Post
…] 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…

Whew, I got through that and was able to respond to my satisfaction because of I have already responded to these messages before. Great progress we’re making. Why exchange new ideas when we can just post the ideas we’ve already posted!? What questions that have already been asked and answered will be asked next? Surprise me

---

庭に出て
物種蒔くや
病み上がり
Last edited by ThinkingSapien; Yesterday at 11:30 am.
Reply With Quote

…]

*[/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]

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. ]

Now, I will read the next new post coming after the post from me above, and see if anyone at all takes my instruction seriously, or again go into something else, or just complain that at the rate or by the way I am going about in this thread nothing will ever get finished.

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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.

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

I can’t keep the software from omitting a quote within a quote…

Nope, you can’t.

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. ]

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.

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,

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

let me just reproduce my last post.

And let me reproduce to you my last response

See my next post after this one

See my next response 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.

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, thank you.

See next post, welcome.

KingCoil

ThinkingSapien

 

[KingCoil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeptic92 View Post
You sound like a better, more worthwhile, debating partner…Do you want to discuss and argument for the Existence of God that will be more fruitful then the OP? He seems to be stonewalling all attempts at debate, and hasn’t engaged with the beginning of an Argument I presented on the previous page.

​

Hmmmm…I would, but I don’t see myself as much of a debater. I did go back to read through your argument in post #87. I’ve got more to say but I’m going to take a break from all the copying and pasting of previous messages that I had to make in my response to KC. I just wanted to acknowledge your message for now. I’ll get back with you.

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

 

[Skeptic92]

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

I have already responded to you; you have simply ignored my response.

Your argument is essentially a Kalam Cosmological Argument attempting to use Scientific evidence to justify the premises. The argument can be summarised thusly;

That which begins to exist, necessitates an extrinsic efficient cause
The Universe began to exist
Therefore the universe requires an extrinsic efficient cause.

I answer that; the major is undeniable, as anything which begins to exist was previous in potency to its act of existence. Therefore as per the principle of causality that which is in potency can only actualised by a being that is itself in act. The minor is what you are attempting to justify using scientific evidence. Whilst I would argue that through Vilenkins book “Many Worlds in One” you are indeed correct; and it appears modern cosmology does indeed imply that the Universe has an absolute beginning in a finite-past time.

I would, however, answer that this does not not yield certainty. The argument you are presenting is probabilistic and not demonstrative. If you want to make the argument demonstrative you need to make an argument from the Ontology of time which demonstrates that time is a causal series ordered per se, and therefore could not, even in principle, infinitely regress.

I believe the argument I presented- the defence of the first 2 premises which demonstrate the existence of the monotheistic God is available on the previous page. The further premises I could go through which would get us the whole way to the Classical Theistic God. I am unsure if the form of KCA you are presenting could can us much further than Deism, rather than Classical Theism.

Here you go

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Well, do you two deny that the universe having a beginning

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:

“Beginning” is a tricky term, because there are beginnings of causal chains (the first cause of a cause-and-effect chain) and there are beginnings of more abstract chains (1 is the beginning of the natural numbers, for example). Theologians have fancy terms for these different concepts, but hopefully my plain English version is clear enough.

More specifically a creatio ex materia of the universe appears to have occurred at that time. The origins of the material are to the best of my knowledge unknown. There are those that hypothesize a type of creatio ex nihilo to explain the origins of this material but I can’t say I am one of them.

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?

I’ve directly replied to this.
"ThinkingSapien12127529:

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

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

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.

Now, you will say that I am dictating on you how to post;

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.

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

ThinkingSapien12127749:

all of the material of the universe was concentrated in a common “place” …] 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. …]

ThinkingSapien12127749:

Or you want to point out that my argument is all fallacious

Is it fallacious? Does whether or not it is fallacious matter to you?
ThinkingSapien12127749:

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

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

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Now, I will read the next new post coming after the post from me above, and see if anyone at all takes my instruction seriously, or again go into something else, or just complain that at the rate or by the way I am going about in this thread nothing will ever get finished.

KingCoil

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

KingCoil;12132817:

I know that you find my repetitious utterance of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, to be annoying

Annoyance might reduce one’s motivation for engaging you in conversation. You made an observation earlier. I suspect your understanding of why people “take to flight” here. Please consider your knowledge of how people may feel about the repitition.

Annoyance might reduce one’s motivation for engaging you in conversation. You made an observation earlier.

…]they are always into flight when …]

I suspect your understanding of why people “take to flight” here. Please consider your knowledge of how people may feel about the repitition.
On repeating, I can’t help but notice most of your message can be responded to by using previous responses. Let’s try this out.
"Déjà vu:

…]by the universe having a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

"ThinkingSapien12127529:

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

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.

"ThinkingSapien12127749:

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” …] 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 universe has a beginning,
  [ii] science tells us,*

Nope, science doesn’t tell us this.

[iii] -]that is the fact./-]

This just seems to be an indirect way of repeating the above. That’s unnecessary. So there’s no need to further evaluate this statement.

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.

":

ThinkingSapien, post:85, topic:366957"]
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…

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

…] 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…

Whew, I got through that and was able to respond to my satisfaction because of I have already responded to these messages before. Great progress we’re making. Why exchange new ideas when we can just post the ideas we’ve already posted!? What questions that have already been asked and answered will be asked next? Surprise me

 

[KingCoil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post

 QUOTE=runningdude;12127589 ]


     quote ]
    Originally Posted by KingCoil

    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.

     /quote ]

Earlier in this thread, I already demonstrated that science has does not definitively prove that the universe has a beginning. The current best models suggest as much due to the second law of thermodynamics, but this "law" could be wrong.

