Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

[leibowde84]

@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.



Dear siti, as you have already busted my proof etc. half a dozen times in this thread, don't bother to give blind links, just say it now again for a 7th time, as you have it now in your stock memory:

A. Give your presenation of my proof.
B. Give your busting of my proof.


Dear readers, as the man has already busted my proof for half a dozen times, I will not bother to read the links he presents because it is not necessary, as the man has already half a dozen of bustings of my proof, in his stock memory of my proof and his rebuttal bustings of it.

Dear siti, I told you already and everyone else nth times in this thread and everywhere I go in web forums, that I do not bother to read up on blind links presented by posters, because they are just trying to hide from their duty to say again what they said before, because they should have it in their stock memory what with so many times they said it previously, like with siti saying he busted my proof already half a dozen times in this thread.

And you know what? dear readers here, that is a trick with people who know that they are in error if not lying about having busted this or that or having written this or that.

Besides when you read up on their blind links, and you don't find anything relevant on the issue at hand, they will tell you you can't read, etc., etc., etc., and that is where you now find yourselves, trying to argue with him that you can read and that he is a liar.

Thus he has successfully derailed you from your objective in your thread, into now proving who can read and who can't.

Okay, siti produce my proof and produce your rebuttal busting of it.


Dear readers here, let us all sit back again and await to witness what siti is going to resort to with this post from me, that he present his memory of my proof and his rebuttal busting of it, will he comply with my demand or resort to another escape route, like what now?

You haven't explained why you think:
1. that the nose had a beginning
2. why, if the nose had a beginning, the universe necessarily had a beginning. In other words, why you think that because a part of a whole has a beginning, the whole necessarily had a beginning.
3. Why God is necessarily the creator of everything with a beginning.

You have not done any of this with the proof you provided. You claim that it does, but, in actuality, it does not answer any of these questions. You merely expect us to assume these things, which is not an argument.

 

[leibowde84]

@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.


Well, readers of this thread, you are now witnessing my argument for a universe with a beginning, and I don't know what siti is arguing for, a universe without a beginning?

But let us ask him, can you present examples of things in your universe that are without beginning?

Here are my samples of things in a universe with a beginning:

The nose in our face
The arse of siti and his fart
Babies
Roses
The moon
The sun
Galaxies
Sub-atomic particles
NASA*
CERN*


*These institutions are the most empirical agencies into the observation of the super macro universe, that's NASA, and CERN is into the super micro universe.



Okay, readers, let us chant together:
"We will all sit back and await with bated breath to witness how siti will react to this post, a first salvo for my proof that the universe has a beginning, because it is made up of everything with a beginning.

But, we know that these things were not created by God, as they developed naturally. So, why does this bolster your argument that God exists?

 

[leibowde84]

I am waiting.


There was a guy here who asked for my concept of beginning, I gave it and he ran away.

Another guy talked about the the problem of induction, he ran away also.

So, you also ran away, and then returned, this is the second time you have come back.


So, let you present your concept of what is beginning.

Nobody ran away. Again, you are being dishonest. Unless you are unreasonably expecting us all to sit at our computers waiting for your reply. But, I will give you more credit than that.

 

[leibowde84]

@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.


Okay, everyone, do you all notice that siti is banking on himself not knowing this and that and everything in the universe, for some sort of bizarre i.e. crazy argument that the universe has no beginning?

Now, I ask you, dear readers here, does that awful amount of siti's hand-waving extrapolate into any kind of argument to the effect that the universe has no beginning?

You see, it is with people who bank on their not knowing this and not knowing that, and therefore the universe in their thin gruel conclusion has no beginning!?

What sorry sort of thinking is that?


Dear siti, when you claim to not know this and that, just claim that you do not know and cannot know, but why do you have to go further and without any evidence at all because you already claim to not know this and that and everything - wherefore witless in regard to evidence, go further to claim that the universe is without beginning, yet you do have the gall to define the universe as everything?

You mean the universe is everything you do not know and cannot know.

So, I suggest you go jump into a lake and stay there, instead of talking here in this board of philosophy.


Okay, everyone, ready, chant:

We will now again await with bated breath to witness how siti will react with more hand-waving, instead of retreating to examine what is wrong with his epistemology, and seek remedy from the nearest graduate school, where candidates of any post-bachelor degree has to take up at least six units of philosophy.​

You don't even have any evidence to back up your claim that God is the creator of everything with a beginning. Can you do that, or can you admit that you are unable to?

 

[columbus]

Tell me, what is your concept of beginning.

Despite many posts in this thread asking you to, you have never done this.
You have given a list of things to which you have attributed beginning, and it has been pointed out that none of the examples have both a known beginning and objective existence.
Abstract things, like government space agencies, have beginnings. But concrete things like noses can be traced back to the singularity, and that we don't know much about.

So, in essence, your argument so far supports my view. That God is an abstract concept, without objective existence. He is a character from literature, existing like "wizards" and "unicorns". People give them names and tell stories about them, but they don't have objective existence.
As far as anybody can tell.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Okay, for the meantime, dear columbus, I challenge you to look up my concept here of what is beginning, I am sure it is in this thread, or perhaps in the other one on "The object and concept of God and the existence of God."

