The object and concept of God and the existence of God.

[Sanmario]

You see, it is my conviction founded on thinking on reason and observation and hence intelligent conclusion, that from the concept of God as the creator of everything with a beginning, man can, as I could and did, arrive at the certainty of God existing, by from the concept of God I go to the objectival realm of the universe and man and everything with a beginning like the nose in our face, and find evidence sufficient to me as to ascertain myself that God exists as creator of everything with a beginning.

See what you can contribute to my thinking and also thus we will all learn from each other, in re God exists or not

_________________________________







By the way, can someone tell me how to remove this pop up, see below, which is occupying space on my screen and it stays on the screen all the time, even when I scroll up down left right on the screen.

You can now upgrade your account to site supporter status permanently and never see advertisements again! Today only it is half off!

For more information please click this link: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/lifetime-premium-membership-added.176992/[/quote]

Happy thinking and writing, everyone!

 

[Curious George]

You see, it is my conviction founded on thinking on reason and observation and hence intelligent conclusion, that from the concept of God as the creator of everything with a beginning, man can, as I could and did, arrive at the certainty of God existing, by from the concept of God I go to the objectival realm of the universe and man and everything with a beginning like the nose in our face, and find evidence sufficient to me as to ascertain myself that God exists as creator of everything with a beginning.

See what you can contribute to my thinking and also thus we will all learn from each other, in re God exists or not

_________________________________







By the way, can someone tell me how to remove this pop up, see below, which is occupying space on my screen and it stays on the screen all the time, even when I scroll up down left right on the screen.

I am certainly interested in progressing this thread further but we seem to be stuck.

We are trying to contemplate the definition of a god. Not any particular god. Just first any god. What defines a god? You have shortened your definition, yet I am thinking this refers again to a god not to any god.

Tell me, if you came across an entity described within my definition, would you consider such an entity a god? Why or why not?

 

[Sanmario]

@Curious George
@columbus


Dear George, you tell me:
"You [ I ] have shortened your [ my ] definition, yet I am [ you are ] thinking this refers again(?) to a god not to any god."

Here is my very short concept of God:
"God is the creator of everything with a beginning."

I can't comprehend why you want to distinguish between a god and any god, it is the same, as long as it is in concept the creator of everything with a beginning.

I invite you to tell me what one god and what any god are not identical, when both of them are identical in concept: because there is only one god or any one god that is in concept the creator of everything with a beginning.

Let you give me one god and one any god which both are in concept not identical, WHEN I AM TELLING YOU THAT MY CONCEPT OF GOD IS IN CONCEPT THE CREATOR OF EVERYTHING WITH A BEGINNING.

Sanmario said: ↑
You see, it is my conviction founded on thinking on reason and observation and hence intelligent conclusion, that from the concept of God as the creator of everything with a beginning, man can, as I could and did, arrive at the certainty of God existing, by from the concept of God I go to the objectival realm of the universe and man and everything with a beginning like the nose in our face, and find evidence sufficient to me as to ascertain myself that God exists as creator of everything with a beginning.

See what you can contribute to my thinking and also thus we will all learn from each other, in re God exists or not.

I am certainly interested in progressing this thread further but we seem to be stuck.

We are trying to contemplate the definition of a god. Not any particular god. Just first any god. What defines a god? You have shortened your definition, yet I am thinking this refers again to a god not to any god.

Tell me, if you came across an entity described within my definition, would you consider such an entity a god? Why or why not?

 

[Sanmario]

@Curious George
@columbus


Here are our concepts of God or god I gathered together earlier:

Here is your concept of God:
god = an intelligent, immortal entity that has a degree of control over all things in the universe and more control over at least one specific aspect of the universe than any mortal thing.

And here is my concept of God:
God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

The object and concept of God and the existence of God.

[From George, The object and concept of God and the existence of God.] Tell me, if you came across an entity described within my definition, would you consider such an entity a god? Why or why not?

Now I have this most brief concept of God, namely, the creator of everything with a beginning.

Please tell me, dear George, shouldn’t your concept above, it can be also put better and very briefly as god is the creator of everything with a beginning?

And with that concept of God, namely, the creator of everything with a beginning, shouldn’t we now go into the realm of objective existence and look for everything with a beginning, for everything with a beginning is evidence of God’s existence in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

It sounds so simple?

