The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

[pancreasman]

Beware of people posting long pointless diatribes too.

[robrecht]

... I am a liberal Christian but ...

Really? In what way(s) do you consider yourself liberal?

[wolper]

Okay, Wolper, it is now our task to work out a mutually concurred on concept of the universe.

We already did.

Would you care to make your paragraph shorter, (...)

Oh, the irony!

(...)for example, like this precise, concise, and definitive formulation:

The universe where we live in is the totality of existence: anything that exists anyhow is a part of the universe.

It's not as concise as my definition, but if you want it that way, then yes, for the duration of this thread, I will accept your definition of the universe, namely

The universe where we live in is the totality of existence: anything that exists anyhow is a part of the universe.

, though I'm not sure you fully understand the implications or scope of your definition. We'll see.

(further unnecessary repetitions snipped)

Anyway, your acceptance of my formulation does not preclude your right to later own put up objections against it on your subsequent realization of its objectionable features, in which case then we can resume our negotiation to come to a formulation that will satisfy your objections.

Ah, good, a disclaimer

About God, I say that we can leave the concept to the end; but if you want to, you know already my concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe the one where we are living in and are parts of, namely:

God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

Apart from being self-referring, that definition I do not agree with. A natural cause X (or indeed any cause) for everything in the universe that is not X would fit the definition just as well, and I'm pretty sure you don't wanna imply God=natural. I do not, at least, so we need another discriminator in your definition to differentiate between an eventual natural cause and a divine cause for everything in the universe that is not itself (regardless of whether that cause exists or is just a concept in our minds).

Secondly I want you to clarify what 'creator' means. Is it equivalent to cause? I don't think so: gravity causes the apple to fall, but doesn't create its fall.

Best,
wolper

[gerry]

What is wrong with arguments in the God debate is that there are no judges whose decision an atheist and a theist will both agree to accept when they the judges decide that in objective reality God exists or God does not exist.

Because with a person: a theist or an theist or both are already committed psychologically to their respective conviction that for the theist God does exist and for the atheist that God does not exist, there is no way the theist will ever get to elicit an assent from the atheist that yes he as an atheist has seen the light from reason that God exists in objective reality, and also but contrariwise from the atheist he will never either succeed to elicit an assent from the theist that as a theist he is now certain that God does not exist in objective reality.

That is why I as a Christian theist think that if both theists and atheists will agree on concepts which are to my mind crucially involved in the demonstration of God's existence, then from agreement to agreement, I as a theist can bring an atheist to agree with me that God exists in objective reality and not only in concept in the mind of the theists, by reasoning with them atheists on evidence.

And readers, you must know that atheists now insist on evidence for the existence of God, they now don't want to talk about any proofs that is not founded on evidence.

But they atheists on the other hand have not produced any decent treatise on what is evidence.

That is why I am asking them to work with me to come to a concurred on concept of evidence, aside from other concepts, like universe very important also, and man, and existence, and of course God.

Men cannot, neither theists nor atheists, reason correctly and thus productively if they don't care to first concur on concepts.

I am absolutely certain that no atheists will challenge my statement in the immediately preceding text from me, namely:

Men cannot, neither theists nor atheists, reason correctly and thus productively if they don't care to first concur on concepts.

Readers here, do you all notice that I am all the time asking atheists to come to concurrence on the concept of the universe, on evidence, on God, on man, on existence?

It is not that I am imposing my concepts and insisting that atheists accept without their contributions to the concurrence of the concepts to be accepted by both sides.

What I notice time and again is that atheists don't want to work together to concur on concepts, they don't want to cooperate, because they have already committed themselves to their psychology of no way any human is ever going to persuade them that God exists in objective reality.

And when they see that the light of reason is gaining on them, they will run away.


Okay, readers here, let me start again with this invitation to atheists, all and any of them:

Atheists, what is your concept of the universe?

[ At this point, Pixie will come in and insist that he has already proven that I have no argument, and on and on and on to argue to no purpose except to muddle up the issue of the God debate. See his reaction to this invitation,

Pixie, how do you know that the super-universe exist in objective reality?

------------------------------


The above section is my observation of atheists who keep complaining about my approach in reasoning with them.

I will now come to Wolper an atheist and also DuraGizer an agnostic.


Wolper and I, as I can see, are making progress to come to a concurrence on the concept of the universe which is to be used by me as evidence for God's existence.

As for DuraGizer, after proclaiming that he really wants to believe and I have explained to him that he can, not only believe, but can come by reason to the knowledge of the existence of God, he has disappeared to date and to this point in time.

