Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

[columbus]

Okay, addressing columbus, are you going to be first or me

Anticip....


Tom

 

[siti]

...you all to have become reason perverts

And I am guessing that makes you a "reason virgin" - unadulterated by any hint of rational thought.

 

[icehorse]

You folks do not want to agree with me on that factor, namely, the concurrence of concepts.

As my tagline suggests, I'm a HUGE fan of using well defined terms. I haven't read every single last post on this thread, but i've read much of it and my sense is that in every post you're trying to get too much done. I would welcome a post from you who's only purpose is to nail down a definition for an important term.

And, I STILL think it's fair for me to ask you what philosophical axioms you're using as a foundation for your arguments.

 

[leibowde84]

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


Dear columbus, you say:
"Simply put, the singularity is the point in time and space from which everything that has objective existence can be traced."


Let us work on what is a beginning, okay? the concept, please.


You want to tell me first, or I first, let me know.


Later, I will be back, dear readers; we will now however I mean you readers, now wait with bated breath to witness how columbus explains no beginning to the universe, even though he tells us the singularity is "the point in time and space from which everything that has objective existence can be traced."


I don't [forgive the token regret - hehehehe] want to be unkind but I must perform my social duty of informing simple folks: that we have here a human who can talk from both corners of his mouth in opposite directions; and that is an amazing feat, accomplished only by people like him who feed from charlatans writing dubiously best sellers propagating lies which columbus and his ilk lap up, in order to not think for themselves, to determine on reason grounded on observation as to come to intelligent conclusion on the issue, God exists or not, in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

In some post back recently I invite my opponents to tell readers how they explain to themselves why they come to this situation that they are certain that God does not exist, or they cannot know except perhaps by faith - sharing with them my idea that there is a difference between proving something and explaining something.

In my case my rational proof on evidence that God exists in concept as the creator and operator of everything with a beginning, it is also my explanation why I come to certainty that God exists.

In the case of my opponents here, their explanation has nothing to do with proving, but with lapping up the lies of charlatans of best sellers which become such socalled best sellers because dopes like columbus and leibowde84 and siti and icehorse buy them, to cater to their need for some authority to lean on, for them to follow irrational impulses they know what these impulses are, but of no connection whatsoever with reasoning on observation as to come to intelligent conclusion on an issue like God exists or not.

And since their socalled authorities are masters of deceits, peddlers of lies, they also become themselves masters of deceits and peddlers of lies in their turn.

To be clear, I have never claimed that God does not exist.

 

[leibowde84]

@columbus
@crawfeather one
@icehorse
@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@Evangelicalhumanist
@Relinquish
@Nous
@Jonathan Ainsley Bain
@The Transcended Omniverse
@SpiritQuest
@fantome profane
@Augustus
@David T
@godnotgod
@MD
@Musing Bassist
@Lucida Sidera
@Carlita
@PopeADope
@shunyadragon
@bobhikes
@Rex
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.




Okay, dear icehorse, let us work together to concur on the meaning of the word beginning, is that all right with you?

Beginning is the time and place at which something starts. Noses don't begin, as they don't "start" at any time. They develop based on dna passed down through procreation.

 

[icehorse]

Okay, dear icehorse, let us work together to concur on the meaning of the word beginning, is that all right with you?

Sure! Now my guess is that we can agree to a definition. But we might not agree with how widely we can apply the concept. For example, I agree with those cosmologists who say that at this point we don't understand enough about the nature of time or the universe to have a cogent discussion about a topic like "when the universe began". We can talk about when the big bang was, but we cannot say for sure if that was the "beginning" or not...

 

[leibowde84]

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


Dear columbus, here is my concept of beginning:
It is the point in time and/or in space from which point something starts to exist, whereas previous to that point it was not existing.

So, do you accept that concept of beginning, or you want to add your inputs to it, or you have your own formulation of what is your concept of beginning?

So, what is the point in time that a nose starts existing?

 

[leibowde84]

It is like this, there are folks looking for Bigfoot, or Yeti, or Squatch, they are all the similar kind of a human male look-alike, only much taller and bigger, but not like any kind of human living in civilized society: he is more hairy and doesn’t have clothes on, not even a G string.

I ask you, How can they help each other i.e. cooperate to search for this giant male look-alike if they don’t have a common idea and description of that being?

But, these men most likely already accept that the yeti is real/exists before setting off on a journey to find it, right?

 

[leibowde84]

@columbus
@crawfeather one
@icehorse
@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@Evangelicalhumanist
@Relinquish
@Nous
@Jonathan Ainsley Bain
@The Transcended Omniverse
@SpiritQuest
@fantome profane
@Augustus
@David T
@godnotgod
@MD
@Musing Bassist
@Lucida Sidera
@Carlita
@PopeADope
@shunyadragon
@bobhikes
@Rex
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.


