The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

[gerry]

Okay, all atheists who are into whining and putting themselves up as ignorant without any functional reasoning faculty, tell me, which is the reasonable thought for a human with a functional reasoning faculty:

There has always been something, yes, no?

Instruction: How to answer this question with an yes or a no, like this:

(i) Yes, there has always been something.

Or

(ii) No, there has not always been something.


Now, think most carefully making full complete rigorous use of your reasoning faculty, and choose either (i) or (ii).


Otherwise go away, you are full of self-proclaimed ignorance or without reasoning faculty or all into whining but never into any genuinely rational examination of the actual objective reality of existing things which are all evidence for the existence of God creator of everything with a beginning.


Here, are you not yet already tiresome sans reasoning basis with your silly answers to everything that points to the existence of God:

1. I don't know, meaning I have lobotomized my reasoning faculty to know.

2. Shouting flying spaghetti monster.

3. Recourse to it is all assumption when you atheists don't know at all what is an assumption except to use the term when you are faced with the actual objective reality of existing things. [ I will put into your cranium some rational information on what is assumption, later, in some subsequent post. ]

4. God is evil because He did not give me everything I want or let me do everything I want, and/or make things such that everyone loves everyone and all be happy perfectly in a to my own standards perfect world.

5. Well, good readers here, if you read their writings you will come to more of their routinized reactions to genuine evidence exposition of God's existence from the actual objective reality of existing things.

6. Ah yes, shooting forth silly questions like what made God if God created everything, and can God make a rock so huge He cannot carry it.

7. Then they challenge God, God if you exist strike me dead (no need, you will die in time).


Well, good readers here, you get the idea.

And I am just being liberal with my reminiscences of the typical non-reason utterances of atheists who do not have any use for their reasoning faculty -- tragic.



Gerry

Addendum:

Here is a contribution from me in the blog of an atheist who so far is without grievous guile.

http://robsilverton.wordpress.com/20...n/#comment-310

[Addressed to Silverton an atheist without guile, so far]


You are manipulating concepts and words, but you should be manipulating actual objectively existing things, i.e., reality.


Put it this way:

You exist in actual objective reality, you came from your parents in actual objective reality.

Your parents came from their parents, again in actual objective reality.

Now, there was a time when there were no humans who gave births to other humans, that is also actual objective reality.


Next, you ask the question: From what or where or whom did humans come?

That is a question of actual objective reality.

No manipulation of concepts and words here, although we represent actual objective real things with concepts and words, but we are talking about actual objective reality.

Without concepts and words we would not be able to communicate at all among ourselves humans (except by facial grimaces and bodily postures and also by pointing to things, which then are crude concepts and words), and not even talk with ourselves, I mean any human to talk to himself and with himself.

But the self-deceptive human — and only humans can be self-deceptive — can and does for example atheists manipulate concepts and words and thereby even come to self-deceptively prove to himself that he does not exist in actual objective reality; but he will not dare anyone not himself to prove to him that he does not exist by moving this other human to shoot him with an actually objectively existing fully loaded magnum pistol, in the head.


Is that a valid question, namely, from where or what or whom humans came forth, because there was a time when there were no humans?

That is a question of actual objective reality, not about concepts and words and their manipulation.

Think about from where or from what or from whom humans came forth, in actual objective reality, and don’t only engage in manipulation of concepts and words without referring all the time to actual objective reality.


Don’t go away from actual objective reality.

If you think about actual objective reality of the existence of humans how this existence came about, you will come to the existence of God as the origin of everything that exists in actual objective reality that was not existing in actual objective reality before.

That is how mankind came to the existence of God as the necessary being Who exists all the time and everywhere and even exists before time and space and Himself also created time and space.

That is by thinking always about actual objective reality, starting with man himself who in actual objective reality did not exist at one time in the past and today exists.

Or can anything come into existence by itself that did not exist at one time but now exists; however just look at yourself a human, who did not exist before and also all his ancestors, and now exist, for man is the best evidence for the existence of God the creator of everything that did not exist before. [This paragraph corrected for typos.]


Do not manipulate concepts and words telling yourself that there is no God creator of everything that was not existing at one time.

In actual objective reality there is always God existing, then God created everything that is not himself.

If God is not existing always even before He created time and space, then how did everything came about which before was not existing?

Think about that with your feet in actual objective reality, not by manipulating concepts and words.

Send me an email if you care, mdejess(@)gmail.com

Mdejess


[ To be continued. ]

[pancreasman]

Okay, all atheists who are into whining and putting themselves up as ignorant without any functional reasoning faculty, tell me, which is the reasonable thought for a human with a functional reasoning faculty:

There has always been something, yes, no?

Instruction: How to answer this question with an yes or a no, like this:

(i) Yes, there has always been something.

Or

(ii) No, there has not always been something.


Now, think most carefully making full complete rigorous use of your reasoning faculty, and choose either (i) or (ii).


Otherwise go away, you are full of self-proclaimed ignorance or without reasoning faculty or all into whining but never into any genuinely rational examination of the actual objective reality of existing things which are all evidence for the existence of God creator of everything with a beginning.


Here, are you not yet already tiresome sans reasoning basis with your silly answers to everything that points to the existence of God:

1. I don't know, meaning I have lobotomized my reasoning faculty to know.

2. Shouting flying spaghetti monster.

3. Recourse to it is all assumption when you atheists don't know at all what is an assumption except to use the term when you are faced with the actual objective reality of existing things. [ I will put into your cranium some rational information on what is assumption, later, in some subsequent post. ]

4. God is evil because He did not give me everything I want or let me do everything I want, and/or make things such that everyone loves everyone and all be happy perfectly in a to my own standards perfect world.

5. Well, good readers here, if you read their writings you will come to more of their routinized reactions to genuine evidence exposition of God's existence from the actual objective reality of existing things.

6. Ah yes, shooting forth silly questions like what made God if God created everything, and can God make a rock so huge He cannot carry it.

7. Then they challenge God, God if you exist strike me dead (no need, you will die in time).


Well, good readers here, you get the idea.

And I am just being liberal with my reminiscences of the typical non-reason utterances of atheists who do not have any use for their reasoning faculty -- tragic.



Gerry

Addendum:

Here is a contribution from me in the blog of an atheist who so far is without grievous guile.

Still no answers to the questions I asked that YOU invited.More bluster. More talking to his imaginary cheer squad. Man up, gerry.

[gerry]

Still no answers to the questions I asked that YOU invited.More bluster. More talking to his imaginary cheer squad. Man up, gerry.

Dear Pancreas:

I notice that you don't or are afraid to engage.

The question that I want us both to go into is the following:

Has there always been something existing: yes, no?


Now, you want me to answer to your questions, but just choose one of your questions, and I will see whether it has any bearing to the ultimate explanation of the actual objective reality of existing things:

What is your one question in that respect?


To make things simple, what do you say, Pancreas, let us start a common thread on the question "Has there always been something existing: yes, no?"



To readers, the man will run away, scared stiff, or take to vacuous utterances.


That is the Achilles' heel of atheists, they don't or are scared stiff to go into ultimate realities.




Gerry

Addendum:

http://robsilverton.wordpress.com/20...n/#comment-310

[ Silverton is an atheist author of a blog he calls "On Belief, Truth and Reason," but he has not been interacting with me since my last response to him some days back; the present response is my second one to his blog. To his credit he has not yet so far deleted my comments in his blog: I salute him as an atheist without guile. ]


Dear Silverton:

Right away I will say that you are again into manipulation of concepts and words, instead of sticking to reality.

Here is what you say, and I put in bold the words from you that indicate you are into manipulation of concepts and words and not in the world of actual objectively existing reality of things as they exist even before man invented concepts and words to represent them, and also abuse them to prove to themselves that there is no God.

Hi Marius,

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my essay. I agree with you on the absurdity of certain philosophical arguments where a person may try to posit their own non-existence, but would not bet their life on it..!

If my reasoning is correct, your argument regarding the creation of humanity can be summarised in the following form:

Proposition 1: Humans now exist
Proposition 2: There was a time when humans did not exist
Proposition 3: Humans therefore at some point came into existence
Conclusion: God created humans

Although I agree with all of the propositions, this is an example of inductive rather than deductive reasoning, in that it draws a general conclusion based upon specific examples. As such, the conclusion does not necessarily follow as it would in the case of deductive reasoning. Up to proposition 3 we are in agreement, but I would be cautious to posit the existence of God as the logical explanation for the coming into existence of humans. As is hopefully clear for the formulation of the argument above, this requires a leap of faith.

As you have probably guessed, I would favour the scientific argument of Evolution via the process of natural selection. It’s an observable fact, especially since the discovery of DNA, that species share varying degrees of common ancestry. It is also observable in animal husbandry, pet breeding and for instance the domestication of foxes in Siberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox) that the behaviour, markings and genetics of species can be altered over time via breeding. So the following logic seems sound to me:

Proposition 1: Evolution is an observable fact in animals
Proposition 2: There is strong evidence that humans share much genetic material with other species, especially Great Apes.
Conclusion: It is a reasonable to assume that humans evolved in the same manner as all other animals.

