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

[Sanmario]

@siti


You siti say, "I [you] said that you [ I ] had not written one in response to any of my [your] questions."

Present the link of one any question from you I had not written in response to.

And don't take to the exit, because I will answer the question as soon as your give me the quote to the any question you addressed to me which according to you I had not replied to, give the link.

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]

@siti


Dear readers here, siti talks a lot of words but all of them are into cover-up of his losing in the debate between him and me.

So, siti, I want you to return and finish the debate, yes it is philosophy.

You say this and that and so on and on, now at this point in time, tell me something that I say which you object to, present the link.

You take up the smug feeling that you know a lot, but I see you to have nothing on reason and observation and thus to be able to come to an intelligent conclusion supporting your contention whatever it is.


Dear readers, see whether he has the courage to return or like one Dawkins taking to cover-up with a lot of words and more words, instead of facing Craig and accepting to debate Craig, for which reason a fellow don of his, Dawkins, calls him Dawkins a coward.

“In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: “The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.”
Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God​

 

[Sanmario]

@siti



Dear siti, when you do care to restore our talk, please proceed to the thread on, Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

That is where we were having our exchange until you took to the exit and I think you threw up a stink bomb on the way to the exit.

Please return there and clear up your stink bomb.

So, what are you waiting for?

 

[Koldo]

@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?

From outside of my mind. Keep going.

 

[columbus]

Dear siti, when you do care to restore our talk, please proceed to the thread on, Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

I can't help but notice something.
When I did what you requested on Monday, post #67 I believe, you didn't respond. You didn't even acknowledge having seen it. I described my image of god and tried to show the subtle distinction between our different points of view.
Instead of responding you kept tagging me in other posts directed to other people.
Tom

 

[Sanmario]

Dear readers and posters here, thanks a lot for your presence.

I am leaving this thread to concentrate on my other thread, the one on Is it possible to talk with an atheist, because what I talk about here is also being talked about in the other thread, so there is no need for this thread.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is a distinction between the objectival realm of things and the conceptival realm of things.

An example of a thing in the objectival realm is the nose in our face.

And an example of a thing in the conceptival realm is the idea of God.

Now, when we talk about God we have an idea of God, otherwise we would be talking about nothing at all with precision, if we don’t have an idea at all of God.

What is our idea of God? That is what we want to work on as to come to concurrence on the concept of God.

With the nose in our face, we all have the same idea of nose and we all know for a certainty the existence of the nose outside our mind, outside namely the conceptival realm, and it is in the objectival realm, independent of our mind.

So paging thinkers here, what is your concept of God?

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.

Any and all distinctions are conceptual, and the real is forever on the other side of conceptual representations of reality. Not that the conceptualizing mind does not have its place, it is essential for functioning as a sentient being facing the challenges of physical life, but it can not realize the transcendent truth of the oneness of universal reality, known as God by some religious teachings. When the mind is still and free from thought, then and only then can the real on the other side of the concept of God be realized, for it is then face to face with the oneness and merging can occur, nothing separate from God can ever enter into God, for God's nature in one, not two.