Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

[leibowde84]

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


Dear everyone here, thanks for your presence and participation, I am just one person, not a battalion, so as I regret that you are not happy I don't reply to everyone's post, still in my exchange with leibowde84 you will meet the thoughts from you and from me, in my exchange with leibowde84.

When leibowde84 has stopped interacting with me, then anyone among you can volunteer to engage in a one on one exchange with me.
______________





You see, leibowde84, you know and I know that theists know for certain that God exists in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning, and in your case you are not certain that God exists as the creator of everything with a beginning.

Now, you keep on and on insisting that I already presume God to exist as creator of everything with a beginning, and I am telling you that you are not using the right concept of presumption, a presumption is not any statement of the certainty of the existence of something outside of our mind, it is just a speculated thought.

It is the case that I know for certain that God exists in concept as creator of everything with a beginning, so I will be using an exercise in order to bring your mind to the certainty that God exists in concept as creator of everything with a beginning.

Namely, I invite you to speculate i.e. imagine that there is an entity creator of everything with a beginning, this speculative i.e. imaginative concept is all in our mind, very important for this exercise is that you and I entertain this speculative imaginative concept in our mind, of an entity with the role of creator of everything with a beginning; again I tell you this exercise consists in entertaining the speculative imaginative concept of an entity with the job order of creating everything with a beginning.

At this point you and I are in the realm of our mind, in the what I call conceptival realm; so you understand what I am trying to impart to you, namely, an exercise where we entertain in our mind the speculative imaginative concept of an entity with the job description of creation of everything with a beginning?

That is part one of the exercise it is all in our mind, in the what I call conceptival realm.

So, we now go forth from our mind, from the conceptival realm, into the objectival realm of things, like the nose in our face, the arse and fart of siti, babies, roses, the sun, the moon, the galaxies, the sub-atomic particle, and institutions of scientific research like NASA and CERN, to search for all instances of things with a beginning, from humans to sub-atomic particles: now we are no longer in the conceptival realm of our mind, but in the objectival realm of things in the reality of the world where humans live and work and enjoy the presence of babies and roses, etc.

And we in this world of reality where you and I live and work and move and have our being, we do meet everything we see and experience, they all have a beginning to their existence.

So our speculative imaginative concept in our mind of an entity with the job description of creator of everything with a beginning, that idea in our mind is a reality outside our mind, and outside our mind it is called God, the creator of everything with a beginning.

I hope you get my description of the speculative imaginative concept in our mind of an entity with the job description of creation of everything with a beginning, and our action to search for all instances outside our mind in the world of babies, roses, galaxies, sub-atomic particles to locate all instances of things with a beginning to their existence, namely, they were not existing previous to the beginning point at which point an entity imparted to them the status of existence.


This exercise, dear leibowde84, is composed of two parts:

Part one is the concept in our mind, with the description of creator of everything with a beginning.

Part two is the expedition into the world of babies, roses, etc., to search for all instances of beings with a beginning to their existence.

Now you keep on and on and on inside your mind insisting that you will not undertake the exercise because it is already a presumption of the existence of an entity with the job description of creator of everything with a beginning, and you will not go out with me into the world of babies and roses and galaxies and sub-atomic particles, that is I submit very unreasonable from your part.


Let us do this another exercise you and me, you are a member of an international medicine society, you go forth to everywhere where fellow humans like yourself live and go about life but they have no access to medicine.

You meet me with a long time stomach pain, and you tell me, "I can and will bring you to a place where there are all kinds doctors and one of them will heal you of your chronic pain in your stomach.

But in objection I keep telling you that you are presuming already the existence of a place where there are doctors of all kinds, which can and will treat me to rid me of my chronic stomach pain.

So, you tell me with my chronic stomach pain: Let us we two just play this exercise or game, you come with me next time I go on a sojourn and I will bring you to the place where they are doctors of all kinds, and one of them will rid you of your chronic stomach pain.

But I insist: No, I will not go with you because you are into the fallacy of circular reasoning with your presumption of a place where they are doctors to treat sick people.

