Where are you God?

@Krumple,

Quote:

There are a finite number of possibilities. They can't all be true.

1. There is no god.
2. There is a god but it did not create the universe.
3. There are multiple gods.
4. There is a god and it created the universe but does not care about you or anyone.
5. There is a god but its not the christian god, it's something else entirely.
6. There is a god, it created the universe and wants to see you suffer in it for it's enjoyment.
7. There is a god and it created the universe for your well being.

There are a limited number of options but notice that a HUGE majority of those options do not have your best interest in mind. All these are possible to be true yet we have absolutely NO way to determine which one is true. But theists like to assume they know which one is true. But they are delusional and dishonest when they regurgitate it as if it were a fact.

How do you know they are assuming? Maybe they researched the data and know something you don't. You said all those possibilities could be true, but only one is. Once you discover which one it is, it is true and should be treated as such.

1 Reply

@TomTomBinks,

Dear readers here, do you notice that Tom is again into his usual retreat from producing an example of evidence, if he ever had come to the certainty of something in existence, from evidence.

I present to him the nose in his face as evidence that it is caused by an entity that brings to existence everything with a beginning, to require him to concur with me or not.

If not, then I will explain in more plain clear simple and but concise language, and hope he will get the explanation correctly.

But the man now goes into retreat by injecting into the present exchange the matter of evolution.

Dear Tom, you are an intellectual coward of thinking, which is alas a contradiction insofar as words/concepts are concerned.

Evolution is not the correct objection to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator of everything with a beginning.

There are correct objections, and there are objections that are not even wrong, eh? How is that?*

Here, read carefully, as follows below:

Your correct objection should be what atheists routinely resort to, namely, no creator needed because creator only demands another creator and on and on into infinite regress.

Or that the nose is evidence to the existence of a creator cause of the nose, that is circular reasoning, owing to the assumption of creation in the concept of the nose.

*Correct objection means relevant to the issue at hand, not even wrong objection is when it is altogether irrelevant to the issue at hand.

BUT, the fact is that Tom is always into evasiveness, with retreat to his Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome, by which he thinks he can escape into the safety of flight.

Well, dear Tom, I have news for you: you can run: but you cannot hide from your miserable fear, due to your Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome.

The cure is to play the man, be courageous, to take up genuine thinking, grounding yourself on truths facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

Okay, again Tom, if you ever have come to the certainty of the existence of something by way of evidence, then present here to me and readers, what is that evidence.

Hint: try to present your nose, that is obviously when you do think, it is the evidence of the existence of your papa and mama.

Dear readers here, let us await with bated breath to witness how he is going to again resort to running faster and farther into the deeper recesses of his dungeon, to nurse his Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome.

When Tom does present correct objections to the explanation of God existing from the existence of the nose in our face, then I will explain to him how his objections are again attempts at evasiveness, inspired by his Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome.

0 Replies

Dear readers here, and in particular atheists, here is again in substance a very brief but foolproof explanation for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning:

1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

2. Existence is ultimately of two kinds:
2(a). Existence from another entity
2(b). Existence from oneself

3. We now go into the universe to look for evidence of entities with a beginning.

4. We find only entities with a beginning.

5. Wherefore it follows from logic that there is an entity with no beginning, because it is an entity from itself, namely, not from another entity.

6. Conclusion: God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Okay, dear readers here, let us now await with bated breath for atheists to present their objections.

5 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Susmario,
Conversation with you is next to impossible. You seem to not understand when I make a point. You don't respond to my questions and challenges. You state your own points as if they were undisputed facts, and if someone disagrees with you you call them ignorant or evasive. In an earlier post you chastised me for using a dictionary to define a word. I challenged you as to why you think your definition is superior but you chose not to answer. YOU are evasive. In another post you chastised me for using the learning of others to make my point, so I challenged you to present a piece of new knowledge from your own thinking without using an outside source. You chose not to answer. YOU are evasive. You like to repeat yourself and pretend you have a monopoly on truth. Where did you get this knowledge, this certainty? Does your god speak to you?

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

3. We now go into the universe to look for evidence of entities with a beginning.

4. We find only entities with a beginning.

Who went into the universe to look for evidence of entities with a beginning? Who found only entities with a beginning?

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

I'm sorry. I shouldn't have asked that. You have no way of knowing.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Dear Glen, start with the nose in our face, it is a part of the universe, you know that?

