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

[Oreoracle]

Facts for the purpose of identifying something to exist outside our mind must be specified with circumstances like when, where, how, for what end or to what end, by whom or what, but first there must be a thing or a person involved in acting or operating as the subject agent in the stage of objective reality.

I’m not so sure about that. Certainly when we try to identify an external object, we are the subjective agent. But it isn’t necessary for subjects to exist for there to be facts. Even if no sentient beings existed, for example, the existence of galaxies would still be factual.

 

[KingCoil]

Dear Poly, you see as the author of this thread I see myself as like a guide to lead readers in a desert thirsty for water, to lead them to water; but they will not follow me, they just want to keep on and on and on in their obsession with regurgitating materials from their gullet, instead of following my lead.

polytropos;12116770:

…]

King:

Tell me, what is the first verse of Genesis, and what is first line of the Apostles’ Creed?

In your next post in reply to me, please first before anything else, recite in writing the first verse of Genesis and the first line of the Apostles’ Creed.

…]

Forgive the clutter of a screenshot, it is intended to give you the text of the post I am referring to, without exceeding the maximum number of words allowed in one post.



Dear Poly, have you presented to readers what is the first verse of Genesis and what is the first line of the Apostles’ Creed?

You just propose to readers to google for them, that is not enough; for I want you to admit that God is first and foremost the creator of the universe; so that whatever else you want to adequately determine God, it will be vacuous if you don’t first and foremost start with God as creator of the universe.

Anyway, have you done any intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts to tell readers here what you know to be the concept of what is a fact?

Dear readers here, I fear they will again go away, instead of taking on the onerous or ornery but very serious task of doing intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, to produce their own text of what is for them a fact.

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Forgive the clutter of a screenshot, it is intended to give you the text of the post I am referring to, without exceeding the maximum number of words allowed in one post.

I think you are defeating your own objective by inserting the image links. They are not very readable and as polypropylene pointed out posting a link to the message of interest would satisfy the same objective (while being more readable).

Or you could just post the message number which takes up even less space.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[KingCoil]

I think you are defeating your own objective by inserting the image links. They are not very readable and as polypropylene pointed out posting a link to the message of interest would satisfy the same objective (while being more readable).

Or you could just post the message number which takes up even less space.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut in regard to why I use screenshots.

Of course you can enlarge the screenshots and read the text, and the advantage of a screenshot is that there cannot be any mistakes on the part of the poster citing the post.

But as I also repeated, my purpose is to avoid having to produce another post to complete my communication, owing to the limitation in this forum against writing more than 6000 words in one post, the robot will require you to re-write or for my adjustment, continue with another post – which is extra labor and time.

ThinkingSapien, do you have any reactions to my thinking in this thread, about folks not willing to do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts; they are always into flight when they sense that they have to do some really genuine serious productive work in taking up intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Let me ask you, what is your idea of what to you is a fact?

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

You see, readers here, it is really very silly that some issues are never at all finally and definitively settled because the parties involved don’t do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Take this issue, can God do evil?

The logic is that since God is the boss creator of everything that is not Himself, then there cannot be any questions whatsoever about anything that He does which is evil.

First, we define evil, what is evil?

In a non-partisan vein, evil is only with human thinking and discourse, and it means anything at all that is not acceptable to humans, like there being cockroaches which do not to all appearances serve any useful purpose to mankind, except for the amazement of mankind that God is such a terrific craftsman as to create such fantastic cockroaches that can survive extinction even with nuclear radiation from a war, where fighting factions which are humans have resorted to throwing massive nuclear explosives against each other.

So, stop all this nonsense of asking can God create evil or do evil?

Concentrate instead to find out how He creates anything like the to humans despicable cockroaches.

Okay, folks here who write posts, do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

But on logic itself we have first to work to concur on what is a fact, what is logic, and what is intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, so that we will not be forever and ever and ever discussing, can God create evil.

First, concur on God as creator of the universe, don’t even bother to praise God that He is all just, all good, all merciful, etc., just give Him the credit that He has created the universe, period.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

I’m not so sure about that. Certainly when we try to identify an external object, we are the subjective agent. But it isn’t necessary for subjects to exist for there to be facts. Even if no sentient beings existed, for example, the existence of galaxies would still be factual.