Hope that sounds sensible.

Best regards,
Rob

You say: “As is hopefully clear for the formulation of the argument above, this requires a leap of faith.”

Do you notice that you have introduced a new term in your answer, namely, “faith,” as in “leap of faith”?

What you should do is to say that:

A. Proposition 1: Humans now exist
B. Proposition 2: There was a time when humans did not exist
C. Proposition 3: Humans therefore at some point came into existence

Instead of

D. Conclusion: God created humans,

which statement of yours according to yourself is one of faith, you must still keeping to the actual objectively existing reality of things that do exist even though there be no humans like yourself who can introduce a word like faith and apply it to everything even though not everything can be covered by the concept and word of faith, you must to be always in contact with actual objectively existing reality of things, instead make this statement:

D. Transition (to the actual objective reality of existing things): God created humans.

D. Statement then is not a proposition as an assemblage of concepts and words which you can arbitrarily divorced from the actual objectively existing reality of things, but a discovery of the creator of everything with a beginning because otherwise everything with a beginning cannot exist if you do not get in contact with the existence of God as the actual objectively existing being that created everything with a beginning.

You don’t have to bring up evolution because you are into manipulation again of concepts and words and you must then also make a leap of faith, about natural selection, which selection no matter how you want to avoid the selector: postulates and also thus leads you to transit to the actual objectively existing realm of concrete things, namely, a selector of things, which selector is again God Who has created so that what things He has selected of the things He did make, these things He also makes them change into things which then by His causation are new things, or socalled new species which according to your contact with the actual objectively existing reality of life forms you call new species, which then you describe as capable of surviving as to still be around today.

No need to bring in evolution, that is just a self-deceived new name for God, when the name of God is good enough as concept and word to get in contact with the cause of everything in the actual objectively existing reality for the cause of everything that has a beginning.

You are good at manipulation of concepts and words, do some very honest and serious and genuinely reasonable thinking on how the self-deceptive humans are always skirting actual objectively existing reality of things: in order to prove to themselves that there is no first cause which is what mankind from the dawn of conscious intelligence has recognized and called God, the creator of everything actually existing in objective reality that has a beginning to its existence.

I love to exchange thoughts with you further, because you have not yet brought in the fake argument against God by labeling God as a celestial teapot or a flying spaghetti monster or an invisible pink unicorn or as a tooth fairy, which fact in your no-words of such labelings reveals to me that in actual objectively existing reality, you do have a pure heart and mind as to not have the perverse recourse to ridicule God in order to pseudo-prove to yourself that God does not exist, even though you are self-deceptively motivated for whatever agenda you want to accomplish: by manipulation of concepts and words to the end that there is no God — but only in your mind of concepts and words perversely manipulated by yourself.

You are different from other atheists who will just suppress my comments in their blogs.

No, I am not into manipulation of concepts and words in order to flatter you so that you will come to God; for it is an actual objective reality that so far you have not gone into the perverse tack of humans whom I call satanic atheists, who do go into that direction because they can and do see that God is what I call an “obviosity” in the actual objectively existing reality of things.

So that in this reality realm, if you do away with God in your mind by as I say by manipulation of concepts and words, the logical conclusion is that you do not exist at all when you transit to the actual objective reality of things existing even were you not around, and there was a time you were not around, but things with a beginning were around already, for example, the today now extinct dinosaurs.

Yes, I love to continue our exchange of thoughts, please do not go away, as perversely satanic atheists do.

I bring in Satan although for you it is a mythological entity, and I do agree with you for the present; but this Satan guy is a good explanation in the actual objective reality of things existing for why humans do choose to do evil instead of good, namely, also because of prompting by the father of lies, Satan.

That is a rich field for exploration in the actual objectively existing reality, namely, the existence of Satan.

Yes, I can see you already with the baffling question: If God exists how do I explain why He created Satan, God must be a fool?

That is a very rich field of exploration and we must not confine ourselves exclusively in manipulation of concepts and words when we do come to that question, we must as always keep in contact with the actual objectively existing reality of things.

Mdejess


[ To be continued. ]

( End of Addendum )

[pancreasman]

Dear Pancreas:

I notice that you don't or are afraid to engage.

The question that I want us both to go into is the following:

Has there always been something existing: yes, no?


Now, you want me to answer to your questions, but just choose one of your questions, and I will see whether it has any bearing to the ultimate explanation of the actual objective reality of existing things:

What is your one question in that respect?


To make things simple, what do you say, Pancreas, let us start a common thread on the question "Has there always been something existing: yes, no?"



To readers, the man will run away, scared stiff, or take to vacuous utterances.


That is the Achilles' heel of atheists, they don't or are scared stiff to go into ultimate realities.




Gerry

Addendum:


( End of Addendum )

More bluster. You asked for questions. I asked them. You refuse to answer. I won't engage with you until you honour your own commitment.

[gerry]

More bluster. You asked for questions. I asked them. You refuse to answer. I won't engage with you until you honour your own commitment.

Dear Pancreas:


You are now into the gimmick of Wolper, insisting on me answering to your vacuous past statements of no absolutely no value at all: unless and until you and I come to the ultimate reality of there has always been something existing.

I asked you to bring up one question, but you keep anonymous in that respect by just now as with Wolper repeating your senseless vacuous charge against me that I am not responding to your statements which are the following:

Post #388 in reply to #385.

Originally posted by Gerry

Which sentence below is an assumption:

(i) A teapot orbits the sun between earth and Mars. (From Bertrand Russell)
(ii) God created everything with a beginning.

From Pancreas: (i) and (ii) are both assumptions since neither can be demonstrated as true.

That is an assumption, namely, neither can be demonstrated as true, because you are laboring with a deficient reasoning faculty.

Try again, which sentence is reasonable, not an assumption without rational basis, (i) or (ii)?



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


Originally posted by Gerry

If that is too hard for you, then try this one:

There has always been something existing, yes, no?

From Pancreas: Whether there has always been something existing is unknown. Nobody knows, not even gerry the great.

Your are again talking on a deficient reasoning faculty; tell me which is reasonable for you to say, something has always been existing, or you do not know because obviously you are self-loaded with a deficient reasoning faculty.


Originally posted by Gerry

Still too hard for you?

Okay, try this one, you are on home ground on this one because when it comes to God's existence you always recite this mantra, "There is no evidence."

What is your own thought out concept of evidence from your stock knowledge of the actual objective reality of existing things, and in your own wording.

From Pancreas: Evidence is empirical observational data that supports a hypothesis. (I know ahead of time a guy who doesn't know what a 'Ferris wheel' is will have trouble with that answer!) I don't CARE what your definition is because it is circular and tortuous, rather like all your posts.

Again you have exposed yourself as without a functional reasoning faculty, you go into manipulation of concepts and words when simply put in the actual objective reality of existing things, evidence is

Any fact man knows leading him to know another fact.

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


Anyway, tell me again, which is reasonable for a human with a functional reasoning faculty:

Something has always been existing: yes, no?


We will concentrate on that question, and I will set up a thread for that question; but I fear you will run away, as you have done in your latest post, by what anyone can see possessed of a functioning reasoning faculty, by quibblings and irrelevancies and digressions and evasions and obstructions: instead of using your reasoning faculty to think things out, briefly put, you are into vacuous talk -- no indication of genuine reasoning.


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


Okay, tell me again:

Something has always been existing: yes, no?



Gerry

Dear readers, do you notice that Pancreas is now into the same pattern of evasive and non-engagement gimmicks of Wolper and Tassman (Jamie)?

They are scared stiff and run away in effect by not engaging in the ultimate reality of there is always something existing, and also as you have noticed into crying that I am insulting them (him).

They atheists of the satanic strain always resort to I don't know, second God is an assumption, and third run run run away from the ultimate reality of there has always been something instead of nothing.


The essential self-despoliation of satanic atheists' reasoning faculty comes about from their addiction to manipulation of concepts and words, instead of starting from the actual objective reality of existing things, and finally from the ultimate reality of there has always been something.



See? I challenge Pancreas and in effect all the satanic atheists here who are masters of deceit and deception to go with me into a common thread on there has always been something, but they will not accept the challenge because they are scared stiff and are running away.

Satanic atheists masters of deceit and deception, yes self-deception, are only viciously into vacuous statements and pseudo questions which are all reducible to calling out loud and boorishly flying spaghetti monster -- instead of dealing with the issue of God on the basis of reason, and of course first tackling the ultimate reality of there has always been something.


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

Okay, here is the challenge again, to ye all satanic atheists:

Has there always been something: yes, no?