I am waiting for both Wolper and DuraGizer to return.



Gerry

[gerry]

Sorry, the above post was written and sent before I came to notice that new messages have arrived.

Okay, I will respond to them.



Gerry

[gerry]

We already did.


Oh, the irony!



It's not as concise as my definition, but if you want it that way, then yes, for the duration of this thread, I will accept your definition of the universe, namely

The universe where we live in is the totality of existence: anything that exists anyhow is a part of the universe.

, though I'm not sure you fully understand the implications or scope of your definition. We'll see.

(further unnecessary repetitions snipped)

Ah, good, a disclaimer


Apart from being self-referring, that definition I do not agree with. A natural cause X (or indeed any cause) for everything in the universe that is not X would fit the definition just as well, and I'm pretty sure you don't wanna imply God=natural. I do not, at least, so we need another discriminator in your definition to differentiate between an eventual natural cause and a divine cause for everything in the universe that is not itself (regardless of whether that cause exists or is just a concept in our minds).

Secondly I want you to clarify what 'creator' means. Is it equivalent to cause? I don't think so: gravity causes the apple to fall, but doesn't create its fall.

Best,
wolper

You agree to this definition of universe: "The universe where we live in is the totality of existence: anything that exists anyhow is a part of the universe."

I just want to tell you that, that formulation is what I have proposed to be a possible concurred on concept of the universe, after my having taken into account your antecedent definition and my oft-repeated definition.

Okay, I will and you will we will both concur on that above concept of the universe, as follows again:

The universe where we live in is the totality of existence: anything that exists anyhow is a part of the universe.

About the concept of God, I propose that we leave its disquisition for the end.

Shall we now go into the mutual task of concurring on what is evidence?

See next post.


--------------------


To others here participating in this thread, if you have anything to contribute seriously to the concurred on concept of the universe, concurred on by us two, Wolper and myself, please set them forth.

Otherwise, please now concern yourselves also in our mutual task [Wolper and I] to work on concurring on the concept of what is evidence.

I will not be responding to you unless you have something seriously positive in contributions to the concept of universe and also now to the concept of what is evidence.



Gerry

[gerry]

Okay, Wolper, would you be interested to present your concept of what is evidence.

I am asking you to be the first to propose a concept of universe because some trouble-makers just keep on dis-interpreting, yes dis-interpreting, my acts here to accuse me of imposing on others my concepts, whereas all the time I am seriously and sincerely and amenably keen on getting everyone to work together to come to concurring on concepts of universe, evidience, existence, man, God.



Gerry

[wolper]

Okay, Wolper, would you be interested to present your concept of what is evidence.

I am asking you to be the first to propose a concept of universe because some trouble-makers just keep on dis-interpreting, yes dis-interpreting, my acts here to accuse me of imposing on others my concepts, whereas all the time I am seriously and sincerely and amenably keen on getting everyone to work together to come to concurring on concepts of universe, evidience, existence, man, God.



Gerry

Like I said earlier, I don't think we really need a definition for evidence, but you seem to think we do, and since the matter at hand Man has in the universe the evidence for God's existence is also yours, I think it should be you who should propose a definition of 'evidence'.

Apart from that, I think we'll need a term for the space-time continuum we exist in, and since the more usual word 'universe' is now used for something else, might I suggest -for the duration of this thread- 'cosmos'? That okay with you?

cosmos: the space-time continuum we exist in, that also contains all the stars, planets, energy and matter we observe and then some, and that presumably started some 13.7 billion years ago.

[gerry]

Originally posted by gerry
Okay, Wolper, would you be interested to present your concept of what is evidence.

I am asking you to be the first to propose a concept of evidence* because some trouble-makers just keep on dis-interpreting, yes dis-interpreting, my acts here to accuse me of imposing on others my concepts, whereas all the time I am seriously and sincerely and amenably keen on getting everyone to work together to come to concurring on concepts of universe, evidence, existence, man, God.

Gerry

Like I said earlier, I don't think we really need a definition for evidence, but you seem to think we do, and since the matter at hand Man has in the universe the evidence for God's existence is also yours, I think it should be you who should propose a definition of 'evidence'.

Apart from that, I think we'll need a term for the space-time continuum we exist in, and since the more usual word 'universe' is now used for something else, might I suggest -for the duration of this thread- 'cosmos'? That okay with you?

cosmos: the space-time continuum we exist in, that also contains all the stars, planets, energy and matter we observe and then some, and that presumably started some 13.7 billion years ago.

I went back to bed and now I am present again, it is at this point in time 0615 hours in my place, eight hours in advance of Greenwich.



