The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

[pancreasman]

lol. How about I act as a troublemaker but NOT in the way you defined?

[gerry]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Yeah I got that.

Dear Wolper, I am so glad to talk with you, for I see in you a reasonable person, even though you used in one post the image of a four-legged animal, a unicorn, to compare God to.

No need to bring in images to compare God to, even though you want to tell people very clearly that their concept of God is as unbelievable as a flying spaghetti monster, or an invisible pink unicorn, or a celestial teapot, just say their concept of God is unbelievable, period: for everyone literate knows what is the meaning of unbelievable.


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

Okay, so you agree not to require me to work with you to define what is space-time continuum and what is cosmos, but we will just concentrate on defining what is the universe; you will notice that I am using the article 'the' to prefix the universe: because we are talking about the universe, the one we are living in and we see the sun and the moon and the stars etc. to be present in.

About your impression that evidence is as clear to people so that they don't need to define it, I beg to disagree with you totally, for it is not as intelligible to people as the examples you give of the words: "is", "the", "for", or "define".

Look up the article on evidence in Wikipedia: you would think that science-minded folks and atheists will delight in disquisitioning about evidence in such a much consulted web reference text which is non-partisan in policy, that they will write copiously on evidence in order to inure readers to the importance of evidence in everything that is of any issue for man


But what do you see?

Here is some kind of a disclaimer by the editors of the article on evidence:

Many issues surround evidence, making it the subject of much discussion and disagreement. In addition to its subtlety, evidence plays an important role in many academic disciplines, including science and law, adding to the discourse surrounding it.
http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rc...S8kB-1i5l1UGZw

Now, look up Wiki's article on Flying Spaghetti Monster, and notice how many editors are working so happily about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so that compared to the work they are doing in the article on evidence, they are not at all happy to disquisition on evidence, but yes on Flying Spaghetti Monster, it is on and on and on.


No, I am not impressed at all by your to all appearances dis-interest on what is evidence as to say that it is clear to people the concept of, like the words: "is", "the", "for", or "define".


Let us however leave evidence for later, I like you and me to talk further on the concept of the universe.

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

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

I am saving that for later when we have already covered universe, evidence, and if necessary, existence, man, etc.

But you know already my concept of God of which you have already put up your exceptions.

I will attend to when we get to God in earnest.

Why save the discussion of God the concept of for the end?

Because we are now into determining the limits of God, it's like you want to talk about building a house but your contractor is very keen to know what money you have or other assets which can be changed into cash -- for him: so he is going to talk about your dream house only at the end when he has or you and he have ascertained how much financing you can and do command.



Gerry

[gerry]

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

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

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

Gerry

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

Dear Tan:

Before anything else I hope you were not offended with my calling you Tanaka and now Tan.

If you have something personal for us both to talk about in a civil manner or you are curious about me, then I will welcome you to pm me, but if it has to do with topics which are in forum boards, I very much prefer that you bring them up in public.

I don't remember now what we talked about here in this thread on the universe is the evidence for God's existence.

My memory of you is that you are a Jew and I always presume that a Jew is a theist, for they are the ones Jews that is who give us the Old Testament in which God their God of the Old Testament has a continuous interaction with them, so that He promises you guys to have descendants as many as the sands in the oceans and other many many many material blessings.


And now the articulate Jews are into atheism, that reminds me of what Jesus says: the first shall be last and the last first, even though I tell Jesus it is all a matter of where or which end one is looking at the guests at table, but I guess He will tell me, stupid, don't you know that head spot at table is where the master is seated at. "Okay, Jesus, you have argued well."


By the way, did you send me a pm, I received some pm's from people and I answered them, yes to just bring their concerns to the forum -- can't recall having received any pm from you, though.

But I also received a reminder from some mod, not to accuse people of lying even though I if memory serves I always add some phrase so that they are unwittingly lying not satanically lying.

And previously two or even three times about my not allowed to post in the wrong board, and in particular not to post in the board reserved for non-Christians only




Gerry

[wolper]

Dear Wolper,

(...), even though you want to tell people very clearly that their concept of God is as unbelievable as a flying spaghetti monster, or an invisible pink unicorn, or a celestial teapot, just say their concept of God is unbelievable, period: for everyone literate knows what is the meaning of unbelievable.

I have no need whatsoever to tell people that. I'm completely comfortable with people believing in God.

Okay, so you agree not to require me to work with you to define what is space-time continuum and what is cosmos,

Not for now, no.

but we will just concentrate on defining what is the universe; you will notice that I am using the article 'the' to prefix the universe: because we are talking about the universe, the one we are living in and we see the sun and the moon and the stars etc. to be present in.

We did not define the universe as just 'sun, moon and stars etc', but as everything that exists anyhow, anyway, so that also includes everything that exists but that we don't know the existence of. If there is anything beyond the Big Bang, that is by our definition (that we agreed upon) still part of the universe.