That is the situation, dear leibowde84 in which you are like me with my stomach pain and refusal to undertake the exercise to rid me of my stomach pain, sticking to my [your] self-dungeoned unreasonable stubbornness owing to your bigotry with the fallacy of circular reasoning arising from presumption.

If I "imagine" that everything with a beginning had a creator. And, I "imagine" that God is the creator of everything with a beginning", by definition I am "imagining" that God exists as the creator of everything with a beginning. So, you aren't arguing anything. You are just asking that I imagine God exists for the sake of your argument that God exists. That is why it is guilty of circular reasoning.

 

[leibowde84]

You know I'm with you on this one 84...

That said, a fella CAN start a debate by saying:

If you'll grant me X, Y and Z, then I'd like to debate this other claim.

It seems however that @Sanmario is changing the goalposts in mid-debate?

What's the point of arguing that God exists if "x" is known to be false, and accepting it is the same as accepting that God exists?

 

[icehorse]

What's the point of arguing that God exists if "x" is known to be false, and accepting it is the same as accepting that God exists?

That's the kind of thing philosophers do

 

[icehorse]

Don’t shallowly make up your knowledge of the issue with nothing but reading on the charges of fallacies from lousy peddlers of lies.

Dude, you're in the philosophy forum. Philosophical discussions have some ground rules.

 

[icehorse]

Dear everyone here, I am doing my darn best to explain to leibowde84, why we can prove the existence of God in concept as the creator of everything in the universe, by going out into the universe and finding all things in the universe to have a beginning.

Again, this seems a bit different than what you said earlier. Are you now saying that all things have a beginning?

 

[leibowde84]

It appears that these humans don’t do any genuine thinking on observation as to arrive at intelligent conclusion on an issue.

Nope, that's you.

So, all ye atheists and all manners of humans who cast doubts on the existence of God in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning, do genuine direct examination of the issue God exists or not, in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

If I were to ASSUME that God IS the creator of everything with a beginning, then, I would, in fact, be ASSUMING that God exists. God cannot be the creator of everything with a beginning unless God exists. Your argument is just a waste of words.

Problem is, you shouldn't expect people to blindly accept your concept of God (that presumes God's existence) without any evidence proving it to be true.

Don’t shallowly make up your knowledge of the issue with nothing but reading on the charges of fallacies from lousy peddlers of lies.

You are the one who is dishonestly denying that your argument is not based on a logical fallacy.

 

[leibowde84]

That's the kind of thing philosophers do

Bad philosophers do that. It is clearly circular reasoning. One cannot accept God as being the creator of everything with a beginning unless one also accepts that God exists.

 

[leibowde84]

Before you read further, I want to insist that you tell me what was my goalpost in exact words in your reading of this thread, defining God is not a goalpost. You are rally a misguided reader of what is the goalpost in a thread.

One of your goalposts is certainly how God is defined (your concept of God). It is disrespectful and dishonest to change that definition in any way in the middle of an argument.

 

[leibowde84]

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


Dear everyone here, I am doing my darn best to explain to leibowde84, why we can prove the existence of God in concept as the creator of everything in the universe, by going out into the universe and finding all things in the universe to have a beginning.


Now, everyone, keep keenly attentive and with careful analytic skill into his leibowde84's language.

Dear leibowde84, I accept that you are not required to prove God exists because you are not making the claim, what about as an intelligent being, you explain how you ever got yourself into this kind of a situation that you cannot be receptive to the idea of God existing as the creator of everything with a beginning, by starting from the concept in your mind, of God as creator of everything with a beginning, and going into the universe outside your brain err mind, to look for all instances of things in the universe with a beginning, including the universe itself?

Dear readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath to read how leibowde84 explains how and why he has come to that kind of a mind and heart, that he cannot be receptive to the idea that man i.e. I and all other theists like myself, except for people like leibowde84 and similar folks, cannot be receptive to the idea of God existing in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning, by going from his mind to the outside world to look for all instances of things existing with a beginning.

I am receptive to any idea that can be supported with evidence. You have not provided any evidence that god is the creator of everything with a beginning. You have merely pointed to things in the universe that, in your opinion, have a beginning. You haven't proved that God is the creator of those things. You merely ask us all to assume that. Not much of an argument if you have to ask us to assume the conclusion to be true.