Dear everyone here, in particular my opponents: columbus, siti, leibowde84, icehorse, and others:

You see, I have this idea that when we have an issue like God exists or not, and also like universe with beginning or without, we first work in and with our mind to reach concurrence on the meanings of the words: like God, and universe, and beginning, and other crucial words needed to resolve the issue; because when we do not have concurrence on the meanings of these words, we will be talking past each other's head, and that is not any communication at all, but a cacophony.

Now, I have to say this, You folks do not want to agree with me on that factor, namely, the concurrence of concepts.

Am I correct on your not willing to work with me as to reach concurrence in and with our mind on meanings of words?

Then tell me, how do you proceed [when I am not around] to resolve an issue like whether your new baby is a male or a female?

All you have to do is limit your concept of God to not assuming that God exists. I don't think it's possible to do so, which is why I think that any proof of God's existence is flawed. But, I am always open to being proved wrong.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Would not be worth playing this game, to me. @Sanmario is tryin to do two things simultaneously:
1. Get everybody to agree that "the universe had a beginning"
2. That "God in concept is the creator and sustainer of everything with a beginning."

In short, he is trying to set up a circular argument based on most of our inability to recognize some of the very fundamental flaws in what he's setting up, for example:
1. What, exactly, constitutes "the universe?" This does not, for example, answer the question of whether the universe as we know it now is not just some inevitable configuration of an eternal multiverse, and the part that we only recognize because of the Big Bang.
2. Was the Big Bang the "beginning" of the universe, or was it just of an endless string of events in some more broadly conceived universe or multiverse, or what have you?

And finally, he's trying to get you to ignore completely the question of whether God (in conception, I suppose) had a beginning or did not -- and if not, how on earth to explain how, in the absence of anything even like time, this beginningless God "suddenly" wakes up and says, "I think I'll create a universe and time." The conundrum here, of course, is that without the existence of time, God could not have changed from how he was (not the creator of the universe) to what he is (the creator of the universe).

All of this will complete baffle Sanmario, I think, who will promptly to return to his original argument, "let us agree that God in concept it......"

Not going there.

 

[leibowde84]

@columbus
@crawfeather one
@icehorse
@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@Evangelicalhumanist
@Relinquish
@Nous
@Jonathan Ainsley Bain
@The Transcended Omniverse
@SpiritQuest
@fantome profane
@Augustus
@David T
@godnotgod
@MD
@Musing Bassist
@Lucida Sidera
@Carlita
@PopeADope
@shunyadragon
@bobhikes
@Rex
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.




There was a time and/or place in which scenario your nose had no existence, now it is existing: so logic tells us that at some point in time and/or in space your nose started in the status of existence, and that point is the beginning of your nose in existence; otherwise how do you explain the transition from no existence of your nose to existence of your nose?

So, at what point did my nose begin? Conception? Fertilization of the egg?

 

[leibowde84]

@columbus
@crawfeather one
@icehorse
@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@Evangelicalhumanist
@Relinquish
@Nous
@Jonathan Ainsley Bain
@The Transcended Omniverse
@SpiritQuest
@fantome profane
@Augustus
@David T
@godnotgod
@MD
@Musing Bassist
@Lucida Sidera
@Carlita
@PopeADope
@shunyadragon
@bobhikes
@Rex
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.






At the point when the male sperm fuses with the female egg.

But, God does not create the nose. The nose develops after conception based on dna. So, that contradicts your concept of God.

In other words, according to your claim of when the nose begins, God does not create it. Thus, God is not the creator of everything with a beginning.

That is why I asked you to provide your evidence supporting your claim that God is the creator of everything with a beginning. The nose is evidence contradicting your claim.

 

[leibowde84]

Dear leibowde84, everytime you bring up an object like dna etc. that is credited by you to have created the end product of the nose, please also ask yourself, who or what created that object like dna etc. you bring up, and of course whether it has a beginning or not while you ask what or who brought it into existence.

Nothing created DNA. It is amino acids that came about naturally. So, that again contradicts your concept of God.

 

[leibowde84]

@crawfeather one
@icehorse
@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@Evangelicalhumanist
@Relinquish
@Nous
@Jonathan Ainsley Bain
@The Transcended Omniverse
@SpiritQuest
@fantome profane
@Augustus
@David T
@godnotgod
@MD
@Musing Bassist
@Lucida Sidera
@Carlita
@PopeADope
@shunyadragon
@bobhikes
@Rex
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.




Dear Evan, please complete the sentence you were going to cite fully:

"let us agree that God in concept it......"

and also the link, please.

I'll complete it ...

All of this will complete baffle Sanmario, I think, who will promptly to return to his original argument, "let us agree that God in concept is the creator of everything with a beginning".

