yrreg

To know something in the broadest sense of the word means to have any idea at all about that something. For example, atheists call God a flying spaghetti monster, they know what is a flying spaghetti monster, it is all in their mind, but they have not shown a flying spaghetti monster yet as to prove to mankind that God is such a flying spaghetti monster which they have located in the reality of existence outside their mind. So, to know something is to have any idea at all in the mind of humans and also in the reality of existence outside the mind of humans. Now, to prove something is to show that the concept of something in the mind (we'll talk about in reality later) is not internally inconsistent and incoherent namely, that it is internally consistent and coherent. For example, the popular example of an internally inconsistent and incoherent concept is the square-circle, it is a circle and a square at the same time and in the same aspect of consideration: such a figure cannot be a square if it is a circle, and not a circle if it is a square. But we still in a way know what is a square-circle, not in itself as something that is internally inconsistent and incoherent, but by comparison with internally consistent and coherent things. If you talk about a square-circle, no one can know what you are talking about, except that you must be into showing them what is an internally inconsistent and incoherent concept compared to internally consistent and coherent concepts. We now come to what it is to prove something to exist. Ask ourselves the question first, exist where? In the mind or in the reality of existence outside our mind, or both in the mind and in the existence of reality outside our mind? 1a. How to prove something exists in our mind: show to your listeners that they can also think of such a thing in their minds, it is thinkable and they and you can actually think of it and talk about it, the concept in our minds. For example, a human with the abdomen upward human but with the part below a goat (satyr): we can keep such an idea and even image in our mind and talk about it. 1b. How to prove something to exist in our mind: by showing that it is implied or even identical to another thing which we know about; for example, you know a grown-up man, that implies that you know him to be once upon a time a male infant; then also you can show that the man and the male infant are identical. 2a. How to prove that something in the mind is present in the reality of existence outside our mind, for example, Bigfoot or Susquatch: you and I go forward in the reality of existence and look for him, because he is described as bigger than ordinary humans and has big feet, still essentially human -- if we don't find him, then we have to search farther and more intensively and more continuously, but for the time being we can say that we have not found him: we cannot say that he does not exist, because Bigfoot or Susquatch is in concept absolutely internally consistent and coherent, he is not any internally inconsistent and incoherent in concept. 2b. What about things which we cannot locate in the reality of existence outside our mind but they are supposed to be existing, like for example, God, or in olden days, bacteria as yet then unknown to mankind? First, something can be existing but we cannot experience it directly with our senses, because it is too big or too small. In the case of God, He is at the same time too big for man to be able to notice His presence, and at the same time He is so subtle as to be also for man impossible to notice His presence. How big is God? bigger than the universe as to contain the universe; and how small? smaller than whatever space prevails between the smallest sub-atomic particles still not yet discovered. You notice that with bacteria, no one could prove directly their existence until the invention of the microscope. So, how do we know enough as to prove the existence of God, and of the bacteria prior to the invention of the microscope? From the effects brought about by God, and also by bacteria in their own case (there are bacteria advantagious to mankind and there are bacteria harmful to mankind. Now with God He is so big and so small and everywhere that we cannot notice His presence, but His effects are seen in the universe which He created and everything in the universe, including our nose, so that as you see your nose you can tell God, "Thank you, God, for the nose in my face." : So, what do you guys here say about my thinking on what is knowable and what is provable. Gerry

040512thr 0856h I will be back later in the evening or tomorrow morning. Yrreg Okay, you agree with me that you see there has always been something. What is my point? The thread is about: "God as the first cause. Seeking opinions on God as the first cause of everything not God." What do you say, can you reason from the fact that there has always been something to the fact of God's existence as the first cause of everything not God? I will be back... Yrreg

Well, I don't read any constructive utterances so far. Yrreg

It seems that that people who bring in the false dichotomy issue are motivated by the need to not answer the question whether there has always been something. So, as I already offered, don't give attention to the yes or no words, just answer "Has there always been something?" If you answer "There has always been something," then you are into the actual objective reality of existing things wherein we humans are situated and everything we talk about are situated. However, should you answer "There has not always been something," then you are saying there was a situation wherein there was nothing. Will you please explain how we came to exist from that situation where there was nothing? I see that at this very moment as I write this message "2 User(s) are reading this topic: 1 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users (inscription at the bottom of the screen), I invite the guest to register and participate in this thread. Yrreg Time is also a thing existing, and also space, and also other dimensions whatever that some people want to postulate although there is no evidence. In this respect of things existing vs nothing, God is also a thing, but for Christians He is the creator of everything else. So, if you people want to be focusing on always and therefore it is indicative of time, and want to make an issue of it; then tell me are you of the conviction that outside time there was nothing? And you can say the same thing about space, and also all the other speculative dimensions you want to postulate; but what is your point? That outside time there was nothing and also outside space, but there are other dimensions where there is no God? And that these dimensions are the origin of our actual objective reality of existing things wherein we humans are situated and everything we talk about? Well, if you postulate other dimensions where there is no God but these dimensions are the origin of the world wherein we are existing, what is there to prevent us from also postulating there are no such dimensions, or that in these dimensions God is present and is their creator? Yrreg