Anyway, what do you find incoherent and inconsistent with my line of reasoning?

 

[Sanmario]

@Curious George
@columbus


Dear George and Columbus, I am still waiting for your response to my latest post, see below,

Just in case you don't care to continue with our exchange, please inform me with a last reply in this thread, like this: "I am leaving this thread," okay? Then I will no longer alert you two.

Dear readers here, I will continue to talk about my ideas in this thread, on The object and concept of God and the existence of God.

@Curious George
@columbus


Here are our concepts of God or god I gathered together earlier:

@Curious George
@columbus


Here are our concepts of God or god I gathered together earlier:

Here is your concept of God:
god = an intelligent, immortal entity that has a degree of control over all things in the universe and more control over at least one specific aspect of the universe than any mortal thing.

And here is my concept of God:
God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

The object and concept of God and the existence of God.

[...]

[From George, The object and concept of God and the existence of God.] Tell me, if you came across an entity described within my definition, would you consider such an entity a god? Why or why not?​

Now I have this most brief concept of God, namely, the creator of...

[...]

Now I have this most brief concept of God, namely, the creator of everything with a beginning.

Please tell me, dear George, shouldn’t your concept above, it can be also put better and very briefly as god is the creator of everything with a beginning?

And with that concept of God, namely, the creator of everything with a beginning, shouldn’t we now go into the realm of objective existence and look for everything with a beginning, for everything with a beginning is evidence of God’s existence in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

It sounds so simple?

Anyway, what do you find incoherent and inconsistent with my line of reasoning?

 

[Koldo]

@Curious George
@columbus


Here are our concepts of God or god I gathered together earlier:




Now I have this most brief concept of God, namely, the creator of everything with a beginning.

Please tell me, dear George, shouldn’t your concept above, it can be also put better and very briefly as god is the creator of everything with a beginning?

And with that concept of God, namely, the creator of everything with a beginning, shouldn’t we now go into the realm of objective existence and look for everything with a beginning, for everything with a beginning is evidence of God’s existence in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

It sounds so simple?

Anyway, what do you find incoherent and inconsistent with my line of reasoning?

Let's, for the sake of this conversation, say that I use the exact same definition and that I accept that everything ( except for God ) had a beginning. By holding both positions I would have to agree, logically, that 'God' exists. Where does that lead us though ? I could simply state that the initial singularity ( refer to this link : Initial singularity - Wikipedia ) is God.

 

[columbus]

Here is my very short concept of God:
"God is the creator of everything with a beginning."

Let me try this a different way.

My shortest concept is: The reason there is something, rather than nothing, is god.
This doesn't mean I am any sort of theist. Because that statement doesn't tell you anything about god. Not even if it currently exists, much less whether or what it thinks about gay sex and stuff we humans care about.
In fact, you can't even logically conclude that god has agency and deliberately created the universe. Humans seem always to assume that god resembles a human, with wished and plans and emotions and all sorts of human traits. I don't see any reason to believe that. The God of Abraham seems more like a paranoid desert war lord than the Ground of Being. I imagine god more like gravity. God doesn't want anything or do anything or care about anything, any more than gravity does. Gravity keeps the earth in orbit around the sun, but gravity doesn't decide to do that.
God is similar.
Tom

 

[Sanmario]

@Koldo


Dear Koldo, you ask:
Let's, for the sake of this conversation, say that I use the exact same definition and that I accept that everything ( except for God ) had a beginning. By holding both positions I would have to agree, logically, that 'God' exists. Where does that lead us though?

Here is my answer to your question:
That is a position in your mind, with that thought in your mind, we can you and I proceed to seek for God in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning, seek for God in the realm of reality outside and independent of our mind.

So, we are now in the objectival realm outside and independent of our mind, and we will search for everything with a beginning; what about babies at home and roses in our garden, they have a beginning, so they are evidence of God existing in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

You see, we humans have access to two realms, the objectival realm that exists outside our mind and independent of our mind, and the conceptival realm that exists in our mind, this is the scene of all kinds of thoughts whatsoever, no matter how absurd; but with the non-absurd thought like for example the idea of a large umbrella kept above in the sky, and we can change its location in the sky above us, then when we want in a rainy day, to have no rain falling on us, we then just have to move the giant umbrella to change its location as to be above us, and this giant umbrella can be as much as one square kilometer in size.