 

[icehorse]

Bad philosophers do that. It is clearly circular reasoning. One cannot accept God as being the creator of everything with a beginning unless one also accepts that God exists.

Agreed. I thought this situation was more like: If we assume X, can we debate Y?

 

[icehorse]

Dear readers, let us sit back and await with bated breath to read how icehorse is going to react to my two requests addressed to him: [1] tell me what according to him I was saying earlier, and [2] my challenge to him that tell me what is his concept of God.

Your first post was about whether god exists, post #24 was about your definition of god, which should have been in the OP:

post 1:

I am a theist, and I love to talk with atheists on the issue of God exists or not.

post 24:

Here is my concept of God:

”In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”

==

I don't have a concept of god, I'm an atheist. But "a conscious being that created the universe" is a definition I hear a lot from theists.

Now @Sanmario I've given you several examples of how slippery the concept of "beginning" is. Will you respond?

 

[leibowde84]

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


Let us dear readers here pay close attention and apply our critical intelligence to analyze how icehorse uses language.


He says:



Dear icehorse, you tell me first what was I saying earlier?


Back to something I forgot to bring up with you.

You make a lot of nonsense with saying that I have changed my goalpost so that now my concept of God is creator of everything with a beginning.

The goalpost is that God exists as the creator of everything with a beginning.

I want to challenge you to tell me what is your concept of God.


Dear readers, let us sit back and await with bated breath to read how icehorse is going to react to my two requests addressed to him: [1] tell me what according to him I was saying earlier, and [2] my challenge to him that tell me what is his concept of God.

Please show a bit of respect and stop answering questions with questions. Answer his question first before you ask him another. That is common decency.

 

[columbus]

I don't have a concept of god, I'm an atheist. But "a conscious being that created the universe" is a definition I hear a lot from theists.

The difference between theists and nontheists is that theists believe that God(s) has objective existence. Nontheists believe that God(s) is an abstract concept, invented by humans and without objective existence.
Sanmario has done a good job of putting God in the second category. He has consistently defined God as the Creator of things with beginnings. Nothing with objective existence has one that can be known.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

The difference between theists and nontheists is that theists believe that God(s) has objective existence. Nontheists believe that God(s) is an abstract concept, invented by humans and without objective existence.
Sanmario has done a good job of putting God in the second category. He has consistently defined God as the Creator of things with beginnings. Nothing with objective existence has one that can be known.
Tom

Well put.

 

[columbus]

Well put.

Thank you.
Let me expand a bit.
God began when humans developed the need for god(s).

Thanks to @Sanmario for helping us explain this in simple terms that most anybody can understand.


Tom

 

[columbus]

For the rest of posters here, this thread is about Is it possible to talk with an atheist, in regard to the existence or non-existence of God.

The answer to that question is clearly "Yes". The problem in this thread is mainly that you won't discuss the points that nontheists make.
Tom

 

[Sanmario]

Okay, everyone who posts here, shall we first talk about the concepts of God, and come to concurrence on what is God Whose existence we are talking and debating about?

Next, shall we also work together as to come to concurrence on the concept of the universe, for it is my contention that the universe has a beginning and God created the universe.


There, dear readers, that is the way to bring posters to get themselves correctly and hopefully productively oriented.

 

[columbus]

it is my contention that the universe has a beginning

Various people have asked you why you believe that. It is one of the many things you have not been willing to discuss.
So, let's start with that.
Why do you believe that the universe had a beginning?
Tom

 

[columbus]

If you know something in the universe without a beginning, let me hear about it.

We have. Multiple times. This thread is full of such posts.
It is impossible to talk to you about them because you never respond.
It is impossible to talk to theists.
Tom

 

[columbus]

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



Dear Tom, please give me just one thing that has no beginning in the universe.

The nose on your face can be traced back to the singularity.

That's a lot farther than your God image. About 13 billion years farther. But at least the nose on your face does have objective existence. Which cannot be reliably attributed to any of the gazillions of God images that exist.
Tom