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

Here is something for you, Pancreas, to exercise what remnant of reasoning you still command:

You say God is an assumption etc., circular talk whatever -- yes, you do run and hide in charging others with assumptions, what you cannot think out for yourself, do a serious self-conducted research on this question I mean study:

How mankind came to the concept of God from the first ever records of man's mention of God to the present, in specifics, God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

But you guys satanic atheists you don't do ever any serious thinking of your own but you always swallow rod, line, sinker, hook, and bait, trash like the following from also a fellow satanic atheist sans (i.e. without) reasoning astrophysicist who abuses his own reasoning faculty in stating: "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Just because of a disease, that astrophysicist who is in effect shouting as to sell books, flying spaghetti monster, he is paralyzed with a permanent jeering grimace in his face is no justification that he prefers to omit asking himself if he would allow his reason to be active, "and what of the origin of a law such as gravity?"


Well, Pancreas, the concept of God is the fruit of mankind's millennial eons of thinking with reason intact, and it is not what you bereft of a functional reason hide behind: the pseudo term assumption -- you would not be able to think out what is an assumption either, you are just good at spewing forth vacuous utterances.



Gerry

Addendum:

http://robsilverton.wordpress.com/20...n/#comment-310


Dear Silverton:

Before anything else, I must commend you most highly that you have not suppressed my comments, so far.

You say:

My main concern with your argument is your focus on having a command of an objective view on reality. From my point of view, I wouldn’t dare to claim to have a grasp of an objective view on reality. I think we all strive to have an objective view, but who is to say if any of us can actually be objective? If God does in fact exist, then who of us could claim to objectively understand the mind of God, or to speak for Him? The lesson we learn from Socrates is that “the wise man knows he knows nothing”, his position is one of absolute humility. In my view, Socrates was wise enough to realise that humans are inherently limited in their perspectives (self-deceptive, if you will) and that objectivity is a distant goal, one to be strived towards by all of us but perhaps never fully achieved by anyone. Taking this into account, Socrates strove to create a means of establishing practical truths between individuals. Imagine you and I are sitting in a room. We could no doubt agree that the room exists and that both of us exist, as these are part of our observable reality.

You are really now into the humility tack.

Because you are so humble you dare not be sure of the reality of the objectively actual existence of things which things even were you not around to be so humble as to be not certain of their objective reality, they do exist.

And you bring in the authority of Socrates, who according to you was of the conviction that he and mankind know nothing to be certain to exist in objective reality.

Well, that is a misplaced humility whereby you divorce yourself from the reality of the nose in your face which exists even when you die and cease existing as a living person, but your nose in your face and your whole body still exist even though now lifeless, but still retaining the material details of a once living human being.

Do not go far into manipulation of concepts and words, and do not bring in humility that requires you to disown the certain knowledge of the existence of your nose.

Socrates were he around would tell you that he and you are certain of the existence of your each one’s respective nose.
As also of your balls, unless you have no balls but you have something else which people with balls need in the female representatives of humanity, in order to procreate their own kind, namely, a human baby.

So, you are good in manipulation of concepts and words in order to display humility of the phony kind which serves to self-deceive yourself, in order that you can argue to the lack of certainty of objective reality, like the nose in your face and the balls in your groin.

The nose in your face and the balls in your groin as also in Socrates’ they are the evidence for the existence of God, whose concept in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, is that God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

Now, what did Socrates mean that he and mankind do not know anything for certain?

Of course, obviously not that he and mankind do not know for a certainty the existence of nose in the face of a human being and also balls in guys — and also corresponding reciprocal organs in gals, but that he cannot know everything like in his days how Achilles could not outstrip a tortoise in any race where Achilles fool-heartedly allows the tortoise even just an inch in starting point ahead of Achilles.

Suppose, forgive me for being harsh, you make of a list of the things in actual objective reality of existing things like the nose in your face and balls in your groin (I am presuming that you are a guy, but if you are a gal, then make that your copulation and baby-birth canal in your groin), then we can know better what exactly your humility and that of the humility you ascribe to Socrates, in you both saying that man does not know anything to certainty, for us two as surely as we have intelligence, to analyze how this kind of uncertainty consists in and whether therefore in the long long run, you can say that God, the creator of everything with a beginning does not exist.

Dear Silverton, now you will complain that I am into ad hominems, and you are correct.

And the reason why I am into ad hominems (directed to the man, to the human person) is because unless reasonable people direct a man to himself like his nose and balls, any man who is self-deceived so badly as to be a master of manipulation of concepts and words to prove to himself there is no God, even when the existence of nose and balls are evidence of God’s existence, such a man will go forth to preach to others simple-minded busy everyday people that there is no God, it is all flying spaghetti monster and invisible pink unicorn and celestial teapot and tooth fairy.

Anyway, please do make a list of things which you are not certain to exist in objective reality, and for that you and as you allege of Socrates, you both are so humble on which account.

That is one very bad case of misplaced and thus fake, phony, vacuous humility, it is self-deception posing for a justification an appeal to the virtue of humility, not any genuine acknowledgment of true realization of the limitation of human knowledge, which limitation does not thereby mean that a guy anyone man in the street man and Socrates cannot be sure of the existence of the nose in their face and the balls in their groin.

Never talk and preach with manipulated concepts and words as to be unmindful that you still have your feet in contact with the ground of reality, or still subject even though supposedly weightless to gravity; so be gravely serious, solemn even, keep in actual objective contact with the reality of existing things, then you will not suffer the loss of reality and spin yourself on and on and feel so sure that at least one thing that you are sure of is that you are not sure of anything — that is a multi-tied up knot for Socrates to unravel, to disentangle, but the man Socrates is not really that stupid as not to smell a rat somewhere in that kind of talk (apologies to the rodent family members though, for they are as entitled to existence from God as also rational mankind, and they never doubt for one moment that they do have certainty of objective reality).

Mdejess


[ Well. to date, Silverton, has stopped corresponding with me in his own blog. ]

( To be continued. )

[gerry]

I am sorry, I am just into interacting with Pancreas; if any atheists have accepted my challenge to sponsor a common thread on there has always been something, please just pm me.


I don't read posts from atheists anymore because they are all vacuous statements, owing to the tragedy that they do not first come to terms with the ultimate reality of there has always been something.



Gerry

[pancreasman]

I am sorry, I am just into interacting with Pancreas; if any atheists have accepted my challenge to sponsor a common thread on there has always been something, please just pm me.


I don't read posts from atheists anymore because they are all vacuous statements, owing to the tragedy that they do not first come to terms with the ultimate reality of there has always been something.



Gerry

There you go. Arrogance not seeking any kind of discussion. You are, and have always been, gerry, a fraud and a coward.

[gerry]

Dear Pancreas:



Yes, just keep on and on being vacuous and talking vacuity -- seeing that you have no use for you reasoning faculty and it has died a death from desuetude.

desuetude [des-wi-tood, -tyood]  

des•ue•tude   [des-wi-tood, -tyood] Show IPA

noun
the state of being no longer used or practiced.

Origin:
1425–75; late Middle English < Latin dēsuētūdo, equivalent to dēsuē-, base of dēsuēscere to become disaccustomed to, unlearn ( dē- de- + suēscere to become accustomed to) + -tūdō -tude

You don't have the guts and the brain to co-sponsor with me a thread on there has always been something.

That is a fact.


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



Make yourselves visible and articulate, oh ye satanic atheists, masters of deceit and self-deception, come join me in a co-sponsored thread on there has always been something.


In the meantime I want to tell Pancreas:

From all indications you don't have the consuetude and the consequent delight and joy of an active working and correctly performing reasoning faculty.

Work on the meaning of consuetude now that you know from above what is desuetude, and start employing your God-given faculty of reasoning.

Instead of gorging all the time on the trash from your fellow satanic atheists, masters of deceit and self-deception, their vacuous but also baneful utterances like what is north of the north pole?

That is Hawking's phony excuse for not thinking beyond the north pole -- the man has claudicated his reasoning faculty in order to spew forth for the engorgement of his similarly vacuously non-thinking readers such nonsense as: there is a law of gravity therefore the universe can produce itself, no need for a God creator of everything with a beginning.

What indeed is north of the north pole? Hey stupid Hawking, more north; otherwise you are just a talking robot who has been programmed by some evil master of lies and deception to not go beyond north of the north pole, so that you continue to self-dungeon yourself in a dark cave of your mendacious master's evil design.

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


It should be a delightful exercise of mind and reason to collect all the vacuous statements and questions from satanic atheists, like the following:

What is north of the north pole? (therefore there is no God).

What is alleged without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (therefore there is no God).

Ah yes, what created God if God created everything? (therefore there is no God).

And here is the all-time terrific vacuity of a question: Can God make a rock so huge He cannot carry it? (therefore there is no God).

What else? Oh, here are the abuses of concepts and words: flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, celestial teapot, tooth fairy... (therefore there is no God).

And this one, The universe is all there is (therefore God does not exist).

I think I will just look up some satanic atheists' websites where they have a collection of vacuous quotations from their fellow satanic masters of deceit and self-deception (by which these latters make so much money from their unthinking and self-robotized fellow self-reasoning-maimed baby satanic atheists).