040312tue 0825h I think I read now that someone or some folks here want to talk about evidence. Didn't I ask you guys who are atheists to produce your concept of evidence as from your own stock knowledge, and then to give two examples, and also most importantly to explain how evidence works to ascertain the existence of something in the actual objective reality of existing things? But now I have realized that first things first: "Has there always been something existing?" Let us all work first on that question. Yrreg

040312tue 0810h That is the perennial trouble with atheists, they don't know about first things first, like if they were to travel they don't ask first how much money they have. Okay, let me see if you are capable of occupying your mind on the matter of God's existence or non-existence, on first things first. Tell me has there always been something existing? There are smart but in effect insane atheists who go straight to the first question of existence yes or no, by working on concepts and words and pseudo math to establish that the universe of existence came forth from nothing. Unless they are acting as comedians plus magicians, they must be insane. First, work on that question, "Has there always been something existing." Then we can proceed to put up and you put me down on the thesis that God is the first cause of all existence in the universe that is not God Himself or everything in the universe that has a beginning. Stop beating about the bush, go to first things first, answer the question and yes explain your answer, "Has there always been something existing?" Yrreg

040312tue 0743h [ Note to readers: I will now always prefix the date and time of every new message I write in my recurring session here in this forum, so that readers will know that there are several separate messages even though the system here puts them all together for having a close chronological link among themselves. ] I will just ask you: 1. What is first line of Genesis? 2. What is first line of the Apostles' Creed? Yrreg

Well, since atheists are presumed to be reading people, therefore they must have read about what they insist does not exist, namely, about God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe. How can atheists claim to know God does not exist when they don't read about Him: in particular since atheists aim their critique against Christians, it is reasonable on their part and to be taken for granted that they do read about the Christian faith looking into all the materials about God. If you atheists do not know the sources of the Christian faith which you must address yourselves to in order to talk knowedgeably about God as to come to your kind of conclusion that He does not exist, then you should not talk at all but just listen to people who are atheists like yourselves but are knowledgeable -- however better you read yourselves. Now, I want to address myself to atheists who are knowledgeable about the Christian faith and therefore also knowledgeable about the literary sources i.e. storages of the Christian faith, we can have have productive exchange of thoughts. For atheists who want to ask me for sources of the Christian faith, I will not invest time with you. But you go and take time and mental concentration to think about this question: Has there always been something existing? [ No more yes no because you want to use that as a cop-out by alleging erroneously that it is a false dichotomy whatever. ] Go, read about the Christian faith on God after you have worked hard and honestly with your mind on the question, "Has there always been something existing?" Now, addressing myself to atheists who take up reading Christian sources on God: Come, let us have useful and productive exchange of thoughts. Yrreg For atheists who resort to the cop-out of I don't know, at least know that that kind of a cop-out is indicative of very sparse and poor stock knowledge of things. And for atheists who resort to dichotomy, tell me what is the opposite of existence? If you can think out the opposite of existence, then you can understand how this question: "Has there always been something existing?" can be intelligently and correctly answered with a yes or a no; and then you can explain why you choose the yes or the no answer, on the basis of your reasonable thinking. I assure you that you will discover the proficiency of your mental assets by dwelling on that question, namely: "Has there always been something existing: yes, no?" You see, atheists, a lot of you or almost all of you resort to slogans but are not interested in thinking seriously and correctly, and hurling epithets against God, and also the rhetoric of what appear to you to be baffling questions, like if "God created everything what or who created God?" or "Can God make a rock so huge He cannot carry it?" Or declaiming (the noun is declamation) as though it has any intellectual content, "What is north of the north pole?" whenever you are invited to do serious thinking beyond time and space. Yrreg

