Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

[leibowde84]

@siti
@leibowde84
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.


Dear siti, the last time you were here we were into each one bringing up something that is evidence of the universe having no beginning from you, and from me the universe having a beginning.

I bring up the nose in our face.

You bring up your arse and then picture of a child releasing fart from his arse.

So, now explain how your arse and your fart are evidence of the universe having no beginning.

In my case, the nose in our face is evidence to the universe having a beginning, because the nose in our face has a beginning, and so also everything we see and experience and science deals with, they all have a beginning.

When you don’t accept that, then present something in the universe that has no beginning.



Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness how siti explains the manner by which his arse and his fart are evidence of the universe having no beginning.

His point is that our nose is not evidence that the universe has a beginning, as the nose does not actually have a beginning. It develops based on passed down DNA.

He is showing you the absurdity of claiming that the nose is evidence that the universe had a beginning. That's all. And, he is right.

 

[leibowde84]

@leibowde84
@ALL
@ALL who read carefully and think on reason grounded on observation, into intelligent conclusion.


Dear leibowde84 please don't take until tomorrow to reply to the post reproduced here for your convenience.

You are not providing any evidence here that God is the creator of everything with a beginning. You are merely assuming that God is the creator of everything with a beginning in your argument.

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

 

[leibowde84]

Do you notice, dear readers, that all the time I am trying my darn hard to get leibowde84 and company to get our concepts correctly concurred on, so that they are valid concepts; but leibowde84 and company, they will not even talk about what is a valid concept.

You are responsible to prove that your concept of God is true. What evidence do you have to prove that God is the creator of everything with a beginning?

Annex
1. Enunciate the concept of God, namely, in concept God is the creator of everything with a beginning.
2. I go to the realm of existence to look for everything with a beginning.
3. I see everything with my eyes and I experience everything I meet as for example the babies at home and the roses in the garden, and everything else, you mention it, it has a beginning.
4. So, there are everything with a beginning that we are living with and in and within.
5. They are evidence of God existing in concept as creator of everything with a beginning.
6. Conclusion from evidence: God exists in concept as creator of everything with a beginning.

You aren't answering my question. You are merely assuming that God is the creator of everything with a beginning. I am asking that you provide evidence for this claim before moving on.

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

NOT, that God exists as the creator of everything with a beginning!!! You must prove that God is the creator of everything with a beginning before moving forward with an argument that God exists based on this concept.

 

[leibowde84]

@siti
@leibowde84
@ALL who read carefully and think on reason grounded on observation, into intelligent conclusion.


Dear readers here, the proposition from me at hand is the following:

"The fact that everything we see and experience in the universe has a beginning, including the universe itself, that is evidence to the existence of God, in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning."

Now, I have reproduced time and again the following explanation in proof of the truth of my proposition:

1. Enunciate the concept of God, namely, in concept God is the creator of everything with a beginning.
2. I go to the realm of existence to look for everything with a beginning.
3. I see everything with my eyes and I experience everything I meet as for example the babies at home and the roses in the garden, and everything else, you mention it, it has a beginning.
4. So, there are everything with a beginning that we are living with and in and within.
5. They are evidence of God existing in concept as creator of everything with a beginning.
6. Conclusion from evidence: God exists in concept as creator of everything with a beginning.​

So, when a poster cares to prove me wrong, he has to just present objections to my proposition.

Dear wannabe opponents to my proposition, just present one objection at a time.


Okay, dear readers here, let us sit back and witness how my opponents here, like siti and leibowde84 and their sidekicks will conduct themselves, as to be relevant in their opposition to my proposition, by addressing objections against my proposition, but one at a time.

I have pointed out your error in #1 many times now:

You are merely assuming that God is the creator of everything with a beginning. I am asking that you provide evidence for this claim before moving on.

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

NOT, that God exists as the creator of everything with a beginning!!! You must prove that God is the creator of everything with a beginning before moving forward with an argument that God exists.

 

[leibowde84]

@siti
@leibowde84
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.


Dear readers here, let us resume my commentaries on my six steps proof of God existing, from evidence of everything in the universe with a beginning, see Annex below for the six steps.

Let us continue with Step No. 1, namely:

"1. Enunciate the concept of God, namely, in concept God is the creator of everything with a beginning."

That is the definition of God That I am going to prove to exist, from evidence of everything in the universe having a beginning, but leibowde84 and company gripe that with a concept or definition of God I am already into the presumption that He exists, and that according to them is the fallacy of circular reasoning.


You see, leibowde84 and company, you are really very naive, you all read from the same shallow writers who talk at large on fallacies, but they are truly ignoramuses who never do any genuine reasoning, grounding themselves on observation as to come to intelligent conclusion.

These ignoramuses never do any genuine thinking about what is a presumption at all.

I asked you earlier, leibowde84 and company and your sidekicks, Do you guys know that court and law maintain the accused is presumed innocent, wherefore to you they are, the court and the law, into a fallacy, that of circular reasoning?

You could not decently answer to my request to explain how to reconcile their presumption is already circular reasoning and therefore a fallacy: because you guys do not have the correct ideas of what is a presumption, what is circular reasoning, and what is a fallacy.