 /quote ]

You mean one day science will tell us what, that the universe has always existed?

Or that it is probable or at least possible that one day science will tell us that the universe has always existed?

So, tell me that you don’t accept as a fact from science that the universe has a beginning?

You will say that it is only what, a theory?

And that one day science will tell us what, another theory?

Like that the universe has always existed.

Anyway, be coming out clearly, tell me that the universe has always existed, and that is a probable theory of science some day in the future.
…

No, I am not into any dilatory tricks, and we will see that as soon as you answer anyhow you care to the request immediately above.

​

You wish your thinking to be based on “facts”, and cite as a fact that the universe had a beginning. Your source of this fact is “science”. You then use this “fact” to construct a proof of God’s existence.

However, the “fact” that the universe had a beginning is not settled. There are several viable scientific theories that do not require the universe to have a beginning. No single theory can be proven however, only disproven. You may have constructed a logically valid argument, but the argument’s conclusion cannot be determined because the “fact” that it is logically based off of is uncertain.

God’s existence is known through non-scientific means. He has interacted personally with several members of our race. He became incarnate as man, walked the earth, died, and rose again before several witnesses. He continues to bless certain individuals with miracles to this day. God’s existence is knowable; however, we must have faith that those who have witnessed God are not lying.

---

Only the Holy Spirit can move a heart to penance; Blaspheming the Holy Spirit, then, is refusing his call.

I see you to be relevant to my request to concentrate on my paragraph stating that the universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

Even though you wrote more than a hundred words.

You say:

“However, the “fact” that the universe had a beginning is not settled. There are several viable scientific theories that do not require the universe to have a beginning. No single theory can be proven however, only disproven. You may have constructed a logically valid argument, but the argument’s conclusion cannot be determined because the “fact” that it is logically based off of is uncertain.”

We have to concur on what we understand by certainty.

You seem to understand certainty as absolute certainty, but I am of the intelligent idea grounded on logic and facts that there is no absolute certainty with human knowledge.

Even the existence of God as creator of the universe is not of absolute certainty, but only by inference on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Okay, let you and me go into how certain are we that a fact is certainly existing.

A fact like that the fact that the nose is in our face, that is empirically certain from direct experience by our touching each other’s nose in our face, and we agree thereby that yes it is a certain fact based on empirical touching of each other’s nose in our respective face.

So, there is empirical certainty of facts which are immediately accessible to our experience, but what about the existence of the fact that the universe has a beginning?

That kind of a fact cannot be empirically accessed i.e. by us experiencing directly without any instrumentation through exacting detection technology of the event of the beginning of the universe, unlike the nose in our face.

Now, you are not correct in saying that science or scientists are not certain of the beginning of the universe, the fact is that they are as a whole as of today inferentially certain of the fact of the universe having a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, and they call that the standard model of the universe having a beginning.

There are some few scientists who are seeking to also infer from their use of detection technology, and reasoning intelligently grounding themselves on logic and on facts, and concluding that no, the universe has no beginning or that it is not certain, etc.

You will ask me to enumerate to you the majority of scientists who have the consensus of the universe having a beginning, and that on exacting technology of detection and reasoning intelligently principally with the assist of mathematics.

No need to enumerate, allow me to propose that you do some research in the net on the topic universe with a beginning as versus universe without a beginning.

*The following errors occurred with your submission:

1. The text that you have entered is too long (8445 characters). Please shorten it to 6000 characters long.
2. The text that you have entered is too long (8445 characters). Please shorten it to 6000 characters long.

Read next post.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

CONTINUATION

I notice that you are into this mentality:
*"God’s existence is known through non-scientific means. He has interacted personally with several members of our race. He became incarnate as man, walked the earth, died, and rose again before several witnesses. He continues to bless certain individuals with miracles to this day. God’s existence is knowable; however, we must have faith that those who have witnessed God are not lying.

---

Only the Holy Spirit can move a heart to penance; Blaspheming the Holy Spirit, then, is refusing his call."*

That is a psychology adopted by you to save yourself the time and trouble to do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, and just let the magisterium of the Catholic Church tell you what to adhere to as doctrines and also as moral disciplines.

And the magisterium will take a vote in their debate on particular doctrines or moral mandates, taking into account their understanding of revelation and tradition on what is the heart and mind of God, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

That is not at all acceptable to folks like myself who have the psychology otherwise, namely that we must do our own thinking in coming to knowledge on what is the objective reality in existence and what we should do with our behavior.

Summing up, you are not taking science seriously with your sweeping declaration that the universe having a beginning is not certain.

And that alone is enough for folks like myself to at once not read anything of your ideas, in particular when they read at the bottom of your posts, the following protestation or witnessing from you:
*"God’s existence is known through non-scientific means. He has interacted personally with several members of our race. He became incarnate as man, walked the earth, died, and rose again before several witnesses. He continues to bless certain individuals with miracles to this day. God’s existence is knowable; however, we must have faith that those who have witnessed God are not lying.

---

Only the Holy Spirit can move a heart to penance; Blaspheming the Holy Spirit, then, is refusing his call."*

Yes, there is inferential certainty that the universe has a beginning and that from the majority of scientists.

Please don’t ask me to enumerate scientists who write to this end.

But ask me to explain further what you see to be unacceptable to you, and that from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts on your part, of the ideas I expound in this post.

What I am saying is that the universe having a beginning is inferentially certain, on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

The inference is from facts obtained with exacting detection technology, to conclude to the primeval fact of the universe having begun some 13.8 billion years back.

KingCoil