Let us however leave evidence for later, I like you and me to talk further on the concept of the universe.

Let's not; let's move on with the thread. We agreed (for the duration of this thread!) upon the definitions of universe and of evidence. Any further definitions we need to agree upon before we move to God?

[shunyadragon]

Dear Shuny, I am glad that you are around.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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



Gerry

OK, reword the definition''

"cogent evidence - any facts that helps to establish the truth of something." Relies ofn the definition of cogent and fact as provided before.

We have all agreed as to what the universe is.

[Tanakh Keeper]

But I also received a reminder from some mod, not to accuse people of lying even though I if memory serves I always add some phrase so that they are unwittingly lying not satanically lying.

Most kind of you.

[gerry]

lol. How about I act as a troublemaker but NOT in the way you defined?

Perhaps you can do me a favor and tell me what you don't like with me.




Gerry

[gerry]

Originally posted by gerry
Dear Wolper,

(...), even though you want to tell people very clearly that their concept of God is as unbelievable as a flying spaghetti monster, or an invisible pink unicorn, or a celestial teapot, just say their concept of God is unbelievable, period: for everyone literate knows what is the meaning of unbelievable.

I have no need whatsoever to tell people that. I'm completely comfortable with people believing in God.

Okay, so you agree not to require me to work with you to define what is space-time continuum and what is cosmos,

Not for now, no.

but we will just concentrate on defining what is the universe; you will notice that I am using the article 'the' to prefix the universe: because we are talking about the universe, the one we are living in and we see the sun and the moon and the stars etc. to be present in.

We did not define the universe as just 'sun, moon and stars etc', but as everything that exists anyhow, anyway, so that also includes everything that exists but that we don't know the existence of. If there is anything beyond the Big Bang, that is by our definition (that we agreed upon) still part of the universe.

Let us however leave evidence for later, I like you and me to talk further on the concept of the universe.

Let's not; let's move on with the thread. We agreed (for the duration of this thread!) upon the definitions of universe and of evidence. Any further definitions we need to agree upon before we move to God?

Wolper, I have two impressions of you in your post above:

1. You have in your heart the fear that I am into some kind of tricks to entrap you into a kind of gotcha.

2. You are rushing things.

Perhaps or as usual, you will tell me that I am wrong, in which case I propose that you ask other Christians what they think of your message above, of course after their having read my messages here.


As regards 2, please don't rush things; if we agree to rush things, it is to our common disadvantage: for as the saying goes “haste is waste” when there is no call at all to rush things.

Why are you in such a rush? Can we not take things calmly without rushing that is?


As regards 1, you are like Pixie, he cannot divest his heart and mind that I am into "rhetorical trickery" against him.


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


I say that I like you and me to talk more about the universe; I am not yet completely through with my grasp of the universe, are you?

You say:

From Gerry: ...but we will just concentrate on defining what is the universe; you will notice that I am using the article 'the' to prefix the universe: because we are talking about the universe, the one we are living in and we see the sun and the moon and the stars etc. to be present in.

We did not define the universe as just 'sun, moon and stars etc', but as everything that exists anyhow, anyway, so that also includes everything that exists but that we don't know the existence of. If there is anything beyond the Big Bang, that is by our definition (that we agreed upon) still part of the universe.

Do you notice that you at once are already very anxious that I am changing the concept of universe I have already agreed on with you?

Read my boxed words, did I say that I am into just including the 'sun, moon and stars etc', as the only components of the universe?

Yes, I accept and am very glad that we have agreed on as what you remind me about the universe being:

everything that exists anyhow, anyway, so that also includes everything that exists but that we don't know the existence of. If there is anything beyond the Big Bang, that is by our definition (that we agreed upon) still part of the universe.

That is completely acceptable to me, specially that part about If there is anything beyond the Big Bang, that is by our definition (that we agreed upon) still part of the universe.

I will just append at the bottom of this definition we both now accept, my original description of the universe, as follows.

The totality of existence where we live in and are parts of, as also everything existing exists in, even just imaginable things subjects of man's discourse.

Have you attended to this request from me in #55:

Sure, I will accept your formulation the one I propose as I can make out from your words, provided we agree to add the following phrase [ see words in italic ] to it, so that it is formulated as follows:

The universe where we live in is the totality of existence: anything that exists anyhow is a part of the universe, including imaginable things subjects of man's discourse.

I guess you will notice now that I am not yet through with the concept of the universe even though we have come to an agreement on the definition, still I want to talk with you about the components of the universe both in terms of their physical particle composition and also of their composition in terms of animate and in-animate components, like plants and animals as also humans are animate components and the sun, the moon, the stars, etc., the earth, its oceans, its continents, its volcanoes, etc., stones, water, minerals, etc. are in-animate components of the universe.


But we will get to evidence, and of course God, as soon as I get a more complete grasp of the universe -- with you.




Gerry

[pancreasman]

Perhaps you can do me a favor and tell me what you don't like with me.




