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

[KingCoil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeptic92 View Post
…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.

Addressing Sekptic, at this point, I see us to be in the same camp; so I really don’t see any reasons why I should invest time and labor trying to make you employ intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, to infer to the existence of God as the creator of the universe.

Oreo, Are you the poster who is into the accusation that my concept of God is underdetermined?

But I already said nth times in my posts here and also in all my threads, that God is first and foremost the creator of the universe, anything else without that credit to God, is all vacuous.

If not that underdetemined God defender, then give me some links or just give me quotes from you covering what you want me to react to.

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Are you the poster who is into the accusation that my concept of God is underdetermined?

I have made a number of arguments in this topic now, claiming specific facts about God’s nature that would disambiguate your favorite underdetermined proposition.

 

[KingCoil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by runningdude View Post
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.

We are now not into my submission that the universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

And I am still waiting for posters to write in 100 words or less what they deny of my submission, and how.

---

*"…to move from essential existence to actual existence…" – Skeptic
*

I have a good number of posts in my threads on proof for the existence of God from concept to object.

1. First you have the concept of God as the creator of the universe.
2. Next, you and I go into the universe to look for God as creator of the universe.
3. Third, we realize that the universe has a beginning.
4. Then we search for the cause of the beginning of the universe.
5. In the process we come to the conclusion that the cause of the universe is also the operator of the universe.
6. And we get the insight that the cause and operator of the universe is larger than the universe and more subtle than the smallest part of the universe small to the nth degree.
7. All this time we are doing intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
8. Right away we come to the conclusion on inference that God is everywhere and all the time in the universe, He is outside and inside, encapsulating the whole universe, and also within the nth time smallest particle, field, force, laws, whatever of the universe.
9. ERGO: We have found God even though we don’t see and touch Him, but we perceive Him to exist everywhere and all the time outside the universe, inside the universe, and penetrating into the nth time most deep abyss of the universe.

That is my expatiation on the existence of God as creator of the universe from concept to object.

If you have comments, first indicate what number above you are commenting on.

KingCoil

 

[Skeptic92]

We are now not into my submission that the universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

And I am still waiting for posters to write in 100 words or less what they deny of my submission, and how.

---

*"…to move from essential existence to actual existence…" – Skeptic
*

I have a good number of posts in my threads on proof for the existence of God from concept to object.

1. First you have the concept of God as the creator of the universe.
2. Next, you and I go into the universe to look for God as creator of the universe.
3. Third, we realize that the universe has a beginning.
4. Then we search for the cause of the beginning of the universe.
5. In the process we come to the conclusion that the cause of the universe is also the operator of the universe.
6. And we get the insight that the cause and operator of the universe is larger than the universe and more subtle than the smallest part of the universe small to the nth degree.
7. All this time we are doing intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
8. Right away we come to the conclusion on inference that God is everywhere and all the time in the universe, He is outside and inside, encapsulating the whole universe, and also within the nth time smallest particle, field, force, laws, whatever of the universe.
9. ERGO: We have found God even though we don’t see and touch Him, but we perceive Him to exist everywhere and all the time outside the universe, inside the universe, and penetrating into the nth time most deep abyss of the universe.

That is my expatiation on the existence of God as creator of the universe from concept to object.

If you have comments, first indicate what number above you are commenting on.

KingCoil

Your argument does not get us to the Christian God, but a crude form of Deism. Also premise 2 is controversial; do you have the actual arguments for an absolute beginning? That disprove an cyclical universal model with certainty, not just probability.

You have not presented a demonstrative argument, only a probabilistic one.

 

[KingCoil]

Okay, ThinkingS and company.

I say that the universe having a beginning is inferentially certain, from scientists inferring from the facts available through the present detection technology of astronomical space and sub-atomic space.

ThinkingS, you say that you don’t know the universe has a beginning, do I get you correctly?

Okay, all ye guys who maintain that you do not know that the universe has a beginning, or that you cannot be certain that the universe has a beginning; how is that connected to my argument that God exists as creator of the universe?