Now, dear leibowde84 and company and your sidekicks, suppose you guys all look up this principle from Roman law:

Praesumptio credit veritati, i.e., Presumption yields to truth.

Look that up with google.

Granting though not conceding to you guys, that my definition and concept of God, as in concept the creator of everything with a beginning is a presumption, there is no fallacy of circular reasoning in there, because in fact I will prove that it is the truth, with evidence of all things in the universe having a beginning, that comes in with the rest of my proof, namely: Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 steps.

So, I most sincerely recommend to you guys to do more and really serious readings of what is a presumption, and not to again go to your shallow pretentious babblers, all replete with smug arrogance and nothing of depth and substance in their self-deceptive verbiage.


I say that the nose in our face is evidence to the universe having a beginning, and siti says that his arse and fart are evidence of the universe not having a beginning.

Time for you, siti, and leibowde84, and company, and your sidekicks here, time for you all to exit from your anal stage.


Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness how leibowde84 and siti and company and their sidekicks here will react to this post from yours truly.


Annex

1. Enunciate the concept of God, namely, in concept God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

2. I go to the realm of existence to look for everything with a beginning.

3. I see everything with my eyes and I experience everything I meet as for example the babies at home and the roses in the garden, and everything else, you mention it, it has a beginning.

4. So, there are everything with a beginning that we are living with and in and within.

5. They are evidence of God existing in concept as creator of everything with a beginning.

6. Conclusion from evidence: God exists in concept as creator of everything with a beginning.

You are assuming that God is the creator of everything with a beginning without providing any evidence proving it to be true.

Can you provide any evidence proving that God is the creator of everything with a beginning?

pre·sump·tion
prəˈzəm(p)SH(ə)n/
noun

1. an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas, although it is not known for certain.

In your case, you are PRESUMING that God is the creator of everything with a beginning even though it is in no way known for certain and you have not provided any evidence supporting this presumption.

Before using your claim that God is the creator of everything with a beginning as a basis for your logical proof, you must prove it to be true.

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

 

[leibowde84]

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


Dear readers here, observe the last reply of siti here, Post #376 today at 1:40 PM.

Now, study the dialogue between us two, as follows:





Don't run away, get some self-respect, get going with your No. 5 and No. 6 statements, otherwise you look like some canine with its tail hidden under its arse between its two hind legs.

Get going, tell readers how you busted my proof from evidence of the universe having a beginning, as you boast in your No. 5 and No. 6 statements above.

First, refresh the memory of readers here my presentation of my proof from evidence that the universe has a beginning.

Then refresh the memory of readers here on how you busted it already half a dozen times in this thread.


Again, dear readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath to witness how siti will react to the present post from me - will he make good his No. 5 and No. 6 statements above?

You insult Siti, yet you have failed to present any evidence that God is the creator of everything with a beginning. You merely assume it and expect us to do the same.

WE ARE NOT WILLING TO ASSUME THAT GOD IS THE CREATOR OF EVERYTHING WITH A BEGINNING.

So, please provide your proof that God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

 

[columbus]

You aren't answering my question. You are merely assuming that God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

Frankly, even if we accepted the unsupported assertions it wouldn't demonstrate that God exists in any meaningful way now.

Maybe the Creator of the Universe has gone away or ceased to exist or something we cannot even understand, much less put into words. We are rather primitive and limited compared to The Original Source of Being.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

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


Dear siti, you say:

”We have no idea where that energy came from and it may, for all we know, be eternal. There is no way that you can prove otherwise. So it really doesn't matter whether or not I can prove that this or that did not have a beginning, all I need to do is to demonstrate that you cannot prove that they did and I have done exactly that half a dozen times in this thread.”


Okay, let us all dear readers here, read again how siti has demonstrated that I “cannot prove that they did" [ babies, roses, Cat, dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles! ] have a beginning.

So, let us all dear readers together await with bated breath to read how siti has demonstrated that I have not succeeded to prove from evidence that babies, roses, cat, and dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles! have a beginning.

What are you waiting for? dear siti, get going!

You haven't succeeded in this endeavor because you have not provided any evidence that any of these things have a beginning. All of these things develop from DNA passed down from generation to generation. You have, in actuality, not pointed out anything with an actual beginning.

And, you have failed to present your proof that God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

 

[leibowde84]

We are rather primitive and limited compared to The Original Source of Being.

We don't even know that there is an original source of being. Our minds are unable to comprehend a cosmos without beginning, but in no way does that make it impossible.

 

[Sanmario]

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

Is it possible to talk with them, and I am not into converting them to accept the existence of God, but just to get to learn from them to think better, on the issue God exists or not.

To learn from them as to think better, am I lying?

No, I am not lying, I really want to see how they think as to themselves come to their position that there is no God; in that way I can and will get to be a better thinker, from knowing how others think who do not share my position of God existing.

It is like that I eat meat and vegetable, but there are folks who are vegetarians, so by talking with them on how to eat better, I can and will learn to adopt a better diet.


So, let me see if any atheists will talk with me.