Or you deny that the nose in our face is a part of the universe?

In fact, I dare say that if the universe is all the nose in our fact, it is already a complete universe.

Is that your objection to my explanation for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning?

You ask me:

Quote:

@Susmariosep,
I'm sorry. I shouldn't have asked that. You have no way of knowing.

I have yes ways and means of knowing everything in the universe has a beginning, starting with the nose in our face.

With the nose in our face, we just touch it: I touch my nose and you touch your nose, and we touch each other's nose: there we know the nose exists.

Next, does it have a beginning?

Certainly, it has its beginning with our papa and mama, i.e. respectively your parents and my parents making love, and thereby caused our beginning of existence, with mama's one lucky ovum fertilized by papa's one lucky sperm.

Voilà, we get started lucky us - though I want to tell everyone, that when we use the words luck and lucky, I for one as a theist understand luck to be a blessing or grace or favor from God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Now, let us go to the beginning of the universe, according to the standard cosmology of scientists, there was a beginning which is called already in a descriptive term by the astronomer Hoyle - though he was talking in jest, he called that beginning, the Big Bang, everything got started there and then, including time and space itself as a pair.

So, there we have it, the explanation why everything in the universe has a beginning, namely, because it is a part of the universe which has a beginning.

Dear readers, too bad, I guess Tomtombinks will from now no longer participate in this thread.

In my other thread on "The control of one subatomic particle," someone also opted to leave, one Fresco.

He finds a lot of knowing and the reality of existence problematic for himself, too challenging - so for his preservation in his Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome, he made the wise or smart decision to take to flight.

2 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Why don't you acknowledge me, Susmario? I'm not leaving this conversation. Respond to my challenges if you have any interest in a two way conversation. If not, if you just want to post your opinions, you're free to do that but why ask for responses that you have no intention of acknowledging?

1 Reply

@TomTomBinks,

Oh good, dear Tom, you are still around.
_______________________________

Now, you tell me a lot of falsehood that I do not respond to you.

Quote:

From Tomtombinks:

@Susmariosep,
Why don't you acknowledge me, Susmario? I'm not leaving this conversation. Respond to my challenges if you have any interest in a two way conversation. If not, if you just want to post your opinions, you're free to do that but why ask for responses that you have no intention of acknowledging?

So, No. 1., what don't you just tell me when you write again, and I will reply to you on the 'what', okay?

I am very glad that you have not quitted this thread, unlike one super self-pompous with nothing from his own thinking, one Fresco, has taken to flight from my other thread, the one on The control of one subatomic particle, but hurling insults on me as he ran away to his unthinking safety.

No. 2., I will look up one instance of my replying to you as one of everyone a post is ipso facto* addressed to, because it comes out in a thread for all public viewing and interacting to, the most recent one.

And you did not react to that post, which is the immediate post from me, coming immediately prior to the post you transmitted immediately preceding this post I am now writing to send to you, and ipso facto,* for being put for all public viewing, it is addressed to everyone to read and to interact to - no need for any explicit mention of a particular named poster.

And you did not react to that post, see below, and also the one prior immediately prior to that one, which is on a quick explanation on how God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, explanation founded on the evidence of the nose in our face and so forth and so on.

There I challenge every atheist to throw up objections against, and you are an atheist but not reacting to that post, by perhaps interjecting an objection.

Now, take notice of the line toward the end of the post as follows below, it is put in huge font size, that is addressed to you [also], to react to the post, but of course it is sent @Glen, still it is addressed to everyone present.

Quote:

From Susmariosep | Post: # 6,466,521 | Mon 17 Jul, 2017 09:03 pm

@Glennn,
Dear Glen, start with the nose in our face, it is a part of the universe, you know that?

Or you deny that the nose in our face is a part of the universe?

In fact, I dare say that if the universe is all the nose in our fact, it is already a complete universe.

Is that your objection to my explanation for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning?

You ask me:

Quote:
From Glen:

@Susmariosep,
I'm sorry. I shouldn't have asked that. You have no way of knowing.
______________________________

I have yes ways and means of knowing everything in the universe has a beginning, starting with the nose in our face.

With the nose in our face, we just touch it: I touch my nose and you touch your nose, and we touch each other's nose: there we know the nose exists.

Next, does it have a beginning?