That is an opinion that is contrary to the fact that we humans exist and we are therefore into the examination of what is a fact to us humans.

Intelligent thinking requires us to not make opinions and then discuss forever and ever and ever, opinions which are contrary to the facts of reality as we can and do see them, that is good for our amusement, but it is a waste of time and labor otherwise.

You say:
But it isn’t necessary for subjects to exist for there to be facts.

And you are so pleased with yourself for making a to you very smart statement.

To me, and forgive me, that is a very silly statement, and Romans already know about such silly ways of talking unless it is for pure amusement,

Have I not already mentioned here in this Catholic Answers the dictum from the Romans that “Contra factum non est argumentum”?

That reads literally, “Against the fact there is no argument.”*

Things which do not depend on humans to exist do exist even if there are no humans, and they are not facts because facts are only ‘the case’ when humans are around to discern them as they encounter them to be facts.

If there are no humans to talk about what events are facts, then there cannot be any question about facts existing as facts, because there are no humans to discuss what to them are facts.

What you should say is that things exist which are independent of humans even if humans are not around to discern them as facts.

Forgive me, but you are not doing what is intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, but you are regurgitating what others who are to themselves smart are always bringing up to stupidify an issue which is really silly.

KingCoil

*Will look up my post here somewhere later.

 

[KingCoil]

Sorry, I got these two posts put in another thread, wrongly. but they are reproduced below in their right location here.

======================================

Here is my post where I mentioned “Contra factum non est argumentum.”

That is a very important task, to understand what we mean with the word fact and with the word opinion.

From my part based on my idea what I call intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts:

First we have to distinguish whether we are dealing with ideas in our mind only, or with things in objective reality outside our mind.

An opinion is predominantly concerned with things in our mind, while a fact is concerned with objective reality outside and independent of our mind.

So if there is no mind namely no humans around at all as was the situation prior to the appearance of mankind in the objective universe, there were facts like a in the case of a pebble rolling downward from a higher point in the slope of a hill to a lower point when no obstacle is obstructing its rolling downward.

That is an example of a fact.

What about an example of an opinion?

Ask yourself first, where is the opinion? It is in our mind, then we express it to fellow humans to get them to agree with our opinion, or work with us to ascertain that the concurred on opinion in our minds corresponds to something in objective reality.

Here is an example of an opinion, that there is a force at the foot of the hill pulling the pebble to roll downward when nothing is obstructing it from rolling downward.

What is the question of the OP?

quote ]

Today, 11:07 am

#1​

TEPO Religion: post-modern tribal Catholic

**Is there value in opinions or is fact-based knowledge supreme
**

Just wondering why people have opinions contrary to what statistics or odds say is fact…? If facts are superior over opinion, then why not change opinions based on facts? Because it seems common that people ignore facts and favor opinions… Maybe there’s something to be said for opinions.

…what kind of a world would we live in if everyone were bound to facts and people abandoned their opinions? Does progressivism view this as being the future of humanity?

/quote ]

…what kind of a world would we live in if everyone were bound to facts and people abandoned their opinions? Does progressivism view this as being the future of humanity?
​

Answer: People who are accustomed to and skillful with thinking intelligently grounded on logic and facts must educate others to do likewise: so that opinions will be more and better founded on facts than the opposite, otherwise mankind will be existing in an unrealistic world and that is a recipe for disaster.

Now, dear readers here, I recall this saying in Latin:

Contra factum non est argumentum.

Translation:
Against the fact there is no argument.

Example: when you have to go to the bathroom pronto, you cannot argue your way out of this natural urgency.

KingCoil

And here is the screenshot of the post above which gives you the whole context of the post without anything left out:

Part one Contra factum ]

---

Part two Contra factum ]


Forgive me readers, but I just love to toy around with image softwares which are free to use, and enjoy.

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Of course you can enlarge the screenshots and read the text, and the advantage of a screenshot is that there cannot be any mistakes on the part of the poster citing the post.

The screenshots you’ve posted seem to have already been distorted by bilinear interpolation. Enlarging the image only shows a larger distorted image instead of a smaller distorted image. It does not in any way make it more readable. For clarity of what I mean see the attached for the result of image enlargement.