Let me see: if the universe having a beginning is not known to you, then you cannot decide on what you do not know; or if the universe having a beginning is not certain for you, then you cannot also decide with certainty that God exists and the evidence is because the universe has a beginning, since you cannot be certain about that, namely, the universe having a beginning.

But what does science tell us, I mean the majority of scientists, about the standard model of the beginning of the universe.

Of course scientists nowadays are into the routine disclaimer that theories can change with more facts available come tomorrow or the day after, and on and on.

But for the present there is inferential certainty that the universe has a beginning.

So, ThinkingS and company, do you know that majority of scientists today in effect have come to the inferential certainty that it is a fact drawn from facts available through exacting detection technology into astronomical space and sub-atomic space, that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago?

I suggest we talk about what is certainty, and about what you do know or do not know.

So, ThinkingS, first let us talk about what we humans know to be certainly existing, but in the process we have to also talk about what is certainty.

Will you ThinkingS and company stay with me on those two items: * what we know for certain, and of course in the process at the same time, [ii] what is certainty.

Let me start, I am certain of the nose in our face, that is an example of a piece of information that I have with certainty.

What about that there has always been something existing? Yes, I also have certainty that there has always been something existing.

Now, ThinkingS and company, give me two examples of something you know to exist, know with certainty, one like the what I know with certainty of the nose in our face and also an example like mine that something has always existed.

Will you talk with me now on those two items?

And not be into repeating forever how I avoided replying to you or not looking up your posts, etc., and you are not going to bring up your past posts, etc.

KingCoil*

 

[Skeptic92]

Okay, ThinkingS and company.

I say that the universe having a beginning is inferentially certain, from scientists inferring from the facts available through the present detection technology of astronomical space and sub-atomic space.

ThinkingS, you say that you don’t know the universe has a beginning, do I get you correctly?

Okay, all ye guys who maintain that you do not know that the universe has a beginning, or that you cannot be certain that the universe has a beginning; how is that connected to my argument that God exists as creator of the universe?

Let me see: if the universe having a beginning is not known to you, then you cannot decide on what you do not know; or if the universe having a beginning is not certain for you, then you cannot also decide with certainty that God exists and the evidence is because the universe has a beginning, since you cannot be certain about that, namely, the universe having a beginning.

But what does science tell us, I mean the majority of scientists, about the standard model of the beginning of the universe.

Of course scientists nowadays are into the routine disclaimer that theories can change with more facts available come tomorrow or the day after, and on and on.

But for the present there is inferential certainty that the universe has a beginning.

So, ThinkingS and company, do you know that majority of scientists today in effect have come to the inferential certainty that it is a fact drawn from facts available through exacting detection technology into astronomical space and sub-atomic space, that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago?

I suggest we talk about what is certainty, and about what you do know or do not know.

So, ThinkingS, first let us talk about what we humans know to be certainly existing, but in the process we have to also talk about what is certainty.

Will you ThinkingS and company stay with me on those two items: * what we know for certain, and of course in the process at the same time, [ii] what is certainty.

Let me start, I am certain of the nose in our face, that is an example of a piece of information that I have with certainty.

What about that there has always been something existing? Yes, I also have certainty that there has always been something existing.

Now, ThinkingS and company, give me two examples of something you know to exist, know with certainty, one like the what I know with certainty of the nose in our face and also an example like mine that something has always existed.

Will you talk with me now on those two items?

And not be into repeating forever how I avoided replying to you or not looking up your posts, etc., and you are not going to bring up your past posts, etc.

KingCoil*

Answer me this question; are you going to address my critique or not? because this is getting tiresome and rather irritating.

 

[KingCoil]

Your argument does not get us to the Christian God, but a crude form of Deism. Also premise 2 is controversial; do you have the actual arguments for an absolute beginning? That disprove an cyclical universal model with certainty, not just probability.