You see, Wolper, I hope I am wrong, but you seem to remind me of some atheists I have already met who introduce new terms, like in your case, time-space continuum and cosmos.

Yes, I know you will say that they are not new terms; but I mean they are not everyday terms which people are familiar with already.

Please forgive me, but what is your psychological ground for introducing these two terms here which I would say are not familiar ones with people?


We have still the remaining years of our respective life to exchange thoughts on the universe is the evidence for God's existence, so let us take our time to work this issue out.

----------------------


Now, you say in regard to the word evidence:

"Like I said earlier, I don't think we really need a definition for evidence, but you seem to think we do, and since the matter at hand Man has in the universe the evidence for God's existence is also yours, I think it should be you who should propose a definition of 'evidence'.

What is and please forgive me, what is your psychological ground for having this mood with yourself that you "don' think we really need a definition for evidence."

I cannot imagine a thinking and reasoning person in such a momentous issue as the universe is the evidence for God's existence will not exert efforts to work with his counter seekers of truths and facts: to be keen on coming to an explicit concurrence on what is evidence.

Just the same so that we will not be derailed, here is my concept of evidence in my as I want to assess my ideas to be precise, concise, and definitive, namely:

Evidence is a fact man knows leading him to know another fact.

------------------------

So, I have three items with you: one is about why you want to introduce new terms: space-time continuum, cosmos; and the other two are on my being first to -- at the risk of being accused by trouble-makers of trying to impose on you my concepts -- present my definition of what is evidence:

1. Why or what is your psychological ground for wanting to introduce new terms such as space-time continuum and cosmos?

2. Why or what is your psychological ground for having a mood that we need not define evidence so that we in effect not come to explicit and precise concurrence on what is evidence?

3. What do you say about my concept of evidence, now that I am giving in to your wish that I exercise the initiative of being the one first to propound my concept of evidence?

I assure you that I have been trying to look up science reference works available freely in the web to just get to know adequately what scientists and atheists understand by the word evidence: as they always insist on evidence in particular empirical evidence for everything they scientists and atheist people bring up in connection with God, etc., like their cosmological speculations -- but they don't ever set forth what is their concept of evidence.

Perhaps you can give me a good link freely available in the web on what scientists understand by their use of the term evidence.



Gerry

*Evidence, the original but wrong word was universe, but I really wanted to write evidence.

[shunyadragon]

Now, you say in regard to the word evidence:

"Like I said earlier, I don't think we really need a definition for evidence, but you seem to think we do, and since the matter at hand Man has in the universe the evidence for God's existence is also yours, I think it should be you who should propose a definition of 'evidence'.

What is and please forgive me, what is your psychological ground for having this mood with yourself that you "don' think we really need a definition for evidence."

I cannot imagine a thinking and reasoning person in such a momentous issue as the universe is the evidence for God's existence will not exert efforts to work with his counter seekers of truths and facts: to be keen on coming to an explicit concurrence on what is evidence.

Just the same so that we will not be derailed, here is my concept of evidence in my as I want to assess my ideas to be precise, concise, and definitive, namely:

Evidence is a fact man knows leading him to know another fact.

This definition is inadequate by itself, but an acceptable definition of fact may help. I picked definitions that all would likely agree. Other vaguer definitions exist, but they have fuzzy boundaries...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact

Fact - 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences:

© source where applicable

or simply from google; fact - Noun: A thing that is indisputably the case.

I found many, many definitions for different forms of evidence, but this one may work . . .

cogent evidence - any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cogent

co·gent   [koh-juhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. convincing or believable by virtue of forcible, clear, or incisive presentation; telling.
2. to the point; relevant; pertinent.

© source where applicable

[pancreasman]

Personally I'd like to know what his concept of 'concept' is.

[wolper]

So, I have three items with you: one is about why you want to introduce new terms: space-time continuum, cosmos; and the other two are on my being first to -- at the risk of being accused by trouble-makers of trying to impose on you my concepts -- present my definition of what is evidence:

1. Why or what is your psychological ground for wanting to introduce new terms such as space-time continuum and cosmos?

No psychological ground (why would you assume this a priori?), just for practical reasons, and I think I have just as much right as you do to introduce & define terms. But since I may not need those terms (depending on how the discussion will go, that is, should we ever get to the point where you will support your claim), I will put it on hold for now, under the strict condition that I have the right to introduce any word, term, definition or argument I see fit (that you then may or may not agree with). In a proper, respectful discussion it’s not upon you to determine what I can and can’t use (nor the other way around, of course).