Well, it is not enough that you allege my question,"Has there always been something: yes, no?" is founded upon a false dichotomy. Please explain what is a false dichotomy and then show how my question is founded on a false dichotomy; otherwise anyone can just run away from answering a valid question by just declaring that the question is founded on a false dichotomy. That is most convenient but it is really a cop-out, just like declaring that I don't know therefore everyone else is not supposed to know either, namely, stop using his mind to think. Yrreg First, of course, before anything else, since you mention about "your god" which I presume you mean the Christian God, then you must go and search Christian sources to come to the correct information about the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe. Otherwise you might be into any god but not the Christian God. You atheists will be pertinent to focus and concentrate on the Christian God, otherwise you are missing the target that is the only one that matters, namely, the Christian God -- and that is being impertinent. Almost all arguments of atheists against gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., so many, are really cop-out strategies, they are avoiding the arena where the action is really to be found, namely, focus and concentrate on the Christian God, and thus first obtain the correct information of the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe. Yrreg

You are talking about the suffering of humans. Before anything else, and I don't know what you are proving, let us not talk about the suffering of humans which are you and me. First things first, is there a first cause which Christians identify as God and define as the creator of everything in the universe that has a beginning or is not God Himself. That is why I am asking atheists here what is their reply to this question: Has there always been something: yes, no? Yrreg

Sorry guys, I have not been active here since the above post. Now, you guys want me to put up or shut up. Okay, I will just ask you this question, though I have not read your posts since I was last here on March 14, 2012, and today in my place it is April 1, 2012: Has there always been something existing: yes, no? You see, to put up something from my part and whether it is really putting up something, depends upon you. I can be putting up already things but you still insist that I am not in regard to the topic of this thread, God as first cause, in which case then you give me some concrete instructions what it is to put up in regard to my thesis that God is the first cause. Otherwise, namely, if you don't give me the concrete instructions, and then you ban me on the ground that I am not putting up, well what can I do but simply and stoically accept being excluded from this forum -- i.e. just resign myself to the brute fact of your exercise of physical power. Now, this question I am asking you, Has there always been something existing: yes, no? is one way of putting up to prove that God is the first cause. How does it work? Like this: When you answer either yes or no (or even I don't know), then I will show you that we can work together to analyze your answer, and on the basis of our each one's reasoning faculty working correctly, you will see that it is reasonable that God exists as the first cause of everything that has a beginning. And to not admit that is to be unreasonable. Anyway, I am resigned to be banned from this forum, if you people still insist that I am not putting up whatever. I will just say before I leave this post because it can be my last one here, namely, that there are as many ways of putting up as human reason can come to the ascertainment of the actual objective reality of something existing outside of concepts and words, and concepts and words should always bring us to the actual objective reality of existing things. A lot of arguments from atheists are just on the level of concepts and words but they don't go to the actual objective reality of existing things. For example, calling God a flying spaghetti monster but not taking the work to find out whether God is really a flying spaghetti monster or He is as taught by Christians the creator of everything that has a beginning. Another way of working only and exclusively on the level of concepts and words, is to insist that the idea of God as the creator of everything with a beginning is an assumption or circular statement, but never taking the time and investment in thinking to examine exactly what is an assumption and how it is circular, in the realm of the actual objective reality of existing things. Yrreg

I still have not come to any examples of evidence, even though I seem to have seen someone here presenting his concept of what is evidence. Quote from Yrreg For posters who have given a concept of what is evidence, please give two examples of evidence. I am sorry if you have given two examples, but you must also explain how the two examples you give if any at all I mean of examples, are illustrations and actual instances of what is evidence as per your own concept or adopted from other sources of what is evidence. If you anyone have given two examples of what is evidence after you have given your own self-thought out concept of what is evidence from your stock knowledge of things in the actual objective reality of existing things, then please show in your examples of evidence how evidence brings you to know something before you did not know because you did not have evidence. Otherwise, the most reasonable objection against God, namely, that there is no evidence, is all useless manipulation of concepts and words. So, put up your examples of evidence and expatiate on how the evidence in each examples of evidence brings a human being to come to the fact of the existence of something before he did not know about -- i.e., until he came to the evidence. Yrreg