Gerry

Addendum:

http://robsilverton.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/on-belief-truth-and-reason/#comment-310

[...]

I’m not sure whether you are familiar with the French mathematician, physicist and Catholic philosopher Blaise Pascal. Although Pascal fervently believed in God, he would no doubt wince at the suggestion that God’s existence was a provable using reasoning, hence Pascal’s Wagerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager. It seems that you would dispute his philosophy? If so, could you explain why God exists in terms of reasoning, given that the form demonstrated above is insufficient?

Best
Rob

I am not right now aware that Pascal is not of the conviction that God creator of everything in the universe is known certainly by man through his reasoning faculty.

I know him to be Catholic of the Roman Catholic Church, and it is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that God creator of everything with a beginning is known with certainty by man using his reasoning faculty, even without revelation.

How did you come to the information that Pascal states that God is not known by man with certainty on his reasoning faculty?

Wait, I will see whether I can find any statement in the internet to the effect that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that God creator of everything with a beginning is known by man through man’s reasoning faculty, even without revelation.

Here is one text:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...ism/p1s1c1.htm

III. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH

36. “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.”11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12

Anyway, I notice that you like to bring in authority like Socrates earlier and now Pascal.

I will just say that Pascal is into what I call a grant but not a concession that reason cannot come to the certainty of God’s existence, so let us all be practical and bet on God’s existence, because that is the wisdom of the clever, smart, wise guy, i.e., everyman who still at least can be rational in his everyday affairs.

Like this concrete illustration I will give you:

We are a crew in a space ship and owing to a snag beyond remedy in the space ship are all going to land inevitably but with a soft safe landing in a livable planet from where we will not leave and return to earth; now there are members in our group who believe that there is an advanced civilization in this planet ruled by an entity who can read the heart and mind of mankind, and those who accept such a belief in this entity will be welcomed by him with open arms into his kingdom, but those who don’t will be condemned to chained labor; so who are the clever, smart, wise guys who will believe in the existence of this king, and who are the stupid irrational guys who will not believe in the existence of this king?

Anyway, I will leave you and Pascal alone, and instead invite you with me to concentrate on reason and actual objective reality of the existence of things like our nose and our balls, by which we know as by evidence in the nose and balls: that God the creator of everything with a beginning exists in actual objective reality.

You are always bringing in syllogistic logic, like the following of which you always neglect to notice that syllogism consists in the manipulation of concepts and words, and is not in its very form necessarily an expedition into the actual objective reality of existing things to locate more existing things, and also very important the existing creator of every existing thing with a beginning.

Proposition 1: Noses exist
Proposition 2: Testicles exist
Conclusion: God exists
Again, this is an example of weak inductive reasoning, in that it does not follow from the specific examples you give that the general conclusion can be arrived at.

If you want to play word game, I will say that you cannot either draw the conclusion that God does not exist.

What you should do if you want to enact a productive syllogism, should be the following:

Proposition 1: Noses exist
Proposition 2: Testicles exist
Proposition 3: Noses and testicles are existence with a beginning.
Conclusion: Let us go forth into the actual objective reality of existing things to search and locate the creator who ultimately started the noses and balls into the beginning and continuation of their existence until their term of existence has been completed.

Dear Silverton, I appreciate most sincerely that you are not to date suppressing my comments.


Mdejess



[ To be continued. ]

[pancreasman]

Dear Pancreas:



Yes, just keep on and on being vacuous and talking vacuity -- seeing that you have no use for you reasoning faculty and it has died a death from desuetude.




You don't have the guts and the brain to co-sponsor with me a thread on there has always been something.

That is a fact.


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



Make yourselves visible and articulate, oh ye satanic atheists, masters of deceit and self-deception, come join me in a co-sponsored thread on there has always been something.


In the meantime I want to tell Pancreas:

From all indications you don't have the consuetude and the consequent delight and joy of an active working and correctly performing reasoning faculty.

Work on the meaning of consuetude now that you know from above what is desuetude, and start employing your God-given faculty of reasoning.

Instead of gorging all the time on the trash from your fellow satanic atheists, masters of deceit and self-deception, their vacuous but also baneful utterances like what is north of the north pole?

That is Hawking's phony excuse for not thinking beyond the north pole -- the man has claudicated his reasoning faculty in order to spew forth for the engorgement of his similarly vacuously non-thinking readers such nonsense as: there is a law of gravity therefore the universe can produce itself, no need for a God creator of everything with a beginning.

What indeed is north of the north pole? Hey stupid Hawking, more north; otherwise you are just a talking robot who has been programmed by some evil master of lies and deception to not go beyond north of the north pole, so that you continue to self-dungeon yourself in a dark cave of your mendacious master's evil design.

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


It should be a delightful exercise of mind and reason to collect all the vacuous statements and questions from satanic atheists, like the following:

What is north of the north pole? (therefore there is no God).

What is alleged without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (therefore there is no God).

Ah yes, what created God if God created everything? (therefore there is no God).

And here is the all-time terrific vacuity of a question: Can God make a rock so huge He cannot carry it? (therefore there is no God).

What else? Oh, here are the abuses of concepts and words: flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, celestial teapot, tooth fairy... (therefore there is no God).

And this one, The universe is all there is (therefore God does not exist).

I think I will just look up some satanic atheists' websites where they have a collection of vacuous quotations from their fellow satanic masters of deceit and self-deception (by which these latters make so much money from their unthinking and self-robotized fellow self-reasoning-maimed baby satanic atheists).




Gerry

Addendum:

Questions. I asked them. You won't answer them. When you do discussion will resume.

[skira65]

Advanced Search. For a quick search slide your cursor a few pixels over to the right.

You last visited: Yesterday at 08:51 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:24 AM.

Home
Forum
Theistic Metaphysics Dept.
Apologetics 301
The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

Hello skira65,

As you may have noticed a lot has changed on tWeb. Please take a moment to visit the Help pages or the tWeb 4.0 FAQ thread maintained by Kelp. These may help you get started on understanding how to use the site as well as the changes to the site. It is a work in progress as there is still a lot to do. If you have any questions or comments or require additional assistance please leave a post in Kelp's Information Desk thread and/or create a new thread in the Student Resource Center forum so we may help others while helping you. If you dont know how to create a thread, post a response. If you dont know how to post a response, send us an email. If you arent sure how to do that, email and tell us how did you even find this site? Wait, you wouldnt be able to do that, huh. Oh well. Thanks.

To dismiss this message click on the X on the right side of this message.

- Kelp and the other guys who run this site

+ Reply to Thread
Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst Previous ... 1718192021222324252627
Results 391 to 399 of 399
Thread: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

View First Unread
Thread Tools
Search Thread
Rate This Thread

tWebber

Enrolled: October 5th, 2005 Posts: 716

Male Christian Liberal
Amen 9 Times in 9 Posts
gerry's Avatar
gerry

Offline

Thread Owner
March 23rd 2012 05:17 PM
Post: #391
Re: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

Okay, all atheists who are into whining and putting themselves up as ignorant without any functional reasoning faculty, tell me, which is the reasonable thought for a human with a functional reasoning faculty:

There has always been something, yes, no?

Instruction: How to answer this question with an yes or a no, like this:

(i) Yes, there has always been something.

Or

(ii) No, there has not always been something.


Now, think most carefully making full complete rigorous use of your reasoning faculty, and choose either (i) or (ii).


Otherwise go away, you are full of self-proclaimed ignorance or without reasoning faculty or all into whining but never into any genuinely rational examination of the actual objective reality of existing things which are all evidence for the existence of God creator of everything with a beginning.


Here, are you not yet already tiresome sans reasoning basis with your silly answers to everything that points to the existence of God:

1. I don't know, meaning I have lobotomized my reasoning faculty to know.

2. Shouting flying spaghetti monster.

3. Recourse to it is all assumption when you atheists don't know at all what is an assumption except to use the term when you are faced with the actual objective reality of existing things. [ I will put into your cranium some rational information on what is assumption, later, in some subsequent post. ]

4. God is evil because He did not give me everything I want or let me do everything I want, and/or make things such that everyone loves everyone and all be happy perfectly in a to my own standards perfect world.

5. Well, good readers here, if you read their writings you will come to more of their routinized reactions to genuine evidence exposition of God's existence from the actual objective reality of existing things.

6. Ah yes, shooting forth silly questions like what made God if God created everything, and can God make a rock so huge He cannot carry it.

7. Then they challenge God, God if you exist strike me dead (no need, you will die in time).


Well, good readers here, you get the idea.

And I am just being liberal with my reminiscences of the typical non-reason utterances of atheists who do not have any use for their reasoning faculty -- tragic.



Gerry

Addendum:


Here is a contribution from me in the blog of an atheist who so far is without grievous guile.

Originally posted by Gerry aka Marius de Jess

http://robsilverton.wordpress.com/20...n/#comment-310

[Addressed to Silverton an atheist without guile, so far]


You are manipulating concepts and words, but you should be manipulating actual objectively existing things, i.e., reality.