The giant umbrella in the sky is an example of a thought in our mind but it is not an absurd thought, for we have today the technology and the materials to fabricate and operate such a giant umbrella in the sky.

Do you get now and understand what I am telling folks here about the distinction between the objectival realm and the conceptival realm?

Let's, for the sake of this conversation, say that I use the exact same definition and that I accept that everything ( except for God ) had a beginning. By holding both positions I would have to agree, logically, that 'God' exists. Where does that lead us though ? I could simply state that the initial singularity ( refer to this link : Initial singularity - Wikipedia ) is God.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No prerequisite to establish any God's existance has not been offered. No template exists. Things like this are hopelessly cerebral. Thats the actuality.

 

[Sanmario]

@Nowhere Man


Thanks for reading my thread.

Would you like to read this proof of God from me?

Here it is:

1. Enunciate the concept of God, namely, God is the creator of everything with a beginning.
2. With this concept in our mind we go into reality to search for all instances of a thing that has a beginning, like babies in the home and roses in the garden.
3. Every instance we see with a beginning that is evidence of the existence of God in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning, to wit: the universe and man and all things we experience.
4. Therefore God exists, for there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim.

There, what do you say about my proof for God existing?

No prerequisite to establish any God's existance has not been offered. No template exists. Things like this are hopelessly cerebral. Thats the actuality.

 

[Sanmario]

Let us talk, dear atheists in particular, I will be back tomorrow morning.

Please divest yourselves of the attitude that moves you to say that I don't make coherent sentences, or that I can't read, that's not the heart and mind of people in the philosophy board: let's conduct ourselves as like philosophers of old, nothing personal but all into ideas by reasoning on observation and drawing intelligent conclusions.

Don't be uttering unkind words and then taking to exit.

Okay, tomorrow again, I will be back, with my ideas on how to prove God exists, from concept to object, okay?

 

[Sanmario]

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus
@9-10ths_Penguin
@siti


So, there, I am calling the posters above, namely:

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus
@9-10ths_Penguin
@siti

to come over and we will talk.

For those who complain that I did not reply to them, but I was too busy with one poster, like for example, one siti, he and I were into an one on one exchange, finally he threw a stink bomb, saying that I can't write coherent sentences, while taking to exit from our exchange.

Here is again my demonstration of God existing in concept as creator of everything with a beginning.

1. God in concept is the creator of everything with a beginning.
2. Everything in the environment we live and act in has a beginning.
3. There that is evidence galore of God existing.
4. Therefore God exists, corresponding to the concept of creator of everything with a beginning: because there is evidence everywhere in our environment of things with a beginning, which everything thereby together makes up inexorable evidence for God existing, corresponding to the concept of the creator of everything with a beginning.

So, this is the call to you, oh every poster here, in particular atheists, to comment on my proof:

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus
@9-10ths_Penguin
@siti

But abstain from throwing a stink bomb and marching off.

Don’t make categorical statements against my argument and/or my person and then march off into exit, while I demand that you prove your categorical statements against my argument and/or my person.


Dear readers here, there is a good probability that these persons with an @ before their names, in particular atheists, they will keep away, now that they have seen the proof of God existing, corresponding to the concept of God in His role as creator of everything with a beginning.

 

[columbus]

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus
@9-10ths_Penguin
@siti


So, there, I am calling the posters above, namely:

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus
@9-10ths_Penguin
@siti

to come over and we will talk.

For those who complain that I did not reply to them, but I was too busy with one poster, like for example, one siti, he and I were into an one on one exchange, finally he threw a stink bomb, saying that I can't write coherent sentences, while taking to exit from our exchange.

Here is again my demonstration of God existing in concept as creator of everything with a beginning.

1. God in concept is the creator of everything with a beginning.
2. Everything in the environment we live and act in has a beginning.
3. There that is evidence galore of God existing.
4. Therefore God exists, corresponding to the concept of creator of everything with a beginning: because there is evidence everywhere in our environment of things with a beginning, which everything thereby together makes up inexorable evidence for God existing, corresponding to the concept of the creator of everything with a beginning.