Certainly, it has its beginning with our papa and mama, i.e. respectively your parents and my parents making love, and thereby caused our beginning of existence, with mama's one lucky ovum fertilized by papa's one lucky sperm.

Voilà, we get started lucky us - though I want to tell everyone, that when we use the words luck and lucky, I for one as a theist understand luck to be a blessing or grace or favor from God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Now, let us go to the beginning of the universe, according to the standard cosmology of scientists, there was a beginning which is called already in a descriptive term by the astronomer Hoyle - though he was talking in jest, he called that beginning, the Big Bang, everything got started there and then, including time and space itself as a pair.

So, there we have it, the explanation why everything in the universe has a beginning, namely, because it is a part of the universe which has a beginning.

Dear readers, too bad, I guess Tomtombinks will from now no longer participate in this thread.

In my other thread on "The control of one subatomic particle," someone also opted to leave, one Fresco.

He finds a lot of knowing and the reality of existence problematic for himself, too challenging - so for his preservation in his Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome, he made the wise or smart decision to take to flight.

*ipso facto = Latin, meaning by the mere fact i.e. deed, event, presence of the thing noticed by everyone not sleeping.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

What is the point of an atheist responding to a fool who can't even spot his own conditioning which constrains his thinking, and who is totally ignorant of the nature of scientific paradigms. ? As Margaret Thatcher once said of a colleague, ' a challenge from him was like being mugged by a dead sheep !'.

BTW On the plus side, the 'Latin ploy' which you no doubt consider to be useful in establishing a veneer of sophistication is one of the more creative approaches I have seen from a lonely troll.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Okay, If I understand your point, you're saying that your nose has a beginning, and therefore your god does not. You'll have to explain that a bit more, as it makes no sense at all.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Well, thanks for returning, dear Fresco.

Now, let us talk about this thing you I find to be keen on, but I fear you will run away again, still there is always the possibility that you might stay put.

You tell me or ask in a blind sort of direction: "[what is] the nature of scientific paradigms?

You know and think better than me, so you have the privilege, and right, and burden to enlighten mankind on what are scientific paradigms, okay?

I am now all ears to hear err all eyes to read and learn from you, on your knowledge and understanding of scientific paradigms, in regard of course to the present thread, on "Where are you God?"

Dear readers here, let us all with bated breath sit back to witness how Fresco, our master of having read things in a college library, instruct us on what are scientific paradigms.

Please stay posted.

Annex
From Fresco:

@Susmariosep,
Laughing
What is the point of an atheist responding to a fool who can't even spot his own conditioning which constrains his thinking, and who is totally ignorant of the nature of scientific paradigms. ? As Margaret Thatcher [name-dropping] once said of a colleague, ' a challenge from him was like being mugged by a dead sheep !'.

BTW On the plus side, the 'Latin ploy' which you no doubt consider to be useful in establishing a veneer of sophistication is one of the more creative approaches I have seen from a lonely troll.

1 Reply

Dear Tom, so now, are you happy now? I am going to respond to your thinking? Continue below:

Okay, don’t talk in a blind direction, give an example of something with a function that does not have a designer, okay?

Annex

Quote:

From Tomtomlinks:

@Susmariosep,

Susmario,
The mistake your making has been made many times over thousands of years. It is the mistake of assuming that if something has a function, it must have had a designer with that intent in mind. It's not necessarily so. Have you heard of evolution? It offers an explanation of the development of life that doesn't include god. There are theories in the field of cosmology that explain the origin of the universe without the necessity of god. before you reject these ideas, look into them in depth.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

From Glenn:
"@Susmariosep,
Okay, If I understand your point, you're saying that your nose has a beginning, and therefore your god does not. You'll have to explain that a bit more, as it makes no sense at all."

Did you read about my quick explanation on how God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning?

Here, below, I will reproduce it, and think about it, okay?

Please abstain from your bad attitude of not thinking at all, but asking questions with the smug feeling that with asking questions you have refuted other people's thinking.

Take notice of the text in huge font size, in the quote below.

Quote:

• Post: # 6,466,303 • Susmariosep • Mon 17 Jul, 2017 12:07 pm

Dear readers here, and in particular atheists, here is again in substance a very brief but foolproof explanation for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning:

1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

2. Existence is ultimately of two kinds:
2(a). Existence from another entity
2(b). Existence from oneself

3. We now go into the universe to look for evidence of entities with a beginning.

4. We find only entities with a beginning.

5. Wherefore it follows from logic that there is an entity with no beginning, because it is an entity from itself, namely, not from another entity.