Put it this way:

You exist in actual objective reality, you came from your parents in actual objective reality.

Your parents came from their parents, again in actual objective reality.

Now, there was a time when there were no humans who gave births to other humans, that is also actual objective reality.


Next, you ask the question: From what or where or whom did humans come?

That is a question of actual objective reality.

No manipulation of concepts and words here, although we represent actual objective real things with concepts and words, but we are talking about actual objective reality.

Without concepts and words we would not be able to communicate at all among ourselves humans (except by facial grimaces and bodily postures and also by pointing to things, which then are crude concepts and words), and not even talk with ourselves, I mean any human to talk to himself and with himself.

But the self-deceptive human — and only humans can be self-deceptive — can and does for example atheists manipulate concepts and words and thereby even come to self-deceptively prove to himself that he does not exist in actual objective reality; but he will not dare anyone not himself to prove to him that he does not exist by moving this other human to shoot him with an actually objectively existing fully loaded magnum pistol, in the head.


Is that a valid question, namely, from where or what or whom humans came forth, because there was a time when there were no humans?

That is a question of actual objective reality, not about concepts and words and their manipulation.

Think about from where or from what or from whom humans came forth, in actual objective reality, and don’t only engage in manipulation of concepts and words without referring all the time to actual objective reality.


Don’t go away from actual objective reality.

If you think about actual objective reality of the existence of humans how this existence came about, you will come to the existence of God as the origin of everything that exists in actual objective reality that was not existing in actual objective reality before.

That is how mankind came to the existence of God as the necessary being Who exists all the time and everywhere and even exists before time and space and Himself also created time and space.

That is by thinking always about actual objective reality, starting with man himself who in actual objective reality did not exist at one time in the past and today exists.

Or can anything come into existence by itself that did not exist at one time but now exists; however just look at yourself a human, who did not exist before and also all his ancestors, and now exist, for man is the best evidence for the existence of God the creator of everything that did not exist before. [This paragraph corrected for typos.]


Do not manipulate concepts and words telling yourself that there is no God creator of everything that was not existing at one time.

In actual objective reality there is always God existing, then God created everything that is not himself.

If God is not existing always even before He created time and space, then how did everything came about which before was not existing?

Think about that with your feet in actual objective reality, not by manipulating concepts and words.

Send me an email if you care, mdejess(@)gmail.com

Mdejess


[ To be continued. ]


Quick reply to this message Reply Quote Quote Multi-Quote This Message Blog this Post
Advertisment

If it hurts, stop.

Enrolled: December 29th, 2009 Posts: 1,566

Male Vague Australian
Amen 260 Times in 169 Posts
pancreasman's Avatar
pancreasman

Offline
March 23rd 2012 05:40 PM
Post: #392
Re: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

Jump to Post
Originally posted by gerry

Okay, all atheists who are into whining and putting themselves up as ignorant without any functional reasoning faculty, tell me, which is the reasonable thought for a human with a functional reasoning faculty:

There has always been something, yes, no?

Instruction: How to answer this question with an yes or a no, like this:

(i) Yes, there has always been something.

Or

(ii) No, there has not always been something.


Now, think most carefully making full complete rigorous use of your reasoning faculty, and choose either (i) or (ii).


Otherwise go away, you are full of self-proclaimed ignorance or without reasoning faculty or all into whining but never into any genuinely rational examination of the actual objective reality of existing things which are all evidence for the existence of God creator of everything with a beginning.


Here, are you not yet already tiresome sans reasoning basis with your silly answers to everything that points to the existence of God:

1. I don't know, meaning I have lobotomized my reasoning faculty to know.

2. Shouting flying spaghetti monster.

3. Recourse to it is all assumption when you atheists don't know at all what is an assumption except to use the term when you are faced with the actual objective reality of existing things. [ I will put into your cranium some rational information on what is assumption, later, in some subsequent post. ]

4. God is evil because He did not give me everything I want or let me do everything I want, and/or make things such that everyone loves everyone and all be happy perfectly in a to my own standards perfect world.

5. Well, good readers here, if you read their writings you will come to more of their routinized reactions to genuine evidence exposition of God's existence from the actual objective reality of existing things.

6. Ah yes, shooting forth silly questions like what made God if God created everything, and can God make a rock so huge He cannot carry it.

7. Then they challenge God, God if you exist strike me dead (no need, you will die in time).


Well, good readers here, you get the idea.

And I am just being liberal with my reminiscences of the typical non-reason utterances of atheists who do not have any use for their reasoning faculty -- tragic.



Gerry

Addendum:


Here is a contribution from me in the blog of an atheist who so far is without grievous guile.

Still no answers to the questions I asked that YOU invited.More bluster. More talking to his imaginary cheer squad. Man up, gerry.


Quick reply to this message Reply Quote Quote Multi-Quote This Message Blog this Post

tWebber

Enrolled: October 5th, 2005 Posts: 716

Male Christian Liberal
Amen 9 Times in 9 Posts
gerry's Avatar
gerry

Offline

Thread Owner
March 24th 2012 03:05 PM
Post: #393
Re: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

Jump to Post
Originally posted by pancreasman

Still no answers to the questions I asked that YOU invited.More bluster. More talking to his imaginary cheer squad. Man up, gerry.




Dear Pancreas:

I notice that you don't or are afraid to engage.

The question that I want us both to go into is the following:

Has there always been something existing: yes, no?


Now, you want me to answer to your questions, but just choose one of your questions, and I will see whether it has any bearing to the ultimate explanation of the actual objective reality of existing things:

What is your one question in that respect?


To make things simple, what do you say, Pancreas, let us start a common thread on the question "Has there always been something existing: yes, no?"



To readers, the man will run away, scared stiff, or take to vacuous utterances.


That is the Achilles' heel of atheists, they don't or are scared stiff to go into ultimate realities.




Gerry

Addendum:

Originally posted by Gerry aka Marius de Jess


http://robsilverton.wordpress.com/20...n/#comment-310

[ Silverton is an atheist author of a blog he calls "On Belief, Truth and Reason," but he has not been interacting with me since my last response to him some days back; the present response is my second one to his blog. To his credit he has not yet so far deleted my comments in his blog: I salute him as an atheist without guile. ]


Dear Silverton:

Right away I will say that you are again into manipulation of concepts and words, instead of sticking to reality.

Here is what you say, and I put in bold the words from you that indicate you are into manipulation of concepts and words and not in the world of actual objectively existing reality of things as they exist even before man invented concepts and words to represent them, and also abuse them to prove to themselves that there is no God.

Originally posted by Silverton

Hi Marius,

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my essay. I agree with you on the absurdity of certain philosophical arguments where a person may try to posit their own non-existence, but would not bet their life on it..!

If my reasoning is correct, your argument regarding the creation of humanity can be summarised in the following form:

Proposition 1: Humans now exist
Proposition 2: There was a time when humans did not exist
Proposition 3: Humans therefore at some point came into existence
Conclusion: God created humans

Although I agree with all of the propositions, this is an example of inductive rather than deductive reasoning, in that it draws a general conclusion based upon specific examples. As such, the conclusion does not necessarily follow as it would in the case of deductive reasoning. Up to proposition 3 we are in agreement, but I would be cautious to posit the existence of God as the logical explanation for the coming into existence of humans. As is hopefully clear for the formulation of the argument above, this requires a leap of faith.

As you have probably guessed, I would favour the scientific argument of Evolution via the process of natural selection. It’s an observable fact, especially since the discovery of DNA, that species share varying degrees of common ancestry. It is also observable in animal husbandry, pet breeding and for instance the domestication of foxes in Siberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox) that the behaviour, markings and genetics of species can be altered over time via breeding. So the following logic seems sound to me:

Proposition 1: Evolution is an observable fact in animals
Proposition 2: There is strong evidence that humans share much genetic material with other species, especially Great Apes.
Conclusion: It is a reasonable to assume that humans evolved in the same manner as all other animals.

Hope that sounds sensible.

Best regards,
Rob

You say: “As is hopefully clear for the formulation of the argument above, this requires a leap of faith.”

Do you notice that you have introduced a new term in your answer, namely, “faith,” as in “leap of faith”?

What you should do is to say that:

A. Proposition 1: Humans now exist
B. Proposition 2: There was a time when humans did not exist
C. Proposition 3: Humans therefore at some point came into existence

Instead of

D. Conclusion: God created humans,

which statement of yours according to yourself is one of faith, you must still keeping to the actual objectively existing reality of things that do exist even though there be no humans like yourself who can introduce a word like faith and apply it to everything even though not everything can be covered by the concept and word of faith, you must to be always in contact with actual objectively existing reality of things, instead make this statement:

D. Transition (to the actual objective reality of existing things): God created humans.

D. Statement then is not a proposition as an assemblage of concepts and words which you can arbitrarily divorced from the actual objectively existing reality of things, but a discovery of the creator of everything with a beginning because otherwise everything with a beginning cannot exist if you do not get in contact with the existence of God as the actual objectively existing being that created everything with a beginning.

