The tolerant atheist

You're not listening. You keep lying and hating. You're not worth my tome. Good bye now.

Dear Olivier5, you say to Glennn:
"@Glennn,
You're not listening. You keep lying and hating. You're not worth my tome. Good bye now."

That is what I have noticed almost continuously with 'virtually' all posters here.

They just will not stick to the question at hand, and work with their opponents as to concur step by step to the final concurrence, so that both sides win, in that there is now the common enhancement of our now common enhanced knowledge of reality.

I am always disposed to discuss an issue from its logical beginning, and reach to the very end where both sides find themselves agreeing on the final straw which now will not break at all any camel's back, but will complete the bridge of mutual ascertainty on the resolution of the issue.

Like for example, God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.*

Now, see if you can notice, that there will be posters here who will react to his post from me, not with adding to my thinking, as for them and me to already advance one step toward the building of a common certainty at the end, but instead calling me all sorts and degrees of hatred, like for example calling me a dickhead or worse.

Why this fear and hatred from undertaking the mutual endeavor to arrive at the settlement of an issue at all?

I will hazard a guess, it is because such humans are wholly dominated by the fear wherefore resulting in hatred, that they might come to the truth, the fact, the logic, and the best thought of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

Why and how they ever got themselves encapsulated into such an most counter productive attitude, they can only know when they overcome fear and hatred, as to examine themselves fully and deeply to see what is bugging them.

*With atheists, in addition to woeful fear and hatred, they are also into fake argumentation, which when examined carefully, is nothing but all sorts and degrees of evasiveness, that is the case with one Glennn, even though if memory serves, he tells me he is not exactly an atheist.

There, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness the reaction of these hateful posters to this post from me, posters like Fresco, Izzy, Barmpot, and others, just you wait they will surface as sure as the sun rises in the morning and the moon in the evening.

As I see it, the problem with the "first cause" argument is that it does not really solve the issue of "how come there is something rather than nothing?".

The argument says: "the universe exists because God wanted it to exist." But then, why does God exist, and why did He want the universe to exist? And there's no way to convincingly answer those questions...

Saying "God did it" only amounts to tagging this question with the word "God"; ie calling the answer "God", which brings no additional understanding whatsoever.

I'd rather admit that I don't know why the universe exists, and how it came into being.

All posters and readers here will note that I have asked Sus two questions. I asked him whether or not he has ever mentioned in these forums that he is a Christian. I have also asked him how he came to the conclusion that the god of his beliefs is male. Note that his response to these questions is to not respond at all, but rather to react. And his reaction consists of nothing more than a declaration that he will no longer talk with me.

Sus' problem is that his communication skills are limited to talking at people instead of talking with them. So now we will all sit back with wait with bated breath to see how Sus will react to this most accurate assessment of our interaction here.

Okay, you take care now.

I just love the name of this thread

I don't hate you. Your sperm laden post gave the kid and I really good laugh. Neither of us can remember your name, you're Spermguy. (I recently met another A2Ker in the flesh, and he calls you Spermguy too.)

You're a bit dull, but sometimes inadvertently quite funny, your pomposity is priceless. There's not really anything to hate, you're not a bad person, but you're not somebody I could ever bring myself to take seriously.

That's not hate, that's just how it is.

Well, I'm an atheist, thank God.

But I want to play, too! Who am I supposed to hate?

Dear Olivier5, you tell me:
"As I see it, the problem with the "first cause" argument is that it does not really solve the issue of "how come there is something rather than nothing?"

Let us work as to concur on this issue from you that that is a question that is valid, namely, How come there is something rather than nothing?

You ask me or tell me, that first cause does not solve the question, how come there is something rather than nothing.

Right away, I see that you have not done any personal genuine thinking from your brain, but you just throw up what you read from empty atheists who don't think at all, but they are into perennial evasiveness.

Okay, as you ask that question, How there is something rather than nothing?

Do you at all have any at inkling what is the answer that to you is acceptable on the basis of your very personal genuine thinking with your brain?

Because if you don't have any inkling at all, whatever answer I give you, I ask you how can you comment on it?

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await to witness the reaction of Olivier5, to my question addressed to him: "As you don't have any inkling at all, whatever I answer I give you, I ask you how can you comment on it at all?"

Okay, dear Olivier5, think what kind of an inkling at all you have for an answer to your question addressed to me, namely, How is there something rather than nothing?

Because if you don’t have any inkling at all on the answer to that question, how can you ever be qualified to comment on whatever answer I will give you?

Dear readers here, there is 99.99% certainty that Olivier5, and also including atheists, will take refuge with saying that they don’t understand me with my question that how can they make any comment to whatever answer I give them, if they don’t have any inkling at all on what answer is to them acceptable.

I don't have the slightest idea why there is something rather than nothing. But I know that if there was nothing, we wouldn't be talking about it.

Dear Olivier5, you tell mankind including first and foremost me:
"I don't have the slightest idea why there is something rather than nothing. But I know that if there was nothing, we wouldn't be talking about it."

Okay, what is your experience in your own lifetime to date, when there is something in your home that you don't know about to be there, what do you do, in order to answer your question, how or why is there something in my home at all?


I really enjoy talking with good folks who really are curious but they forget to think on the basis of the experiences from themselves on things in the totality of reality which is existence.

So, dear Olivier5, please think and answer my question to you, namely:

Oh, I love this!

Dear Olivier5, I guess you are now off-line.

When you come back, please react to my reply to your last post, see below, my reply to your last post.

If you can answer "Why is there one (or several) god(s)?", you can answer my objection to the "prime cause" argument.

Dear Oli, please, you are getting evasive.

You ask me:
"If you can answer "Why is there one (or several) god(s)?", you can answer my objection to the "prime cause" argument."