 

[leibowde84]

@crawfeather one
@icehorse
@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@Evangelicalhumanist
@Relinquish
@Nous
@Jonathan Ainsley Bain
@The Transcended Omniverse
@SpiritQuest
@fantome profane
@Augustus
@David T
@godnotgod
@MD
@Musing Bassist
@Lucida Sidera
@Carlita
@PopeADope
@shunyadragon
@bobhikes
@Rex
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.





Please prove to me that "Noting created DNA."

Here are some great resources that explain how DNA forms naturally (spoiler ... God is not part of the process).

How are new DNA molecules made?


New DNA molecules are made by copying, using old DNA molecules as a template.

Our understanding of this process also goes back to Watson and Crick's observation that only certain base pairings can exist in DNA. Each DNA strand contains the information necessary to reconstruct the other, or complementary, strand.

When a cell needs to copy a DNA molecule, it "unzips" part of the double helix, breaking the rungs of the ladder in half so that the molecule separates down the middle. New nucleotides, floating free in the cell, can then hook up with complementary nucleotides along each strand. Gradually the unzipping proceeds, and the new strands continue to grow until one DNA molecule becomes two identical DNA molecules.

A cell copies all of its DNA in this fashion each time it divides. In the cells of complex organisms such as humans, this process takes an average of 8 hours. In other words, each human cell can read and reproduce the entire genome sequence in one working day.

Scientists use a similar method to make copies of DNA in the laboratory. They put a piece of DNA in a test tube along with a bunch of free nucleotides, short DNA sequences called primers, and some enzymes that help the process along. Given the right conditions of chemistry and temperature, up to a billion DNA molecules, all identical to the original template molecule, may be produced in a matter of hours. What's a Genome?

Also, this is a great explanation:
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Fact Sheet

 

[leibowde84]

@crawfeather one
@icehorse
@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@Evangelicalhumanist
@Relinquish
@Nous
@Jonathan Ainsley Bain
@The Transcended Omniverse
@SpiritQuest
@fantome profane
@Augustus
@David T
@godnotgod
@MD
@Musing Bassist
@Lucida Sidera
@Carlita
@PopeADope
@shunyadragon
@bobhikes
@Rex
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.




Please provide the link.

Link to what?

 

[icehorse]

Take the word beginning, here is my concept of beginning:
"It is the point in time and/or in space at which point something starts to exist, previous to which it was not existing."

Now, I am asking folks here, Do you accept that concept of beginning, if not, please contribute your concepts of beginning; then we will work together as to come to a formulation of the concept acceptable to us all.

This is a workable definition. But again (and I'm with @leibowde84 on this), it's often the case that isolating the point of beginning of a thing is impossible. So we have an okay definition, but it seems to me you're trying to apply it to things you cannot.

 

[leibowde84]

@crawfeather one
@icehorse
@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@Evangelicalhumanist
@Relinquish
@Nous
@Jonathan Ainsley Bain
@The Transcended Omniverse
@SpiritQuest
@fantome profane
@Augustus
@David T
@godnotgod
@MD
@Musing Bassist
@Lucida Sidera
@Carlita
@PopeADope
@shunyadragon
@bobhikes
@Rex
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.




Dear readers and posters here and dear leibowde84, I also ask for the link, not only the complete text purportedly from you that it came from me as you reproduced it.

Link to what? Are you denying that you are arguing that God is the creator of everything with a beginning?

 

[siti]

@Sanmario - just caught up on the last few hours of posts and nothing much to comment on except the bit where you suggest we should go looking for a yeti in a G-string - and you called me a "pervert"?

PS - you obviously haven't read (or more likely just didn't understand) my argument for the universe not having a beginning. It's here in post #480. You and I already agreed on the definition of beginning ages ago and you still have not provided any evidence to show that universe had one (a beginning that is, not a yeti in G-string).

 

[leibowde84]

@crawfeather one
@icehorse
@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@Evangelicalhumanist
@Relinquish
@Nous
@Jonathan Ainsley Bain
@The Transcended Omniverse
@SpiritQuest
@fantome profane
@Augustus
@David T
@godnotgod
@MD
@Musing Bassist
@Lucida Sidera
@Carlita
@PopeADope
@shunyadragon
@bobhikes
@Rex
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.


Dear readers, we are now witnessing a matter of how to not cite incorrectly and hopefully not also dishonestly.

Dear leibowde84, please just give the link to the text you claim to come from me.



Link to this text you claim it comes from me, the text in bold in the quote as follows:

This cause I call God in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

We know God exists as cause of everything with a beginning, like the universe and man and everything else man knows, like babies in the home and roses i the garden, the moon in the evening sky and the sun in the morning sky.