That’s an artifact of bitmaps/raster images. It doesn’t happen with vector graphics. But normal text is rendered with vector images (true type fonts) so normal text can be resided without distortion while the tinypic service is introducing with it rasterizes and resizes the images.

I don’t know if that technical description went over your head or not. But here is a simpler explanation. Your tiny pic images resize like the lower image while normal text resizes like the upper image.

But as I also repeated, my purpose is to avoid having to produce another post to complete my communication

I think it convolutes the communication more than it assist it. Since the tinypic images are generally unreadable I suspect not many people are consuming much effort to decipher it.

owing to the limitation in this forum against writing more than 6000 words in one post, the robot will require you to re-write or for my adjustment, continue with another post – which is extra labor and time.

A reference to a previous post (not to be consumed with re-quoting it) will consume about the same or less bytes than the tinypic image. Using tinypic image links provides no advantage on the post size limit than providing a link to the previous post.

ThinkingSapien, do you have any reactions to my thinking in this thread, about folks not willing to do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts;

I’ve shared my thoughts in 4 of the previous 5 incarnations of this thread. I’ll summarize by saying that we don’t agree on several premises and could not resolve these disagreements. I expect attempts to build on that foundation to be doomed at best…

they are always into flight when they sense that they have to do some really genuine serious productive work in taking up intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

I’m going to try to give a critique here. Doing the best I can to reduce how bad this might come across.

I’ve seen some of the threads you’ve initiated in other forums and I strongly suspect that something else is going on. Regardless of the justifications presented those that have a view that disagree with yours seem to receive a message of dismissal or what appears to be insulting remarks in response. These types of responses to nurture a healthy discussion. Here in the Catholic forums there have been a number of threads started in which there is said to be some argument to present but the argument is never presented. Here in the philosophy forums people love discussing each other’s arguments. But you’ve not presented [m]any arguments. I don’t think it’s flight from a sense of having more work to do, I think it’s removing ones self from a non-productive (or non-progressing) conversation.

Let me ask you, what is your idea of what to you is a fact?

see here.

 

[polytropos]

but they will not follow me, they just want to keep on and on and on in their obsession with regurgitating materials from their gullet, instead of following my lead.

Perhaps by regurgitating materials from their gullet, they are following your lead. For example, in this post, you say “intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts” five times, but you do not produce any thought-provoking content or arguments.

Forgive the clutter of a screenshot, it is intended to give you the text of the post I am referring to, without exceeding the maximum number of words allowed in one post.

Right. Linking to the post (as I’ve done above) accomplishes the exact same goal with greater readability. (It seems like the consensus here, informally canvassed, is that the images are annoying. Another point worth considering is that if people want to quote the post you are referring to, they can’t do that, if it is an image. Better to link to it, so we can cut to the chase and start thinking intelligently grounded on logic and facts.)

Dear Poly, have you presented to readers what is the first verse of Genesis and what is the first line of the Apostles’ Creed?

You just propose to readers to google for them, that is not enough; for I want you to admit that God is first and foremost the creator of the universe; so that whatever else you want to adequately determine God, it will be vacuous if you don’t first and foremost start with God as creator of the universe.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)
“I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth.” (Apostles Creed)

Note that this is unenlightening, because a) we both know what they say and b) we both agree that “God is the creator of the universe” is a true proposition. (Note also: the Creed predicates “Almighty” of God as well, so an account of omnipotence is needed here; the Latin for almighty is omnipotens.)

What is not necessarily true is that when you and I say, “God is the creator of the universe,” we are uttering the same proposition. This is because I have clearly defined what I mean by “creator,” and you have not. Consequently, it is possible that when I say, “God is creator of the universe,” I am correct, while you are wrong, because it is possible that you don’t actually agree with me even though we are saying the same words.

This is basic philosophy, basic intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts. When a term is ambiguous, it must be disambiguated. Repeating it and demanding agreement is neither a charitable nor a coherent way of discussing such a proposition that requires disambiguation. I would be interested in having a discussion with you, but it does not seem that you are interested in really examining what you are talking about when you say that God is the creator of the universe.

You want me “to admit that God is first and foremost the creator of the universe.” If I don’t admit that, you say, then my other statements about God are “vacuous.”