You have not presented a demonstrative argument, only a probabilistic one.

The Christian God is the deistic God but with divine revelation on His all goodness, etc., plus the drama of Christianism’s founders that He has a plan and a purpose for mankind.

About my argument being probabilistic, I am into intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Tell me anyway what number(?) in my argument you find to be probabilistic.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Answer me this question; are you going to address my critique or not? because this is getting tiresome and rather irritating.

Sorry, I cannot catch up fast enough to attend to everyone, that is why I have to ask participants to keep to 100 words or less, to be concise and precise with their ideas or points; pick the most important point relevant to the actual issue or to the topic of the thread which is that intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts will bring man to the existence of God as the creator of the universe.

You are a hard core skeptic, am I correct?

What is the be all and end all thought in your heart and mind, that on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts on your part, makes it clear to you that you do not find God in the universe as creator of the universe?

For myself, it is that the universe exists therefore God exists as creator of the universe.

So, tell me what is your core be all and end all thought in your heart and mind, from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, that makes it clear to you that you cannot find God in the universe.

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I say that the universe having a beginning is inferentially certain, from scientists inferring from the facts available through the present detection technology of astronomical space and sub-atomic space.

Do you have any sources?

But what does science tell us, I mean the majority of scientists, about the standard model of the beginning of the universe.

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

So, ThinkingS, first let us talk about what we humans know to be certainly existing, but in the process we have to also talk about what is certainty.

Didn’t that thread get locked?

Will you ThinkingS and company stay with me on those two items:

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?

And not be into repeating forever

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.

 

[Skeptic92]

The Christian God is the deistic God but with divine revelation on His all goodness, etc., plus the drama of Christianism’s founders that He has a plan and a purpose for mankind.

About my argument being probabilistic, I am into intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Tell me anyway what number(?) in my argument you find to be probabilistic.

KingCoil

The Christian God is the Classical Theist God, not the Deistic God.

You realise that deductive arguments yield certainty right? This is called Logic.

 

[KingCoil]

Dear posters here, I have been noticing from since I met with you folks here, and also the general trend here with posters, namely, that you folks do not have an argument for your idea if you have any at all.

That is what I notice from when I started posting here in Catholic Answers, and also in other forums, in particular with ThinkingS, and everyone else.

Don’t you notice that I every so often set forth an argument, you folks on the other hand and contrarywise are just into sniper’s shooting, picking on a line and then another in my post to react to.

But you don’t have any argument at all, like I have.

If you have, then produce it now; and no longer anymore just go on and on and on with sniper’s shooting at the lines in my argument or my write-up, which lines you see to be some good target for your evasion tactic to my argument – while you don’t have any for you if at all there is one, argument or write-up for your core argument or idea contrary to or different from mine.

So, when you post again, please, I like to read an argument against mine, see below, similar in pattern to mine, precise, concise, and integrative, not against this and that line of my argument by sniper’s shooting.

You see, you keep on and on and on complaining that I am not responding to you, but what you are into is to require me to respond to every sniper’s shot on the lines you choose to hit in my argument, and also in my posts, when these posts if you have the skill and habit of seeing the forest instead of individual trees, is a pithy description of a forest,

That kind of an attitude and style of exchanging ideas is not conducive to even just the possibility of getting to concur on anything at all, for example, that the universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

Do you notice that when I close a post I very often detail what I expect you to focus on and in a concise precise write-up, what you should occupy yourself with; but you do not accord me the cooperation, instead you go again and always into sniper’s shooting.

Do you see that is your attitude and style, but otherwise you have no integrated idea at all, for an argument in concise and precise presentation contrary to mine or different from mine.

Okay, read my argument below, and produce an argument to the contrary or different, and then tell me at the end what you want me to respond to, but it must be relevant and not be with the attitude intended to keep me into unnecessarily protracted investment of time and labor, like what are the sources of my a particular line.