Our present issue is to work together to find the answer to your question, why there is something rather than nothing.

And it is brought about by your reminder to me that last cause or also called first cause explanation for God existing as first and foremost creator cause of everything, it is challenged by the question, why is there something at all rather than nothing.

Anyway, what do you really want to get us together to do what? to concur or to from your part evade from one issue by bringing another issue, and going in that trend like atheists do?

Or we will get together to work on why God is the first cause and also the last cause of everything with a beginning?

I am trying to get us to see what is the meaning of your reminder that the one first cause and last cause is challenged by your question, why there is something at all rather than nothing.

Okay, you will not work with your brain as to find the answer to your own question, why there is something than nothing, and I already gave you the tip on how to get to answer your own question, why there is something than nothing.

I ask you whether you have any experiences of things at this time of your life.

Instead of now going through your experiences, you throw a new question to me, on why there is one god instead of several.

Do you see that you are into the self-entrapment by atheists of their brain, via evasiveness all the time.

Okay, just tell me you have no experiences at all that can and will help you to find the answer to your own question, why there is something rather than nothing, and I will answer for you why there is something rather than nothing.

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness what gimmick Oli will go on this time, in order to again seek to evade the suggestion I gave him, namely: look to your experiences in life, like when you get home and see something in it which was not there when you left home earlier, how do you explain to yourself why there is something new rather than no something new as earlier.

Oh, dear Oli and all readers here, I really love this!

I tell you everyone, when I ask a question, it is not in order to evade answering the question myself, or answering a previous question from an opponent in the exchange of thoughts.

You will not believe this, but I tell you:

"IT IS ALWAYS TO HELP YOU TO COME TO THE ANSWER BY USING YOUR BRAIN POWER!

I hold to the pedagogical philosophy that the best education methodology is to make the child think up answers to questions in his life, or questions he encounters in the world.

Okay, let us all sit back, dear readers here, and see how Oli will react to this post, if and when he does read it up to the end, for a lot of posters do not read anything beyond 50 words.

Yes, I think it is important you try to answer your own questions. So where do you start?

Dear Oli, you tell me:
"Yes, I think it is important you try to answer your own questions. So where do you start?"

It is not my question but yours, namely, why or how there is something rather than nothing.

Here goes:

1. I assume that you have experienced this kind of an encounter, coming home and seeing something which was not present when you left home earlier.

2. So you use your brain to figure out why or how there is now a something, whereas there was no that something when you left the house earlier.

Are you getting me, or you are now into stubborn evasiveness from using your brain on your experience as to draw the conclusion, namely, that there is a something now rather than a no something, because someone or something put it there.

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness what gimmick of evasiveness Oli will now play, instead of using his brain as to work on his experiences in life, in order to get to answer what to him are in-explainable but stupid nonsense questions, like why there is something rather than nothing.

Oh, I really love this!

Okay, if you have any answers to my questions, please provide. I personnally don't have an answer to the issue of why the universe exists. Furthermore, I don't think it's possible for human beings to really understand this issue.

And it's not a matter of comparing it with simple things like "to figure out why or how there is now a something, whereas there was no that something when you left the house earlier". E.g. if there is an elephant in my house, I can assume that sometimes back, a mama elephant had sexual intercourse with a papa elephant, and she later gave birth to this elephant now standing in my living room... Does it follow that our universe was the result of a mama universe having sex with a papa universe?

Just because sex is the origin of pretty much any living thing, does not imply it's also the origin of the whole world...

You don't understand quantum physics, instead of accepting your limitations you talk bollocks. (Hint, my home is nothing like the conditions that existed just before The Big Bang.)

Dear Olie, you say to me:
"Okay, if you have any answers to my questions, please provide. I personally don't have an answer to the issue of why the universe exists. Furthermore, I don't think it's possible for human beings to really understand this issue."

You now bring up the universe, the one I assume we live in.

Nevermind, because whatever you bring in, it is something rather than nothing.

So, the question remains, why is there something rather than nothing, and that includes the whole transcendental question of existence, period.

Why is there existence instead of no existence?

You admit you have no explanation.

But I have, and it is based on my experience that anything at all that is in existence, it is put there by some entity.

Now, please don't be stubbornly irrational or play dumb, by insisting that no one can answer that question.

No one who does not think at all, can answer that question, but when you think on experience, then the answer is very clear, there is something instead of nothing because some entity put it there.

So, I have a reason for my answer, and it is founded on experience.

You have no answer and you want to include all mankind to be like you, all because you don't want to factor in experience.

I ask you, when you are born with no capacity at all for experiencing the world outside and independent of your mind, what kind of an existence is that?

It is no different from the existence of a pebble.

Please, cease and desist already from playing dumb, in order to cater to your foolish perhaps sense [Oh most commendable] of humility socalled, of not knowing something that is Oh so profound, like why is there something rather than nothing.

Dear readers here, you and I are now witnessing a recurring phenomenon of a human who prefers to play dumb, instead of taking up with his experiences of the world outside and independent of his mind, in order to find answers, yes explanations for everything, yes everything, ultimately, i.e. that some entity put it there in existence.

Now, dear Olie, you will continue with: and who put that ultimate some entity into existence?

Okay, ask me that question, and I will answer you and you will again play dumb, and insist that no one can answer that question; yes no one who wants to play as like a pebble.

I have the answer for that question for you because I choose intelligence as founded on experiences of the world outside and independent of my mind, but of course I need my mind to come to answers, WITH factoring in my experiences of life and the world outside and independent of our mind.

You have no answer and want to include all mankind to be like you, all because you would rather play the existence of a pebble.

Here is a partial preview of my answer to your next question, namely: what ultimate entity puts everything in existence?

Or several entities, more often. Like in the case of the elephant I was talking about.