So, this is the call to you, oh every poster here, in particular atheists, to comment on my proof:

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus
@9-10ths_Penguin
@siti

But abstain from throwing a stink bomb and marching off.

Don’t make categorical statements against my argument and/or my person and then march off into exit, while I demand that you prove your categorical statements against my argument and/or my person.


Dear readers here, there is a good probability that these persons with an @ before their names, in particular atheists, they will keep away, now that they have seen the proof of God existing, corresponding to the concept of God in His role as creator of everything with a beginning.

No.
It's because you are an irritating poster. Have a nice life. But don't keep mentioning me in posts that I have no reason to bother with.
Tom

 

[ChristineM]

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus
@9-10ths_Penguin
@siti


So, there, I am calling the posters above, namely:

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus
@9-10ths_Penguin
@siti

to come over and we will talk.

For those who complain that I did not reply to them, but I was too busy with one poster, like for example, one siti, he and I were into an one on one exchange, finally he threw a stink bomb, saying that I can't write coherent sentences, while taking to exit from our exchange.

Here is again my demonstration of God existing in concept as creator of everything with a beginning.

1. God in concept is the creator of everything with a beginning.
2. Everything in the environment we live and act in has a beginning.
3. There that is evidence galore of God existing.
4. Therefore God exists, corresponding to the concept of creator of everything with a beginning: because there is evidence everywhere in our environment of things with a beginning, which everything thereby together makes up inexorable evidence for God existing, corresponding to the concept of the creator of everything with a beginning.

So, this is the call to you, oh every poster here, in particular atheists, to comment on my proof:

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus
@9-10ths_Penguin
@siti

But abstain from throwing a stink bomb and marching off.

Don’t make categorical statements against my argument and/or my person and then march off into exit, while I demand that you prove your categorical statements against my argument and/or my person.


Dear readers here, there is a good probability that these persons with an @ before their names, in particular atheists, they will keep away, now that they have seen the proof of God existing, corresponding to the concept of God in His role as creator of everything with a beginning.

I am not going to ask again that you stop spamming me

 

[ChristineM]

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus
@9-10ths_Penguin
@siti


So, there, I am calling the posters above, namely:

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus
@9-10ths_Penguin
@siti

to come over and we will talk.

For those who complain that I did not reply to them, but I was too busy with one poster, like for example, one siti, he and I were into an one on one exchange, finally he threw a stink bomb, saying that I can't write coherent sentences, while taking to exit from our exchange.

Here is again my demonstration of God existing in concept as creator of everything with a beginning.

1. God in concept is the creator of everything with a beginning.
2. Everything in the environment we live and act in has a beginning.
3. There that is evidence galore of God existing.
4. Therefore God exists, corresponding to the concept of creator of everything with a beginning: because there is evidence everywhere in our environment of things with a beginning, which everything thereby together makes up inexorable evidence for God existing, corresponding to the concept of the creator of everything with a beginning.

So, this is the call to you, oh every poster here, in particular atheists, to comment on my proof:

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus
@9-10ths_Penguin
@siti

But abstain from throwing a stink bomb and marching off.

Don’t make categorical statements against my argument and/or my person and then march off into exit, while I demand that you prove your categorical statements against my argument and/or my person.


Dear readers here, there is a good probability that these persons with an @ before their names, in particular atheists, they will keep away, now that they have seen the proof of God existing, corresponding to the concept of God in His role as creator of everything with a beginning.

The over use of the user directive in sanmario's post coinstitutes spam

 

[Curious George]

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus
@9-10ths_Penguin
@siti


So, there, I am calling the posters above, namely:

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus
@9-10ths_Penguin
@siti

to come over and we will talk.

For those who complain that I did not reply to them, but I was too busy with one poster, like for example, one siti, he and I were into an one on one exchange, finally he threw a stink bomb, saying that I can't write coherent sentences, while taking to exit from our exchange.

Here is again my demonstration of God existing in concept as creator of everything with a beginning.

1. God in concept is the creator of everything with a beginning.
2. Everything in the environment we live and act in has a beginning.
3. There that is evidence galore of God existing.
4. Therefore God exists, corresponding to the concept of creator of everything with a beginning: because there is evidence everywhere in our environment of things with a beginning, which everything thereby together makes up inexorable evidence for God existing, corresponding to the concept of the creator of everything with a beginning.