You don’t have to bring up evolution because you are into manipulation again of concepts and words and you must then also make a leap of faith, about natural selection, which selection no matter how you want to avoid the selector: postulates and also thus leads you to transit to the actual objectively existing realm of concrete things, namely, a selector of things, which selector is again God Who has created so that what things He has selected of the things He did make, these things He also makes them change into things which then by His causation are new things, or socalled new species which according to your contact with the actual objectively existing reality of life forms you call new species, which then you describe as capable of surviving as to still be around today.

No need to bring in evolution, that is just a self-deceived new name for God, when the name of God is good enough as concept and word to get in contact with the cause of everything in the actual objectively existing reality for the cause of everything that has a beginning.

You are good at manipulation of concepts and words, do some very honest and serious and genuinely reasonable thinking on how the self-deceptive humans are always skirting actual objectively existing reality of things: in order to prove to themselves that there is no first cause which is what mankind from the dawn of conscious intelligence has recognized and called God, the creator of everything actually existing in objective reality that has a beginning to its existence.

I love to exchange thoughts with you further, because you have not yet brought in the fake argument against God by labeling God as a celestial teapot or a flying spaghetti monster or an invisible pink unicorn or as a tooth fairy, which fact in your no-words of such labelings reveals to me that in actual objectively existing reality, you do have a pure heart and mind as to not have the perverse recourse to ridicule God in order to pseudo-prove to yourself that God does not exist, even though you are self-deceptively motivated for whatever agenda you want to accomplish: by manipulation of concepts and words to the end that there is no God — but only in your mind of concepts and words perversely manipulated by yourself.

You are different from other atheists who will just suppress my comments in their blogs.

No, I am not into manipulation of concepts and words in order to flatter you so that you will come to God; for it is an actual objective reality that so far you have not gone into the perverse tack of humans whom I call satanic atheists, who do go into that direction because they can and do see that God is what I call an “obviosity” in the actual objectively existing reality of things.

So that in this reality realm, if you do away with God in your mind by as I say by manipulation of concepts and words, the logical conclusion is that you do not exist at all when you transit to the actual objective reality of things existing even were you not around, and there was a time you were not around, but things with a beginning were around already, for example, the today now extinct dinosaurs.

Yes, I love to continue our exchange of thoughts, please do not go away, as perversely satanic atheists do.

I bring in Satan although for you it is a mythological entity, and I do agree with you for the present; but this Satan guy is a good explanation in the actual objective reality of things existing for why humans do choose to do evil instead of good, namely, also because of prompting by the father of lies, Satan.

That is a rich field for exploration in the actual objectively existing reality, namely, the existence of Satan.

Yes, I can see you already with the baffling question: If God exists how do I explain why He created Satan, God must be a fool?

That is a very rich field of exploration and we must not confine ourselves exclusively in manipulation of concepts and words when we do come to that question, we must as always keep in contact with the actual objectively existing reality of things.

Mdejess


[ To be continued. ]

( End of Addendum )


Quick reply to this message Reply Quote Quote Multi-Quote This Message Blog this Post

If it hurts, stop.

Enrolled: December 29th, 2009 Posts: 1,566

Male Vague Australian
Amen 260 Times in 169 Posts
pancreasman's Avatar
pancreasman

Offline
March 24th 2012 03:50 PM
Post: #394
Re: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

Jump to Post
Originally posted by gerry

Dear Pancreas:

I notice that you don't or are afraid to engage.

The question that I want us both to go into is the following:

Has there always been something existing: yes, no?


Now, you want me to answer to your questions, but just choose one of your questions, and I will see whether it has any bearing to the ultimate explanation of the actual objective reality of existing things:

What is your one question in that respect?


To make things simple, what do you say, Pancreas, let us start a common thread on the question "Has there always been something existing: yes, no?"



To readers, the man will run away, scared stiff, or take to vacuous utterances.


That is the Achilles' heel of atheists, they don't or are scared stiff to go into ultimate realities.




Gerry

Addendum:

( End of Addendum )

More bluster. You asked for questions. I asked them. You refuse to answer. I won't engage with you until you honour your own commitment.


Quick reply to this message Reply Quote Quote Multi-Quote This Message Blog this Post
The following tWebber says Amen to pancreasman for this useful Post:

robrecht

tWebber

Enrolled: October 5th, 2005 Posts: 716

Male Christian Liberal
Amen 9 Times in 9 Posts
gerry's Avatar
gerry

Offline

Thread Owner
March 25th 2012 04:16 PM
Post: #395
Re: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

Jump to Post
Originally posted by pancreasman

More bluster. You asked for questions. I asked them. You refuse to answer. I won't engage with you until you honour your own commitment.


Dear Pancreas:


You are now into the gimmick of Wolper, insisting on me answering to your vacuous past statements of no absolutely no value at all: unless and until you and I come to the ultimate reality of there has always been something existing.

I asked you to bring up one question, but you keep anonymous in that respect by just now as with Wolper repeating your senseless vacuous charge against me that I am not responding to your statements which are the following:


Post #388 in reply to #385.

Originally posted by Gerry

Which sentence below is an assumption:

(i) A teapot orbits the sun between earth and Mars. (From Bertrand Russell)
(ii) God created everything with a beginning.
From Pancreas: (i) and (ii) are both assumptions since neither can be demonstrated as true.

That is an assumption, namely, neither can be demonstrated as true, because you are laboring with a deficient reasoning faculty.

Try again, which sentence is reasonable, not an assumption without rational basis, (i) or (ii)?



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


Originally posted by Gerry

If that is too hard for you, then try this one:

There has always been something existing, yes, no?

From Pancreas: Whether there has always been something existing is unknown. Nobody knows, not even gerry the great.

Your are again talking on a deficient reasoning faculty; tell me which is reasonable for you to say, something has always been existing, or you do not know because obviously you are self-loaded with a deficient reasoning faculty.


Originally posted by Gerry

Still too hard for you?

Okay, try this one, you are on home ground on this one because when it comes to God's existence you always recite this mantra, "There is no evidence."

What is your own thought out concept of evidence from your stock knowledge of the actual objective reality of existing things, and in your own wording.

From Pancreas: Evidence is empirical observational data that supports a hypothesis. (I know ahead of time a guy who doesn't know what a 'Ferris wheel' is will have trouble with that answer!) I don't CARE what your definition is because it is circular and tortuous, rather like all your posts.

Again you have exposed yourself as without a functional reasoning faculty, you go into manipulation of concepts and words when simply put in the actual objective reality of existing things, evidence is

Any fact man knows leading him to know another fact.



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


Anyway, tell me again, which is reasonable for a human with a functional reasoning faculty:

Something has always been existing: yes, no?


We will concentrate on that question, and I will set up a thread for that question; but I fear you will run away, as you have done in your latest post, by what anyone can see possessed of a functioning reasoning faculty, by quibblings and irrelevancies and digressions and evasions and obstructions: instead of using your reasoning faculty to think things out, briefly put, you are into vacuous talk -- no indication of genuine reasoning.


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


Okay, tell me again:

Something has always been existing: yes, no?



Gerry



Dear readers, do you notice that Pancreas is now into the same pattern of evasive and non-engagement gimmicks of Wolper and Tassman (Jamie)?

They are scared stiff and run away in effect by not engaging in the ultimate reality of there is always something existing, and also as you have noticed into crying that I am insulting them (him).

They atheists of the satanic strain always resort to I don't know, second God is an assumption, and third run run run away from the ultimate reality of there has always been something instead of nothing.


The essential self-despoliation of satanic atheists' reasoning faculty comes about from their addiction to manipulation of concepts and words, instead of starting from the actual objective reality of existing things, and finally from the ultimate reality of there has always been something.



See? I challenge Pancreas and in effect all the satanic atheists here who are masters of deceit and deception to go with me into a common thread on there has always been something, but they will not accept the challenge because they are scared stiff and are running away.

Satanic atheists masters of deceit and deception, yes self-deception, are only viciously into vacuous statements and pseudo questions which are all reducible to calling out loud and boorishly flying spaghetti monster -- instead of dealing with the issue of God on the basis of reason, and of course first tackling the ultimate reality of there has always been something.


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

Okay, here is the challenge again, to ye all satanic atheists:

Has there always been something: yes, no?


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

Here is something for you, Pancreas, to exercise what remnant of reasoning you still command:

You say God is an assumption etc., circular talk whatever -- yes, you do run and hide in charging others with assumptions, what you cannot think out for yourself, do a serious self-conducted research on this question I mean study:


How mankind came to the concept of God from the first ever records of man's mention of God to the present, in specifics, God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

But you guys satanic atheists you don't do ever any serious thinking of your own but you always swallow rod, line, sinker, hook, and bait, trash like the following from also a fellow satanic atheist sans (i.e. without) reasoning astrophysicist who abuses his own reasoning faculty in stating: "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Just because of a disease, that astrophysicist who is in effect shouting as to sell books, flying spaghetti monster, he is paralyzed with a permanent jeering grimace in his face is no justification that he prefers to omit asking himself if he would allow his reason to be active, "and what of the origin of a law such as gravity?"