It is pointless to talk about the nature of God if God does not exist. In that sense, “God exists” clearly possesses the most priority out of any statement about God. So “God is creator of the universe” is vacuous if “God exists” is not true. (And one can’t say that “God is creator of the universe” commits us to the existence of God without admitting that the same could be said for any proposition disclosing information about God’s nature.)

I made these remarks earlier, and you did not respond to them.

It’s up there. It would be hard to specify a single proposition as the most important thing about the Christian faith. That is why we have dogmas, and that is why there are multiple of them.

That God exists is undoubtedly a proposition on which everything else someone could say about God depends; if “God exists” were false, for instance, then “God is powerful” would refer to nothing. But “God exists” also is not remarkably informative if one does not have other propositions disclosing the nature of God. So I don’t find it to be a productive enterprise to search for the one most important truth about God in the Christian faith. (Obviously, none of this says anything about Christological revelation, which is also necessary for Christian faith, since it constitutes Christianity’s “specific difference” from Judaism and Islam.)

I suggest “God is creator of the universe” is more like “God exists” than an informative conjunction of propositions about the nature of God. (Which, to start, might look like: “God exists; God is creator of the universe; God’s activity concurs with that of creatures; God is eternal rather than sempiternal; God is omniscient; God knows by knowing himself; God is absolutely simple and his non-existential properties are identical in referent, though not in sense, to his existence…” and so on.)

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. I have also provided specific arguments about why “God is creator of the universe” requires these additional accounts to have any appreciable content. So far you have not attempted to respond. I would be happy to discuss things with you in greater detail if you are interested in doing so, but you would have to respond to the arguments. I hope you understand that it is not worth my time to type out arguments and critiques, only to have them ignored and to be told to find Bible verses that are available on the internet and known to everyone on this forum.

 

[polytropos]

Anyway, have you done any intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts to tell readers here what you know to be the concept of what is a fact?

A fact is a state of affairs that really obtains in the world. It may be describable linguistically by a proposition.

I hope I haven’t come across as rude here, KingCoil. What it means for God to be creator of the universe is an interesting topic; it is a shame you seem to have no interest in it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Right. Linking to the post (as I’ve done above) accomplishes the exact same goal with greater readability. (It seems like the consensus here, informally canvassed, is that the images are annoying. Another point worth considering is that if people want to quote the post you are referring to, they can’t do that, if it is an image. Better to link to it, so we can cut to the chase and start thinking intelligently grounded on logic and facts.)

That they are.

 

[Oreoracle]

And you are so pleased with yourself for making a to you very smart statement.

You caught me. When I’m feeling depressed, I stroke my own ego by assuring myself that I just dazzled everyone on the forums with my witty comments. But you have thwarted me, so the jig is up.

Things which do not depend on humans to exist do exist even if there are no humans, and they are not facts because facts are only ‘the case’ when humans are around to discern them as they encounter them to be facts.

So what would you call a true state of affairs when no one is around to observe it and remark that it is factual? It seems like a more reasonable convention to call such things factual to begin with rather than needlessly introduce this extra level of complexity.

What you should say is that things exist which are independent of humans even if humans are not around to discern them as facts.

Definitions are conventional, and I’m only too happy to accommodate this definition of “fact”. But again, it makes it rather inconvenient to discuss true states of affairs that have yet to be discerned as factual by us.

 

[KingCoil]

Dear readers here, I will just reproduce this post from me with strike-out words, because I feel guilty for unkind speech, and I know that I should write as to be readers and posters friendly.

Sorry.

QUOTE=KingCoil;12124709 ]

Quote ]
Originally Posted by Oreoracle
I’m not so sure about that. Certainly when we try to identify an external object, we are the subjective agent. But it isn’t necessary for subjects to exist for there to be facts. Even if no sentient beings existed, for example, the existence of galaxies would still be factual.
/quote ]

That is an opinion that is contrary to the fact that we humans exist and we are therefore into the examination of what is a fact to us humans.

Intelligent thinking requires us to not make opinions and then discuss forever and ever and ever, opinions which are contrary to the facts of reality as we can and do see them, that is good for our amusement, but it is a waste of time and labor otherwise.

You say:
But it isn’t necessary for subjects to exist for there to be facts.

-]And you are so pleased with yourself for making a to you very smart statement.