So, this is the call to you, oh every poster here, in particular atheists, to comment on my proof:

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus
@9-10ths_Penguin
@siti

But abstain from throwing a stink bomb and marching off.

Don’t make categorical statements against my argument and/or my person and then march off into exit, while I demand that you prove your categorical statements against my argument and/or my person.


Dear readers here, there is a good probability that these persons with an @ before their names, in particular atheists, they will keep away, now that they have seen the proof of God existing, corresponding to the concept of God in His role as creator of everything with a beginning.

I don't mind you quoting or tagging me each time.

I will try to answer later on today.

 

[Sanmario]

@Curious George


Have you read my one on one exchange with poster siti, in my thread on Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

Glad that you don't have that attitude, I will be waiting for our exchange to resume.

 

[Koldo]

@Koldo


Dear Koldo, you ask:
Let's, for the sake of this conversation, say that I use the exact same definition and that I accept that everything ( except for God ) had a beginning. By holding both positions I would have to agree, logically, that 'God' exists. Where does that lead us though?

Here is my answer to your question:
That is a position in your mind, with that thought in your mind, we can you and I proceed to seek for God in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning, seek for God in the realm of reality outside and independent of our mind.

So, we are now in the objectival realm outside and independent of our mind, and we will search for everything with a beginning; what about babies at home and roses in our garden, they have a beginning, so they are evidence of God existing in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

You see, we humans have access to two realms, the objectival realm that exists outside our mind and independent of our mind, and the conceptival realm that exists in our mind, this is the scene of all kinds of thoughts whatsoever, no matter how absurd; but with the non-absurd thought like for example the idea of a large umbrella kept above in the sky, and we can change its location in the sky above us, then when we want in a rainy day, to have no rain falling on us, we then just have to move the giant umbrella to change its location as to be above us, and this giant umbrella can be as much as one square kilometer in size.

The giant umbrella in the sky is an example of a thought in our mind but it is not an absurd thought, for we have today the technology and the materials to fabricate and operate such a giant umbrella in the sky.

Do you get now and understand what I am telling folks here about the distinction between the objectival realm and the conceptival realm?

That sounds no different from philosophical realism. I have no qualms with that. But where do you intend to go from here ?

 

[siti]

For those who complain that I did not reply to them, but I was too busy with one poster, like for example, one siti, he and I were into an one on one exchange, finally he threw a stink bomb, saying that I can't write coherent sentences, while taking to exit from our exchange.

This is definitely my last post in this thread, but just to be clear...I did not say that you "can't write coherent sentences" I said that you had not written one in response to any of my questions. You have based your "argument" on the baseless assumption that everything has a beginning - we simply do not know this to be true and there are sound philosophical reasons for at least doubting this, and at least one sound argument to refute it - essentially the argument that change cannot come from changelessness - a quality that the concept of "God" in most theistic formulations entails and which is clearly implied in your baseless argument that "everything...has a beginning", therefore it must have been created by [some entity] that (presumably) does not have a beginning (otherwise it, itself would just be part of the "everything [that]...has a beginning" we are trying to explain. Note also that we could easily replace the concept of "God" in your argument with some other concept like "an eternal cyclic universe", "a multiverse" or simply "Nature" and the logic of the argument would not change at all.

You have failed to provide any logical argument against anything that I have said so far and you have simply chosen to re-state the same unsubstantiated argument over and over as if by repeating it you are somehow making it more valid. I am not attacking your person, I am attacking your argument - which is what you asked for when you asked for a philosophical discussion. You have failed to defend it.

Please do not tag me again - obviously you are free to respond - I have no idea why I felt compelled to address this discussion in the first place - maybe it will help others to identify the fallacies in their own reasoning on God's existence - but I am respectfully choosing not to continue the discussion with you at this point.

And BTW - I am not an atheist so if you don't like my attitude, you should not pin that on atheism. In any case, all I have really done is disagree with your argument - if you don't like that then perhaps you should avoid discussion forums.

 

[Sanmario]

@Koldo


You see, atheists claim that there is no evidence for God, I ask them where do you want me to bring you to the evidence, in your mind or outside your mind in the objective reality of the world where babies and roses and the moon and the sun are present?

That sounds no different from philosophical realism. I have no qualms with that. But where do you intend to go from here ?