I have read both threads and you have never done that. I don't believe you have one. Stop tagging me. Quote and respond or don't, but stop mentioning me in posts where you ignore what I have posted.
Tom

 

[icehorse]

@columbus
@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.

Okay, you lying columbus, here below in bold , underscore, and italic is my concept of beginning, given to icehorse.

Annex

For my money I don't accept the premise of your debate. I don't believe we know enough about the nature of time to accept your definition of how time works. So it's not a bad premise as a thought experiment, but that's are far as it could go.

In other words we could say "Assuming X about the nature of time, can we argue about god". But in the end it doesn't REALLY prove anything about the existence (or not), of god.

 

[leibowde84]

@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.


Dear leibowde84, to all appearances siti has run away, so let you and me, we will now have our one on one exchange.

Tell me, what is your concept of beginning.


Annex

​

First, please answer my question that I have asked many many times now.

What evidence do you have to prove that God is the creator of everything with a beginning?

 

[leibowde84]

Blah, blah, blah.

What is your concept of beginning.

He's right. Your proof does not prove the existence of God. It merely argues for the existence of God assuming that God is the creator of everything with a beginning. You have to first prove that God is the creator of everything with a beginning for your argument to hold any water.

 

[leibowde84]

No more blah blah blah, please!


Present your concept of beginning, or shut up!

First, please answer my question that I have asked many many times now. I have shown you respect in this thread, and you have shown me none thus far. Please just answer my question. I will be happy to answer your question once you have respectfully answered mine.

What evidence do you have to prove that God is the creator of everything with a beginning?

 

[leibowde84]

No more blah blah blah, please!


Present your concept of beginning, or shut up!

No more blah, blah, blah.

Prove your claim that God is the creator of everything with a beginning or shut up.

 

[leibowde84]

You will not understand anything unless we get our concepts concurred on.

It is obvious that you guys are scared stiff of working together to get concepts concurred on between us.

I will not reply to you, unless and until you present your concept of beginning.

But I will continue to expound on the universe with a beginning, just the same: so that readers will get to know the reasons why the universe has a beginning.

This works for me:
"it is the point in time and/or in distance at which point a thing starts to exist, prior to which it was not existing."

So, can you now prove that God is the creator of everything with a beginning?
(Again, not that God exists assuming that God is the creator of everything with a beginning)

 

[leibowde84]

You will not understand anything unless we get our concepts concurred on.

This is what I've been trying to do for days now. I'm asking that you provide your evidence supporting your claim that God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

 

[leibowde84]

You will not understand anything unless we get our concepts concurred on.

It is obvious that you guys are scared stiff of working together to get concepts concurred on between us.

I will not reply to you, unless and until you present your concept of beginning.

But I will continue to expound on the universe with a beginning, just the same: so that readers will get to know the reasons why the universe has a beginning.

You aren't "running away" (in your own words), are you? Can you just admit that you cannot provide any evidence proving that God is the creator of everything with a beginning?

 

[leibowde84]

@icehorse
@columbus
@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.


leibowde84:
What evidence do you have to prove that God is the creator of everything with a beginning?

Sanmario:
The nose in our face
The arse of siti and his fart
Babies
Roses
The moon
The sun
Galaxies
Sub-atomic particles
NASA*
CERN*

*These institutions are the most empirical agencies into the observation of the super macro universe, that's NASA, and CERN is into the super micro universe.

You forgot to explain why these things are evidence that God is the creator of everything with a beginning. Can you provide that explanation? Why is it necessarily God that created these things?

 

[icehorse]

Blah, blah, blah.

What is your concept of beginning.

We humans don't yet have an answer for that question. We can answer it for artificial constructs like the beginning of the year 2017 or the beginning of a baseball game. But at the cosmological level the answer is "we don't know".

If you think you know, then I would say that I frequently find religious people who pretend to know answers to questions that no one yet has answers to. E.g. many religious people claim to know what happens when you die. Sorry, no one knows that.

 

[siti]

OK - @Sanmario - here is your definition of beginning:

"it is the point in time and/or in distance at which point a thing starts to exist, prior to which it was not existing."

I agree with this definition, so now, working with a common, agreed definition, show me your proof that the universe had a point in time at which it started to existed and before which it was not existing - i.e. prove that the universe had a beginning.

 

[Sanmario]

We have the concept of God as the creator of everything with a beginning, and all my examples are of things with a beginning, so God is their creator.

 

[leibowde84]

We have the concept of God as the creator of everything with a beginning, and all my examples are of things with a beginning, so God is their creator.

You have to first prove that God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

You can't honestly expect us to just assume that God is the creator of everything with a beginning without you proving it first, can you?

 

[columbus]

We humans don't yet have an answer for that question. We can answer it for artificial constructs like the beginning of the year 2017 or the beginning of a baseball game. But at the cosmological level the answer is "we don't know".

Clearly Sanmario doesn't have such an answer. That's why he keeps repeating his list of things shown not to have an actual known beginning. Everything on his list, with objective existence, can be traced back to the singularity. And nobody knows why that happened or if it was a beginning.
Tom