To me, and forgive me, that is a very silly statement, and Romans already know about such silly ways of talking unless it is for pure amusement,/-]

Have I not already mentioned here in this Catholic Answers the dictum from the Romans that “Contra factum non est argumentum”?

That reads literally, “Against the fact there is no argument.”*

Things which do not depend on humans to exist do exist even if there are no humans, and they are not facts because facts are only ‘the case’ when humans are around to discern them as they encounter them to be facts.

If there are no humans to talk about what events are facts, then there cannot be any question about facts existing as facts, because there are no humans to discuss what to them are facts.

What you should say is that things exist which are independent of humans even if humans are not around to discern them as facts.

-]Forgive me, but you are not doing what is intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, but you are regurgitating what others who are to themselves smart are always bringing up to stupidify an issue which is really silly./-]

KingCoil

*Will look up my post here somewhere later. /QUOTE ]

​

Again, sorry.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

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

…]

I’ve shared my thoughts in 4 of the previous 5 incarnations of this thread. I’ll summarize by saying that we don’t agree on several premises and could not resolve these disagreements. I expect attempts to build on that foundation to be doomed at best…

I’m going to try to give a critique here. Doing the best I can to reduce how bad this might come across.

I’ve seen some of the threads you’ve initiated in other forums and I strongly suspect that something else is going on. Regardless of the justifications presented those that have a view that disagree with yours seem to receive a message of dismissal or what appears to be insulting remarks in response. These types of responses to nurture a healthy discussion. Here in the Catholic forums there have been a number of threads started in which there is said to be some argument to present but the argument is never presented. Here in the philosophy forums people love discussing each other’s arguments. But you’ve not presented [m]any arguments. I don’t think it’s flight from a sense of having more work to do, I think it’s removing ones self from a non-productive (or non-progressing) conversation.

see here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Perhaps by regurgitating materials from their gullet, they are following your lead. For example, in this post, you say “intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts” five times, but you do not produce any thought-provoking content or arguments.

Right. Linking to the post (as I’ve done above) accomplishes the exact same goal with greater readability. (It seems like the consensus here, informally canvassed, is that the images are annoying. Another point worth considering is that if people want to quote the post you are referring to, they can’t do that, if it is an image. Better to link to it, so we can cut to the chase and start thinking intelligently grounded on logic and facts.)

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)
“I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth.” (Apostles Creed)

Note that this is unenlightening, because a) we both know what they say and b) we both agree that “God is the creator of the universe” is a true proposition. (Note also: the Creed predicates “Almighty” of God as well, so an account of omnipotence is needed here; the Latin for almighty is omnipotens.)

What is not necessarily true is that when you and I say, “God is the creator of the universe,” we are uttering the same proposition. This is because I have clearly defined what I mean by “creator,” and you have not. Consequently, it is possible that when I say, “God is creator of the universe,” I am correct, while you are wrong, because it is possible that you don’t actually agree with me even though we are saying the same words.

This is basic philosophy, basic intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts. When a term is ambiguous, it must be disambiguated. Repeating it and demanding agreement is neither a charitable nor a coherent way of discussing such a proposition that requires disambiguation. I would be interested in having a discussion with you, but it does not seem that you are interested in really examining what you are talking about when you say that God is the creator of the universe.

You want me “to admit that God is first and foremost the creator of the universe.” If I don’t admit that, you say, then my other statements about God are “vacuous.”

It is pointless to talk about the nature of God if God does not exist. In that sense, “God exists” clearly possesses the most priority out of any statement about God. So “God is creator of the universe” is vacuous if “God exists” is not true. (And one can’t say that “God is creator of the universe” commits us to the existence of God without admitting that the same could be said for any proposition disclosing information about God’s nature.)

I made these remarks earlier, and you did not respond to them.

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. I have also provided specific arguments about why “God is creator of the universe” requires these additional accounts to have any appreciable content. So far you have not attempted to respond. I would be happy to discuss things with you in greater detail if you are interested in doing so, but you would have to respond to the arguments. I hope you understand that it is not worth my time to type out arguments and critiques, only to have them ignored and to be told to find Bible verses that are available on the internet and known to everyone on this forum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

QUOTE=polytropos;12125146 ]

Quote ]

Originally Posted by KingCoil

Anyway, have you done any intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts to tell readers here what you know to be the concept of what is a fact?