Well, Pancreas, the concept of God is the fruit of mankind's millennial eons of thinking with reason intact, and it is not what you bereft of a functional reason hide behind: the pseudo term assumption -- you would not be able to think out what is an assumption either, you are just good at spewing forth vacuous utterances.



Gerry


Addendum:

Originally posted by Mdejess aka Gerry


http://robsilverton.wordpress.com/20...n/#comment-310


Dear Silverton:

Before anything else, I must commend you most highly that you have not suppressed my comments, so far.

You say:

My main concern with your argument is your focus on having a command of an objective view on reality. From my point of view, I wouldn’t dare to claim to have a grasp of an objective view on reality. I think we all strive to have an objective view, but who is to say if any of us can actually be objective? If God does in fact exist, then who of us could claim to objectively understand the mind of God, or to speak for Him? The lesson we learn from Socrates is that “the wise man knows he knows nothing”, his position is one of absolute humility. In my view, Socrates was wise enough to realise that humans are inherently limited in their perspectives (self-deceptive, if you will) and that objectivity is a distant goal, one to be strived towards by all of us but perhaps never fully achieved by anyone. Taking this into account, Socrates strove to create a means of establishing practical truths between individuals. Imagine you and I are sitting in a room. We could no doubt agree that the room exists and that both of us exist, as these are part of our observable reality.


You are really now into the humility tack.

Because you are so humble you dare not be sure of the reality of the objectively actual existence of things which things even were you not around to be so humble as to be not certain of their objective reality, they do exist.

And you bring in the authority of Socrates, who according to you was of the conviction that he and mankind know nothing to be certain to exist in objective reality.

Well, that is a misplaced humility whereby you divorce yourself from the reality of the nose in your face which exists even when you die and cease existing as a living person, but your nose in your face and your whole body still exist even though now lifeless, but still retaining the material details of a once living human being.

Do not go far into manipulation of concepts and words, and do not bring in humility that requires you to disown the certain knowledge of the existence of your nose.

Socrates were he around would tell you that he and you are certain of the existence of your each one’s respective nose.
As also of your balls, unless you have no balls but you have something else which people with balls need in the female representatives of humanity, in order to procreate their own kind, namely, a human baby.

So, you are good in manipulation of concepts and words in order to display humility of the phony kind which serves to self-deceive yourself, in order that you can argue to the lack of certainty of objective reality, like the nose in your face and the balls in your groin.

The nose in your face and the balls in your groin as also in Socrates’ they are the evidence for the existence of God, whose concept in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, is that God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

Now, what did Socrates mean that he and mankind do not know anything for certain?

Of course, obviously not that he and mankind do not know for a certainty the existence of nose in the face of a human being and also balls in guys — and also corresponding reciprocal organs in gals, but that he cannot know everything like in his days how Achilles could not outstrip a tortoise in any race where Achilles fool-heartedly allows the tortoise even just an inch in starting point ahead of Achilles.

Suppose, forgive me for being harsh, you make of a list of the things in actual objective reality of existing things like the nose in your face and balls in your groin (I am presuming that you are a guy, but if you are a gal, then make that your copulation and baby-birth canal in your groin), then we can know better what exactly your humility and that of the humility you ascribe to Socrates, in you both saying that man does not know anything to certainty, for us two as surely as we have intelligence, to analyze how this kind of uncertainty consists in and whether therefore in the long long run, you can say that God, the creator of everything with a beginning does not exist.

Dear Silverton, now you will complain that I am into ad hominems, and you are correct.

And the reason why I am into ad hominems (directed to the man, to the human person) is because unless reasonable people direct a man to himself like his nose and balls, any man who is self-deceived so badly as to be a master of manipulation of concepts and words to prove to himself there is no God, even when the existence of nose and balls are evidence of God’s existence, such a man will go forth to preach to others simple-minded busy everyday people that there is no God, it is all flying spaghetti monster and invisible pink unicorn and celestial teapot and tooth fairy.

Anyway, please do make a list of things which you are not certain to exist in objective reality, and for that you and as you allege of Socrates, you both are so humble on which account.

That is one very bad case of misplaced and thus fake, phony, vacuous humility, it is self-deception posing for a justification an appeal to the virtue of humility, not any genuine acknowledgment of true realization of the limitation of human knowledge, which limitation does not thereby mean that a guy anyone man in the street man and Socrates cannot be sure of the existence of the nose in their face and the balls in their groin.

Never talk and preach with manipulated concepts and words as to be unmindful that you still have your feet in contact with the ground of reality, or still subject even though supposedly weightless to gravity; so be gravely serious, solemn even, keep in actual objective contact with the reality of existing things, then you will not suffer the loss of reality and spin yourself on and on and feel so sure that at least one thing that you are sure of is that you are not sure of anything — that is a multi-tied up knot for Socrates to unravel, to disentangle, but the man Socrates is not really that stupid as not to smell a rat somewhere in that kind of talk (apologies to the rodent family members though, for they are as entitled to existence from God as also rational mankind, and they never doubt for one moment that they do have certainty of objective reality).

Mdejess


[ Well. to date, Silverton, has stopped corresponding with me in his own blog. ]

( To be continued. )


Quick reply to this message Reply Quote Quote Multi-Quote This Message Blog this Post

tWebber

Enrolled: October 5th, 2005 Posts: 716

Male Christian Liberal
Amen 9 Times in 9 Posts
gerry's Avatar
gerry

Offline

Thread Owner
March 25th 2012 04:25 PM
Post: #396
Re: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

I am sorry, I am just into interacting with Pancreas; if any atheists have accepted my challenge to sponsor a common thread on there has always been something, please just pm me.


I don't read posts from atheists anymore because they are all vacuous statements, owing to the tragedy that they do not first come to terms with the ultimate reality of there has always been something.



Gerry


Quick reply to this message Reply Quote Quote Multi-Quote This Message Blog this Post

If it hurts, stop.

Enrolled: December 29th, 2009 Posts: 1,566

Male Vague Australian
Amen 260 Times in 169 Posts
pancreasman's Avatar
pancreasman

Offline
March 25th 2012 04:43 PM
Post: #397
Re: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

Jump to Post
Originally posted by gerry

I am sorry, I am just into interacting with Pancreas; if any atheists have accepted my challenge to sponsor a common thread on there has always been something, please just pm me.


I don't read posts from atheists anymore because they are all vacuous statements, owing to the tragedy that they do not first come to terms with the ultimate reality of there has always been something.



Gerry

There you go. Arrogance not seeking any kind of discussion. You are, and have always been, gerry, a fraud and a coward.


Quick reply to this message Reply Quote Quote Multi-Quote This Message Blog this Post

tWebber

Enrolled: October 5th, 2005 Posts: 716

Male Christian Liberal
Amen 9 Times in 9 Posts
gerry's Avatar
gerry

Offline

Thread Owner
Yesterday 05:22 PM
Post: #398
Re: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

Dear Pancreas:



Yes, just keep on and on being vacuous and talking vacuity -- seeing that you have no use for you reasoning faculty and it has died a death from desuetude.

Originally posted by Dictionary.com

desuetude [des-wi-tood, -tyood]  

des•ue•tude   [des-wi-tood, -tyood] Show IPA

noun
the state of being no longer used or practiced.

Origin:
1425–75; late Middle English < Latin dēsuētūdo, equivalent to dēsuē-, base of dēsuēscere to become disaccustomed to, unlearn ( dē- de- + suēscere to become accustomed to) + -tūdō -tude


You don't have the guts and the brain to co-sponsor with me a thread on there has always been something.

That is a fact.

Now a dictionary definition is ok? because you want to use it? whats wrong Gerry did you lose your reasoning faculty?
Gerry you're a TROLL (look that up on your dictionary.com)

[gerry]

Now a dictionary definition is ok? because you want to use it? whats wrong Gerry did you lose your reasoning faculty?
Gerry you're a TROLL (look that up on your dictionary.com)

Dear skira65:


You want to take over from Pancreas, good!


The dictionary definition is okay: but when we are into more difficult questions we must always work together to first come to concurrence on our concepts and words of the things we are into exchange of thoughts on, otherwise we will be talking past each other's head.

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


Now, I notice, and dear good readers here take notice also, that you skira are into the tack which is routine de riguer with satanc atheists of calling someone TROLL; that is understandable from satanic atheists, and I take the presumption that you are one: because you breathe like one from your vacuous words; sounding just like all satanic atheists -- all your vacuous arguments against God are reducible to calling God fallaciously diversionary epithets like flying spaghetti monster, and your opponents troll: that is the evidence of your self-maimed brain and thus also your atrophied reasoning faculty.