6. Conclusion: God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Okay, dear readers here, let us now await with bated breath for atheists to present their objections.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

Please abstain from your bad attitude of not thinking at all, but asking questions with the smug feeling that with asking questions you have refuted other people's thinking.

That's unfair for two reasons.

1. I summarized your post, and that was my honest opinion of your point.

2. You're asking that I abstain from what you yourself are engaging in.

We'll just cut to the chase. You are telling us about the nature and character of a being that remains in the realm of belief. Furthermore, you make the claim that it did not have a beginning. So you believe in an effect without a cause.

Quote:

3. We now go into the universe to look for evidence of entities with a beginning.

4. We find only entities with a beginning.

Who went out into the universe to look for evidence of entities with a beginning? And who found only entities with a beginning?

0 Replies

Dear readers and also in most particulars, atheists:

So that I will not tire myself out with replying to all of you on the same queries or objections, please let us work as to concur on the following premises from yours truly.

So, everyone, give your comments on them, see below/

And when you do not keep to them, I will have to omit replying to you, because you are not into what are pre-requisites, for a productive and of course firstly relevant contribution to the instant present matter at hand.

That is one of the gimmicks from atheists of self-evasion in pursuit of Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome, repeating and repeating and repeating again and again and again their irrelevant comments, objections, etc., all in the cause of muddling up the issue, God exists or not, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Okay, please guide yourselves accordingly, as to present your comments and objections and contributions in regard to the pre-requisite premises below from yours truly.

And no need to insist that you have the right to write anything and everything you care to write in a message in a forum.

You are welcome of course to write anything at all, but others have the option to not bother with you: because you are singing a different song, away from the song everyone is into at the extant instant.

Here below is the song I propose everyone attend to:

Quote:

From Susmariosep:

1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

2. Existence is ultimately of two kinds:
2(a). Existence from another entity
2(b). Existence from oneself

Sincere thanks to everyone, even Fresco, he acts too fresh for someone who is a master of having read things in a college library, but never having done any self-thought out ideas.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Oh dear... be careful that repetitive baited breath exercise doesnt finish you off physically as well as mentally!

A scientific paradigm is a historical phase in epistemological progress which is characterised by a coherent set of theoretical structures and activities which currently define what constitutes 'accepted scientific knowledge' at that time.

Paradigms are transient such that progression involves a later one encompassing an earlier one. For example the 'Relativistic paradigm' replaced a 'Newtonian paradigm', and delimited its applicability. Hence for example 'gravity' which Newton considered to be 'a force' was for Einstein an aspect of 'the curvature of Space-Time'.

The salient point about paradigms as far as lay concepts of 'existence' are concerned is that the meaning of 'is -ness' historically changes to the extent that it becomes increasingly difficult to envisage a picture as we now enter the realm of quantum mechanics and beyond. (Cries of
'baloney' may then heard from certain befuddled idiots). Secondly the lay concept of 'causality' has no status within the frontier science which relies on the coherence of its mathematical modelling to successfully predict observations, and that point demolishes any simplistic attempted hijacking of paradigms like 'Big Bang' (already questionable btw) by the Holy Joe's wearing their 'First Cause' hats.

Now nobody expects a troll with a rigid agenda to commune with any of the
above, but anybody with half a brain should see that such a thumbnail sketch is merely the tip of a potential iceberg which could sink a simpleton's theism.

So the question is 'do you half a brain' or are you merely attention seeking ?
Your nomadic forum coverage indicates the latter. Remember, you've tried garbage about 'name dropping', and you've even had the cheek to attempt to rubbish QM even though its theoretical utility fundamentally underpins the very computer that you are using !

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Jesus
Mary
Joseph

I knew you looked familiar

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

Dear readers..

Trying to talk smart doesn't make you so.
(not that you have much of a chance at either)

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

In an attempt to prove the existence of a god, some--like yourself--will ask others to consider their own existence, and the impossibility of something coming from nothing. However, when asked where their alleged god came from, they tend to seek refuge in the very idea that they ask others to discard--that something (their alleged god) came from nothing. And after having their contradiction pointed out to them, they conjure up the only explanation available to them--that their aleged god has no beginning. How convenient . . .

1 Reply

Where are you God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know