2. Why or what is your psychological ground for having a mood that we need not define evidence so that we in effect not come to explicit and precise concurrence on what is evidence?

I was under the impression that it was clear enough for everyone what 'evidence' meant. Just like you don't need to define "is", "the", "for", or "define".

3. What do you say about my concept of evidence, now that I am giving in to your wish that I exercise the initiative of being the one first to propound my concept of evidence?

Actually it is a bit stronger than I would have thought, but that's fine with me. Evidence is a fact man knows leading him to know another fact.



I’m still clueless as to why you want to postpone the discussion of the definition of God until the end. You clearly believe in God, but you do not seem to be prepared to discuss what it is you believe in.

*Evidence, the original but wrong word was universe, but I really wanted to write evidence.

Yeah I got that.

[Tanakh Keeper]

To others here participating in this thread, if you have anything to contribute seriously to the concurred on concept of the universe, concurred on by us two, Wolper and myself, please set them forth.

Otherwise, please now concern yourselves also in our mutual task [Wolper and I] to work on concurring on the concept of what is evidence.

I will not be responding to you unless you have something seriously positive in contributions to the concept of universe and also now to the concept of what is evidence.

Gerry

I attempted to ask my question to you on PM, but you refused to answer unless I posted on your thread. So don't be irked that my online question has nothing to do with this subject, it was your own request.

[gerry]

Originally posted by gerry

Now, you say in regard to the word evidence:

"Like I said earlier, I don't think we really need a definition for evidence, but you seem to think we do, and since the matter at hand Man has in the universe the evidence for God's existence is also yours, I think it should be you who should propose a definition of 'evidence'.

What is and please forgive me, what is your psychological ground for having this mood with yourself that you "don' think we really need a definition for evidence."

I cannot imagine a thinking and reasoning person in such a momentous issue as the universe is the evidence for God's existence will not exert efforts to work with his counter seekers of truths and facts: to be keen on coming to an explicit concurrence on what is evidence.

Just the same so that we will not be derailed, here is my concept of evidence in my as I want to assess my ideas to be precise, concise, and definitive, namely:

Evidence is a fact man knows leading him to know another fact.

This definition is inadequate by itself, but an acceptable definition of fact may help. I picked definitions that all would likely agree. Other vaguer definitions exist, but they have fuzzy boundaries...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact
Fact - 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences:

© source where applicable

or simply from google; fact - Noun: A thing that is indisputably the case.

I found many, many definitions for different forms of evidence, but this one may work . . .

cogent evidence - any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cogent
co·gent   [koh-juhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. convincing or believable by virtue of forcible, clear, or incisive presentation; telling.
2. to the point; relevant; pertinent.

© source where applicable

Dear Shuny, I am glad that you are around.


The title and subject of this thread is "The universe is the evidence for God's existence."

That is why we must all who care to participate in it come to concurrence on the concepts of universe, evidence, existence, man, and God, and other things also as they are brought up and are crucially needed for us humans to come to the resolution of the God debate.

About your concept of evidence, in defining the concept of, we must all mention what purpose does evidence serve for man.


You favor this concept of universe: "cogent evidence - any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something."

Now, compare that to mine: "Any fact man knows leading him to know another fact."

In your definition of evidence although you are definining not so much evidence but cogent evidence, you use the word evidence to define evidence, which I wish you can see that such a practice of using a word to define the word itself is to say nothing so as to explain the word being defined: end result, you have said nothing in explanation of the word to be defined.

Anyway, let us at this point in time just all concentrate on coming to concurrence on the concept of universe.

We will go to evidence soonest when we finish with us all agreeing to a concept of the universe.


So, for the present I will not go into evidence and I am asking everyone to leave that to after we have all agreed on what is the universe.



Gerry

[gerry]

Personally I'd like to know what his concept of 'concept' is.

Dear Pancreas, I am not glad you are around because I see you to be a trouble-maker.


But this time you are asking a question which I love to answer, any question addressed to me on what is my concept of something, I am always glad to accommodate, provided it is going to advance for mankind the resolution of the God debate.

Here below, my idea of what is a concept:

A concept is a thought in man's mind by which he represents to himself something that is outside his mind or even just in his mind; for example, trouble-maker, it is a concept of a human who contributes nothing in a reasonable discourse but to muddle up the issue being 'disquisitioned' about among reasonable folks, or at the most innocuous to distract their attention.

Hahahahaha!



So, Pancreas, try to make me glad to have you participating in this thread but do not act the role of a trouble-maker as defined above.



Gerry