Gerry

It's not that I don't like you, Gerry. All I have to go on are your posts. Your posts are vague, your use of language is idiosyncratic. Your prose style is ponderous, pompous and opaque. You repeat yourself over and over without building any arguments or reasons for your assertions. You post too many demeaning asides about people who disagree with you. You repeatedly accuse people of lying. Your posts are too long and yet you demand others be succinct. Anytime anyone shows any erudition on any subject you dismiss it. There is no real element of discussion, or appreciation of what others may say, you're so busy trying to force everybody to obey 'Gerry's rules' which really boil down to 'You must agree uncritically with everything I say'. You accuse others of confusing the issues when it's you that happily would have a conversation about your concept of a concept. The fact that you can't see how ridiculous that is says volumes.

I wrote a song once which may apply to you:

Get over yourself
You're not very bright
It's plain accidental
Whenever you're right
Your slim grasp of logic
Gives philosophers fright
Get over yourself
You're not very bright.

[gerry]

OK, reword the definition''

"cogent evidence - any facts that helps to establish the truth of something." Relies ofn the definition of cogent and fact as provided before.

We have all agreed as to what the universe is.

Dear Shuny:


I have for myself a canon on how to define a word specially one that is already much controverted about, namely:

Don't use a word in the definition of another word that will further add to its (word to be defined) controversial environment.

Your reworded definition of evidence has the word truth which is itself one that is plagued with a very controversial environment; even Jesus was interrogated by Pilate with "What is truth?" when Jesus told Pilate that He "should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."



Okay, work again on your definition of evidence, and adopt that canon from yours truly.




Gerry

Annex: John 18
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

[gerry]

It's not that I don't like you, Gerry. All I have to go on are your posts. Your posts are vague, your use of language is idiosyncratic. Your prose style is ponderous, pompous and opaque. You repeat yourself over and over without building any arguments or reasons for your assertions. You post too many demeaning asides about people who disagree with you. You repeatedly accuse people of lying. Your posts are too long and yet you demand others be succinct. Anytime anyone shows any erudition on any subject you dismiss it. There is no real element of discussion, or appreciation of what others may say, you're so busy trying to force everybody to obey 'Gerry's rules' which really boil down to 'You must agree uncritically with everything I say'. You accuse others of confusing the issues when it's you that happily would have a conversation about your concept of a concept. The fact that you can't see how ridiculous that is says volumes.

I wrote a song once which may apply to you:

Get over yourself
You're not very bright
It's plain accidental
Whenever you're right
Your slim grasp of logic
Gives philosophers fright
Get over yourself
You're not very bright.

Thanks for your information about what is wrong with me for which I presume I can say that you don't like.

Or you still do not dislike me? For all my wrongness? Hahahahaha!



Okay, I will ask you to give me your own self thought out and self worded concept of what is the universe, in not more than 30 words.




Gerry

[gerry]

Addendum:

The line below from my post above should have the word me at the end:

Thanks for your information about what is wrong with me for which I presume I can say that you don't like me.

Sorry for the trouble.




Gerry

[gerry]

Dear readers, you see the God debate is like a piece of a very complex and complicated machinery, if people rush things and don't attend to every little however apparently inconsequential nut and bolt, then that piece of machinery, the God debate, will never come to any conclusion, and that is a disaster like the last space shuttle that came down in a blazing catastrophe with all hands on deck killed: because some people did not ever imagine that a piece of foam insulation the size of a small briefcase giving way would trigger a calamitous and horrendous annihilation.


Now, atheists don't want to attend to the detailed nitty-gritty (but yes they go for muddling nit-picking) details of the God debate, they want to rush, fearing that if they don't rush things, God will not continue to be non-existent.

God might suddenly pop up while they are calmly reasoning out why He exists or why He doesn't exist.




Gerry

[pancreasman]

What's the difference between 'nit-picking' and 'detailed nitty gritty'? Oh, I know, If you do it it's getting at the nitty gritty, if anyone else does it they're nit picking.


STOP ATTRIBUTING MOTIVES TO PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW!!!!!!!


You haven't even STARTED debating anything yet. You're still caught up in defining what 'is' is. Wake me up when you post anything worth responding to.

[shunyadragon]

Dear Shuny:


I have for myself a canon on how to define a word specially one that is already much controverted about, namely:

Don't use a word in the definition of another word that will further add to its (word to be defined) controversial environment.

Your reworded definition of evidence has the word truth which is itself one that is plagued with a very controversial environment; even Jesus was interrogated by Pilate with "What is truth?" when Jesus told Pilate that He "should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."



Okay, work again on your definition of evidence, and adopt that canon from yours truly.




Gerry

Annex: John 18
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

My definition of evidence stands as 'cogent evidence.' I changed the definition so the word does not appear in the definition. I provided the definition of cogent and fact, which would be acceptable to atheists and agnostics. The definitions I provided come from standard sources. No more changes.