/quote ]

A fact is a state of affairs that really obtains in the world. It may be describable linguistically by a proposition.

I hope I haven’t come across as rude here, KingCoil. What it means for God to be creator of the universe is an interesting topic; it is a shame you seem to have no interest in it.

/QUOTE ]

And here is again my concept of what is a fact.

quote=King ]

Facts for the purpose of identifying something to exist outside our mind must be specified with circumstances like when, where, how, for what end or to what end, by whom or what, but first there must be a thing or a person involved in acting or operating as the subject agent in the stage of objective reality.

/quote ]

I congratulate you for having produced your own worded concept of what is a fact.

We seem to have the same concept in broad perspectives.

So, we can both do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Thanks.

Now as regards my argument for the existence of God as creator of the universe, here it is again.

quote=King ]

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

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

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

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

/quote ]​

If you prefer, we can now talk about my argument line #1; let us concentrate on #!.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

QUOTE=Oreoracle;12125284 ]You caught me. When I’m feeling depressed, I stroke my own ego by assuring myself that I just dazzled everyone on the forums with my witty comments. But you have thwarted me, so the jig is up.

So what would you call a true state of affairs when no one is around to observe it and remark that it is factual? It seems like a more reasonable convention to call such things factual to begin with rather than needlessly introduce this extra level of complexity.

Definitions are conventional, and I’m only too happy to accommodate this definition of “fact”. But again, it makes it rather inconvenient to discuss true states of affairs that have yet to be discerned as factual by us. /QUOTE ]

You see, you make a scenario where there is no mankind around to talk about facts what they are.

But you are playing the game of mankind hiding and imagining that they are not around.

It is like with all hard core skeptics who want to argue that the universe came forth from nothing, but they understand nothing not as nothing but as something, only they call it nothing to enjoy the psychology of conviction that nothing is indeed the cause of everything.

There is a lot of aimless exchange with the premise that mankind does not exist or that nothing exists and can be the cause and is the cause of everything.

My point is that all such imaginations are into mankind as not indeed non-existing but only hiding, and nothing is indeed not nothing but something only hard core skeptics want to enjoy the luxury of calling it nothing and then saying that nothing is the cause of everything.

When we proceed with mankind not existing, then no more talking at all, because there are no talkers anymore, period…

Also when we proceed from nothing, then also no more talking at all, otherwise it is not nothing at all prevailing, it is only man’s imagination that nothing at all prevailing but the talkers are just hiding something behind the front of nothing.

So, dear Oreo, if you want to hide and then say that facts exist, okay with me, because you are still around only hiding, and you still observe things and draw conclusions on which are facts and which are fictions.

Now, would you care to react to my argument for the existence of God as creator of the universe, from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts?

quote=King ]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

/quote ][/indent]

Regards,

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Dear everyone here, readers and posters, there is no agendum from me that is hidden.

My whole idea here is just to engage folks with my argument for the existence of God as creator of the universe, and that from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

But if you now better than what I know of my heart and mind, then there is no way I can tell you otherwise.

So, tell me in a 100 words or less, what is my hidden agendum in this Catholic Answers forum?

Yes, I have the idea that with God as creator of the universe, religion is a man-made drama that even binds God to play it according to what man, any man, has scripted it.

My drama is the Christian faith: God made man to be happy, man disobeyed God, so God punished man by expelling him from a spot we call paradise where all everything was just fine; then God felt sorry for man but man had got to also repent and make amends, now God sent His only Son made unto a man to suffer and die as a redemption price for man, then everything will be all right again.

So, that is my hidden agendum?

KingCoil

 

[davidv]

{snip}

So, that is my hidden agendum?
KingCoil

I have no idea if you have a hidden agenda or not.

However, it does not appear the you are willing to accept any response that questions the assumption you have made. Nor does it appear the any objection is engaged with rational dialog.

 

[Skeptic92]

I’m a Neo-Scholastic Philosopher in the Aristotelian-Thomist tradition…what do you want? An argument for the Existence of God? Well, you’re in luck my specialisms are; Logic, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Natural Theology, and Philosophical Theology.

Ask me anything