#1 Sanmario, Mar 24, 2017

Dear everyone here, this thread is about Is it possible to talk with an atheist, of course I also welcome anyone else to join up, on condition that you are a functioning human and not crazy.

So, what have I learned in this thread?

I have learned that it is impossible to talk with people who do not care to first work as to concur on premises which are essential in viable communication, i.e. productive exchange of thoughts.

Premise 1 is of course that you are certain and I am certain that we exist, so never ever bring up the thought that you are not certain that you exist therefore nothing with you is certain to exist either, wherefore you are correct in insisting that there is no beginning to the universe or there is beginning to the universe.

Premise 2 is that you are not crazy, and you are crazy when you say things which are in their components self-incoherent and self-inconsistent, like insisting that there was absolutely nothing in existence then by some random event existence started to come into being.

Premise 3 is that when you have said something and then you insist that you did not say it, tell me what is it that you did not say and what is it that you want to say now.


Thanks everyone for your presence and participation here, I am now with siti, so as I am only one person and not a battalion, I have to finish my dealing with siti for the time being, then I will take up next leibowde84.


See next post from me.

 

[siti]

Get going, tell readers how you busted my proof from evidence of the universe having a beginning, as you boast in your No. 5 and No. 6 statements above.

I already explained this - in, for example, posts #97, #285, #295 and #356, which you can go back and check.

And then, it is up to you to respond to the challenge I first posed in post #65 and tell us what is the evidence that proves to you that the universe had a beginning?

 

[siti]

First, refresh the memory of readers here on my presentation of my proof from evidence that the universe has a beginning.

You haven't presented any - you have merely stated that it has a beginning and cited (for example) your nose as evidence.

Then refresh the memory of readers here on how you busted it already half a dozen times in this thread.

See post #389 for references to other posts in which I have shown how and why we do not know that the universe had a beginning.

What it boils down to is this:

You say the universe had a beginning...I say prove it...you can't. End of argument. End of your proof of God's existence based on God being the creator of everything with a beginning. So if you think I am wrong and that you can prove that the universe did indeed have a beginning, kindly do so. Prove it.

 

[Sanmario]

I will be back in one hour's time, and dear siti we will continue with your allegation that I have no argument and you have rebutted my no argument.

 

[siti]

A. Your "proof" is based on everything having a beginning.
B. My rebuttal is that you cannot prove that everything has a beginning.

Now, prove that the universe had a beginning and I'll concede.

Either pee or get off the pot!

 

[siti]

Give four examples, siti, of everything in the universe having no beginning.

Are you really this dumb? There is nothing in the universe that does not trace back to the time (a few seconds after the Big Bang) when matter first condensed out of the immense energy that was contained in the very small space that has now expanded to encompass the entire observable universe that we see today.

Lets take your example of a rose. It is made mostly of the elements hydrogen, oxygen and carbon - with some nitrogen, phosphorus and other elements such as potassium, magnesium etc. Hydrogen was first formed during the Big Bang nucleosynthesis era (in the first few seconds after the Big Bang) along with some helium. These are continually recycled through the process of cosmic evolution as gravity gathers them together in giant balls called stars - in which, through the processes of stellar nucleosynthesis and supernova events cause the fusion of hydrogen and helium atoms into the larger, heavier elements required to produce living things (for example). All these elements, including the very atoms of which your nose, roses, babies and cats (to name four examples as requested), trace their material origin back to that first nucleosynthesis event shortly after the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago. There is not a single atom in your body or that of any other entity on earth that does not trace its material origin back to that event. Every atom is formed from the original atoms produced then and is therefore, as a material part of the universe precisely as old as the material universe.

We know that this matter, these first atoms, were formed from the physical energy that was (somehow) compressed into an incredibly dense, incredibly hot and incredibly small space from which the entire observable universe has subsequently expanded.

We do not know where that energy came from. The energy from which the matter that a rose is composed of may very well be eternal. We do not know. Science does not know. I do not know - you do not know. Therefore, you can, by no means prove that the universe had a beginning. You just can't. Nobody can.

 

[siti]

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

And I suggest you post your evidence showing that universe had a beginning.

PS - I already have a post-graduate degree - in science - you?

PPS - inane absurdity and gratuitous ad hominen are not branches of philosophy.

 

[siti]

And I have repeatedly shown that none of these are evidence of a universe without a beginning. Everyone of them is composed of matter that emerged from energy that was already there at the Big Bang - there is no evidence of a beginning. You have to refute this with actual evidence that proves that the Big Bang (or some other event) was the actual beginning - otherwise all you have proved is that there are physical things in the universe and we don't know where, how or when that physical reality began. So once again, please post you evidence that proves that the universe had a beginning.

 

[Sanmario]

You say: "And I have repeatedly shown that none of these are evidence of a universe without a beginning."

You see, dear siti, we have got to concur on what is the concept of beginning.

 

[Sanmario]

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.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear siti, I see the circle expanding and collapsing in your chimp avatar, so you are online, though might not be at your computer.


I will be back in three hours time.

So, let us work as to concur on what is the meaning of the word beginning.