So, again:

Okay, read my argument below, and produce an argument to the contrary or different, and then tell me at the end what you want me to respond to, but it must be relevant and not be with the attitude intended to keep me into unnecessarily protracted investment of time and labor, like what are the sources of my a particular line.

And please just one item, then when we have finished with that one item, we can go into another item – and please oh please no more sniper’s shooting on targets which you think are easy targets.

So, again:

Okay, read my argument below, and produce an argument to the contrary or different, and then tell me at the end what you want me to respond to, but it must be relevant and not be with the attitude intended to keep me into unnecessarily protracted investment of time and labor, like what are the sources of my a particular line.

Dear readers here, do you notice how folks here are into in their socalled reactions to the ideas of the author of a thread like I am the author of a thread?

Perhaps you don’t notice that.

KingCoil

ANNEX
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12126960&postcount=76

 

[KingCoil]

Okay, ThinkingS and company.

I say that the universe having a beginning is inferentially certain, from scientists inferring from the facts available through the present detection technology of astronomical space and sub-atomic space.

ThinkingS, you say that you don’t know the universe has a beginning, do I get you correctly?

Okay, all ye guys who maintain that you do not know that the universe has a beginning, or that you cannot be certain that the universe has a beginning; how is that connected to my argument that God exists as creator of the universe?

Let me see: if the universe having a beginning is not known to you, then you cannot decide on what you do not know; or if the universe having a beginning is not certain for you, then you cannot also decide with certainty that God exists and the evidence is because the universe has a beginning, since you cannot be certain about that, namely, the universe having a beginning.

But what does science tell us, I mean the majority of scientists, about the standard model of the beginning of the universe.

Of course scientists nowadays are into the routine disclaimer that theories can change with more facts available come tomorrow or the day after, and on and on.

But for the present there is inferential certainty that the universe has a beginning.

So, ThinkingS and company, do you know that majority of scientists today in effect have come to the inferential certainty that it is a fact drawn from facts available through exacting detection technology into astronomical space and sub-atomic space, that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago?

I suggest we talk about what is certainty, and about what you do know or do not know.

So, ThinkingS, first let us talk about what we humans know to be certainly existing, but in the process we have to also talk about what is certainty.

Will you ThinkingS and company stay with me on those two items: * what we know for certain, and of course in the process at the same time, [ii] what is certainty.

Let me start, I am certain of the nose in our face, that is an example of a piece of information that I have with certainty.

What about that there has always been something existing? Yes, I also have certainty that there has always been something existing.

Now, ThinkingS and company, give me two examples of something you know to exist, know with certainty, one like the what I know with certainty of the nose in our face and also an example like mine that something has always existed.

Will you talk with me now on those two items?*

And not be into repeating forever how I avoided replying to you or not looking up your posts, etc., and you are not going to bring up your past posts, etc.

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:
King yesterday 1:17 pm #126:

I suggest we talk about what is certainty, and about what you do know or do not know.

So, ThinkingS, first let us talk about what we humans know to be certainly existing, but in the process we have to also talk about what is certainty.

Will you ThinkingS and company stay with me on those two items: * what we know for certain, and of course in the process at the same time, [ii] what is certainty.

Let me start, I am certain of the nose in our face, that is an example of a piece of information that I have with certainty.

What about that there has always been something existing? Yes, I also have certainty that there has always been something existing.

Now, ThinkingS and company, give me two examples of something you know to exist, know with certainty, one like the what I know with certainty of the nose in our face and also an example like mine that something has always existed.

Will you talk with me now on those two items?*

Best regards,
KingCoil

 

[Skeptic92]

Coil

I have addressed your argument, and found it wanting. You have not addressed my argument, and yet you are asserting you have. This means that your address towards me is an example of begging the question and circular reasoning; and therefore illogical.

I will not respond again; this thread is a waste of my time.

 

[KingCoil]

Coil

I have addressed your argument, and found it wanting. You have not addressed my argument, and yet you are asserting you have. This means that your address towards me is an example of begging the question and circular reasoning; and therefore illogical.