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


Well, I will just issue the challenge again to all ye satanic atheists, to co-sponsor with me a thread on:

There has always been something existing: yes, no?

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



See? dear readers here, they will run away because they are scared stiff of facing the actual objective reality of existing things -- but don't be surprised if they again holler: flying spaghetti monster on God, or now troll on me.




Gerry

Addendum:

http://robsilverton.wordpress.com/20...n/#comment-310


Dear Silverton:

I will just react to your thoughts.

1. Silverton: Pascal’s Wager is a fairly well known concept in religious debates, though [it] is perhaps of more interest to Atheists. If you search for it on the Internet you should find a fair few examples.

Marius: I can’t see why you are so keen on Pascal’s Wager; are you just into taking to task that Christians are betting on the existence of God and that is not worthy of them: because they are supposed to take God’s existence on faith, faith meaning to you without any rational basis at all? You are wrong to say that faith is taking something without any rational basis at all. I like to ask you why you are taking this Pascal’s Wager so obsessively; it is just a common sense way to deciding to do something or not to do something, by calculating the risk involved.

Tell me what exactly do you find unacceptable let us say to yourself should you assent to the existence of God because it is a better bet than otherwise?

2. Silverton: The idea that God’s existence cannot be proved or disproved via reasoning is central to the wager, so I would suggest that not all Catholics follow the doctrine of the Church to the letter.

Marius: You have not read and understood about the rational proofs of God’s existence from the thinkers of the Christian faith from since when the Christian faith started with her founder, Jesus Christ, to the present; so it is very irrational for you to claim that God’s existence cannot be proofed by reasoning. What is happening with people atheists like yourself is that you do not allow reason to go beyond what you consider to be your self-imposed walls of a dungeon, beyond which walls you will always declare “We cannot know.” So, what is the point of talking reason with you, when you have already dungeoned your reason so as not to go beyond the bounds you set to your reasoning faculty. You put yourself in a dungeon or let us call it a cave, and when people who have gone out from the cave come back in to tell you about what they know outside the cave, you intone with great phony self-deceptive humility that you cannot know anything about the world or existence outside the cave, and therefore you need not go at all outside the cave. Tell me, what are the walls of your cave?

3. Silverton: Thank you for the link, very interesting. I have to admit that I wouldn’t have expected to see such a statement in church doctrine regarding God being knowable to reason. I don’t suppose at any point they actually provide the reasoning? That would be very interesting indeed.

Marius: That is the trouble with you, you do not know the explanations and proofs of God’s existence, but you keep on intoning that there is no proof for God’s existence and by way of fake humility you put up a pretense to also admit that there can be no proof for God’s non-existence either. The fact is that God’s existence can be proven on evidence just like your balls and my balls can be proven to exist on evidence. I propose that you take up the study of what is evidence, the kinds of, and also most important what is the mechanism how evidence works to enable man to from a fact he knows come to know another fact. Atheists are always intoning there is no evidence, but they have not produced any treatise on evidence. The law people are the ones who know most about evidence, read them.

4. Silverton: I think we are both in agreement that the basis of reasoning should be our everyday observable reality. We can agree that you exist and that I exist, that the Sun, the Moon, the stars exist, etc. These can all be considered irreducible truths, or axioms. But the question is how do we go on to make further assumptions about the things in reality that we can’t necessarily see, hear, touch, smell, taste? This is why I brought in the ideas of Inductive and Deductive reasoning in my post, syllogisms help us to form reasonable conjectures about the things we cannot see. Here are a few examples of inductive reasoning:

Proposition 1: All swans I have seen are white
Conclusion: All swans are white

[... etc. ]

Again, it is clear that we have already accepted the conclusion before validating the proposition.

[... etc. ]

… but I am quite sure you will again accuse me of manipulating concepts and words, and we will continue to more or less go around in circles. I hope my argument makes sense to you, and I have enjoyed our discussion thus far.

Marius: You say: “Again, it is clear that we have already accepted the conclusion before validating the proposition.”

Okay, let us go to your balls and my balls, before you use your syllogistic manipulation of concepts and words, you do know that you have balls and I do know that I have balls, and we do know that any guy who is born as a guy without any birth defect or deficiency, whatever his psychological preference to be a gal, has balls. Do you need to do syllogistic manipulation of concepts and words to come to the certainty that you have balls?

That is what you are so wrong about, that it is assuming the conclusion when you seek to prove that your balls exist by syllogistic manipulation of concepts and words, so that otherwise you cannot be sure and are not allowed to be certain that you do have balls.

My point is that there is more to the certainty of things in the actual objective reality of existing things than that you have to approach a fact to be certain by first not knowing anything about it, unless and until you have manipulated concepts and words with syllogistic steps and then come to the declaration that the conclusion follows and therefore you are now assured that you have balls.

[ -- and can apply to get a marriage license in a place where the government requires you to have balls otherwise no marriage for you -- even though you can just live with a woman, but no marriage for guys without balls: because the government there is of the position that marriage as a social institution must be only for guys with balls and it is a political question, meaning you cannot have a state i.e. a country where people don't or cannot produce people as to form a country, which the government is interested in because these the government guys love to be running the government, and what is there to govern if people don’t produce people because they have no balls?]

Okay, tell me, how do you prove i.e. transit from your syllogistic manipulation of concepts and words to the fact in the actual objective reality of existing things that you have balls?

Then we can continue or resume our exchange of thoughts on how God’s existence is known to man by his reasoning faculty — and that even without any syllogistic manipulation of concepts and words.

I want to see whether you can really genuinely truly productively reason out things, or you are or have enslaved yourself to syllogistic manipulation of concepts and words, and feel so sure that anything outside syllogistic manipulation etc. cannot be any reliable proof for its existence.

I will just tell you, reasoning is much more than just engaging in logic.

Do this exercise:

Choose which sentence of the two below is an assumption:

(i) A teapot orbits the sun between earth and Mars. [From Bertrand Russell]
(ii) God created everything with a beginning. [From Marius Dejess]

Marius Dejess

Silerton has after some days sent a reply to my last message in his blog, that above, and I told him:

Dear Silverton:

I am into a forum where atheists though in a Christian forum enjoy utmost liberty to talk without any deletion or edition etc., except that they don't engage in uncivil and unacceptable speech.

Join me there, I have a thread coming up on the question:

Has there always been something existing?


Look me up in this forum, my name there is Gerry:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...od-s-existence

So, I will just leave you now to your syllogistic manipulation of concepts and words, and hope that you will take the reality step of starting from the actual objective reality of existing things.


Mdejess
032812wed 0821h

[pancreasman]

More non answers from gerry.

[gerry]

Gerry, I've really had it with you. You are a disgrace to theists and atheists alike on this forum. You are incapable of decent, respectful discussion. I don't see any point in further exchange unless you are willing to change that, but 25 pages of verbal abuse and rants and not supporting the point you're making tell me you won't/can't do that. I may return to this thread, but don't hold your breath.

as for now,

goodbye

wolper

Your last presence, Wolper, in this thread:

March 14th 2012, 07:03 AM #373
wolper's Avatar
wolper
wolper is offline tWebber
---

It is now in my place August 8, 2012 Wednesday, 0739hrs.

And I am all the time correct with seeing into your cogntive or non-cognitive psychology, always into evasion and self-obstruction against the light of correct thinking getting into your mind and brain and heart.

Yes, you have run away like every atheist, always a fugitive from thinking and reasoning and facing the reality of existing things in the actual objectivity of the world and life.


I will now read the rest of the posts of atheists in this thread during my absence.


Gerry

[gerry]

Well. I have not seen any new thoughts from atheists but their routine whining about everything except to come to the business on hand, what is their concept of evidence, what of universe, and what of God.

You see, everyone here, atheists are into evasion and self-obstruction when they talk against the existence of God: evasion from thinking and reasoning by self-obstruction against their mind coming to the experience of thinking and reasoning.

All I want in this thread is first to get atheists to work with me to come to concurrence on what is the concept of evidence we must employ to determine (on the basis of evidence) that God exists or does not exist, again, on the basis of evidence.

And also equally important, what should be our concurred on concepts of God and universe; that is the why of the title of this thread:

• The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

Okay, now atheists here, will you ever come to work with me together for a common mutual reciprocally accepted by us from both sides on the following words/concepts: evidence, universe, God?



Notice, everyone reading this thread, atheists will not have the guts to go into this direction, they will write on everything which is tantamount to nothing relevant to the task at hand, the issue:

• The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

Gerry

[shunyadragon]

Okay, all atheists who are into whining and putting themselves up as ignorant without any functional reasoning faculty, tell me, which is the reasonable thought for a human with a functional reasoning faculty:

There has always been something, yes, no?

I believe this question has been answered many times by all concerned. Yes, something has always existed. It is possibly God the creator of all 'things,' space and time. It is also the possibility of the existence of an infinite and eternal Natural existence governed by Natural Law.