I will not respond again; this thread is a waste of my time.

Sorry, but will you please accord me the cooperation to talk with me about certainty.

And as I always ask with folks like you, please tell me what you want me to respond to, as it seems important to you; it will not take you more time and trouble than I to request you to talk with me about certainty, or that I like to talk with you about intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Dear readers, another poster has left me and taken to flight from working with me to come to concur on what is intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, in re the existence of God as creator of the universe.

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

namely, that you folks do not have an argument for your idea if you have any at all.

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

But you don’t have any argument at all, like I have.

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

So, when you post again, please, I like to read an argument against mine, see below, similar in pattern to mine, precise, concise, and integrative, not against this and that line of my argument by sniper’s shooting.

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

You see, you keep on and on and on complaining that I am not responding to you, but what you are into is to require me to respond to every sniper’s shot on the lines you choose to hit in my 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.

That kind of an attitude and style of exchanging ideas is not conducive to even just the possibility of getting to concur on anything at all

Correct. You won’t get a balanced exchange with this manner of steering the conversation.
"Here we go again:

, for example, that the universe has 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.

Okay, read my argument below, and produce an argument to the contrary or different, and then tell me at the end what you want me to respond to,

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.

http://i58.tinypic.com/2uesftf.jpg

I’m so glad I blocked that domain so that those pictures don’t show up in my messages any more!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Dear readers, another poster has left me and taken to flight from working with me to come to concur on what is intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, in re the existence of God as creator of the universe.

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).

 

[Skeptic92]

ismailignosis.com/2014/03/27/he-who-is-above-all-else-the-strongest-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/

I’m going to let my good friend Khalil do the work for me. This is a Metaphysical Demonstration of the Existence of God based upon the methods of deduction. Using Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, and Dysjunctive Syllogisms. I will defend it if you critique it, if you do not critique it this is my final post. I need to get back to studying Latin and reading Jacques Maritains “Degrees of Knowledge”.

 

[KingCoil]

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!

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

 

[KingCoil]

ismailignosis.com/2014/03/27/he-who-is-above-all-else-the-strongest-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/

I’m going to let my good friend Khalil do the work for me. This is a Metaphysical Demonstration of the Existence of God based upon the methods of deduction. Using Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, and Dysjunctive Syllogisms. I will defend it if you critique it, if you do not critique it this is my final post. I need to get back to studying Latin and reading Jacques Maritains “Degrees of Knowledge”.

That is supposed to be a recital from rote memory of fancy philosophical terms?

Tell me what you know of any examples of certainty with you in regard to your knowledge of things to be existing.

And I asked you what is your core be all and end all basis for not coming to the certainty of God existing as creator of the universe, you have not attended to that request.

Anyway, I am now going to tell ThinkingS again my reply to him in re “The universe exists, science tells us, that is the fact,” and see how he reacts this time.

You have not gone away, good!

And also stop this self-adulation of dropping names to arrogate some fake scholarly sheen.

As for your Latin, another dropping of fancy insinuation, develop this virtue instead.

Ne quid nimis, sapienti pauca.

KingCoil

 

[Skeptic92]

That is supposed to be a recital from rote memory of fancy philosophical terms?

Tell me what you know of any examples of certainty with you in regard to your knowledge of things to be existing.

And I asked you what is your core be all and end all basis for not coming to the certainty of God existing as creator of the universe, you have not attended to that request.

Anyway, I am now going to tell ThinkingS again my reply to him in re “The universe exists, science tells us, that is the fact,” and see how he reacts this time.

You have not gone away, good!

And also stop this self-adulation of dropping names to arrogate some fake scholarly sheen.

As for your Latin, another dropping of fancy insinuation, develop this virtue instead.

Ne quid nimis, sapienti pauca.

KingCoil

Fake scholarly sheen? I’m a published Philosopher and Theologian; I assure you I am faking nothing. You are simply unwilling, or incapable, of participating in a rational discussion