What I see of atheists' socalled arguments against God is that they their socalled (fake) arguments are all evasions and obstructions. The existence of God is obvious to human reason, so if a human uses his reason correctly, properly, honestly, consistently, it is obvious to his mind that God exists as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. Now, atheists don't use their reason to see the fact of God's existence. What they do are evading the question and obstructing their reason so that their mind is self-deceived into the arrogance of saying that there is no evidence for God's existence. When you ask them what is their concept of evidence, they will run away; in particular once they if at all give their definition of evidence they dare not give examples of evidence in accordance with their definition. That shows that they are conspicuously aware though suppressing their awareness, that by their definition of evidence and examples of evidence, God will come forth certainly as existing, and the universe is the evidence. That is their way of evading the fact of God's existence. Now, next they obstruct their own reasoning faculty so perversely effectively that they themselves don't know that they are into obstructions of their reasoning faculty. How? Here is one very glaring perverse way of atheists' obstructing their reasoning faculty, by calling God a flying spaghetti monster. Ask them what they know to be God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe? To answer this question all they have to do is just to read the first verse of the Christian source book, the Bible: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." Gen. 1:1. Then they can just consult the common creed of Christians, the Apostles' Creed, here is the first verse of the Apostles Creed: "I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth." Why do they want to call God a flying spaghetti monster, and repeatedly in other ways like tooth fairy, or for Bertrand Russell the logician but ironically most self-deceitful of his own heart and mind (and his contemporaries saw him to be such all through and though), celestial teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars, and for some today's atheists, invisible pink unicorn? The reason is because the concept of God as the creator of heaven and earth cannot be rebutted at all. So they resort to making God sound ridiculous, but that is their perverse method of giving an appearance of rational discourse for the like of themselves, in order to obstruct their reason from seeing the obvious fact that God exists as creator of heaven and earth. So, all atheists here, no longer anymore resort to evasions and obstructions, come forth with your definition of evidence and samples of evidence. Then we can all work together to go forth into an expedition in reason to locate God the creator of heaven and earth, in the universe, which universe is my example of evidence, of evidence that points to the fact of God's existence. What are you waiting for? Yrreg So you think first we need to assume the existence of a god... then it's your particular god.... then accept the words in a book that is demonstrably false... you can't show any evidence of a god or gods much less evidence of your god, in the absence of any positive evidence the default position is, "there are no gods... or magic... or spells... or supernatural powers... none" you have made a positive assertion, please back it up or admit you cannot produce said evidence... and withdraw the assertion Dear Mountanman: You accuse me of assuming the existence of God. Have you read my message in post #1, reproduced several times already, and now again above? Here, I am not assuming the existence of God, but I have solid reasoning to present my claim that God exists, read the following from post #1. Okay, Mountanman, tell which is an assumption of the two statements below, namely, not founded on any rational basis at all: A. A teapot orbits the sun between earth and Mars. B. God is the creator of everything with a beginning. Please stay with me, don't go away; for I have the opportunity with you to come to the expedition to search for God in the realm of actual objective existing things, instead of talking uselessly in the realm of concepts and words and not coming to the reality of actual objective existing things. ---------------------- Dear readers here, I fear Mountanman will leave me. ----------------------- Back to Mountanman: Let me see if you can do really genuine serious and productive thinking: Tell me from your stock knowledge of things what is your concept of evidence and give two examples of evidence. Do your own thinking from your stock knowledge, instead of going to the dictionaries for which you are then dependent on other people's thinking because you are not accustomed to do self-thinking, and also don't repeat the lies of your master atheists who write voluminously to manipulate concepts and words when they can say in few substantial terms why they deny the existence of God, starting with a presentation of what is their concept of God as they are acquainted with the information of what is God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe. Their voluminous writings all come down to nothing but just shouting repeatedly that God does not exist because for them He is a flying spaghetti monster. They feel that they have proven thus the non-existence of God. Like a socalled modern 19th century Western philosopher (who at the end of his days was kept in an insane asylum) shouting all the time and writing voluminously that God is dead, with nothing else except that shout, God is dead; and thereby he came to feel so certain that he had proven God is dead, and his admirers even today are like him, shouting God is dead; or for the like of hopefully not you, Mountanman (but you are close), but self-shuttered up atheists shouting repeatedly, God is a flying spaghetti monster: and wherefore they have proven to themselves, their shallow selves that is, that there is no God because God is a flying spaghetti monster. Yrreg Okay, to everyone here who is denying that God exists: Please first give your concept of God as you know it to be in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe. ------------------ For posters who have given a concept of what is evidence, please give two examples of evidence. I am sorry if you have given two examples, but you must also explain how the two examples you give if any at all I mean of examples, are illustrations and actual instances of what is evidence as per your own concept or adopted from other sources of what is evidence. ----------------- Now, for everyone who wants me to prove that God exists in the actual objective reality of existing things like the nose in our face and the ground where we are standing on, here it is: Before anything else, the concept of God in the Christian faith is that God is the creator of everything with a beginning, which is everything in the universe that is not God. Okay, here are the step by step expatiation of the proof of God's existence in the actual objective realm of existing things. A. You and I we exist. B. We have a beginning. C. Before our beginning we did not exist. D. Using my actual and your actual existing reasoning faculty, E. We transit to the actual objective existence of God. F. Why? Because without God we would not be here writing in this forum. For you who deny the existence of God, what is your proof? --------------------- I will just say in closing this message: that the existence of God as per the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe is obvious to the functional reason of man. That statement is what I call an "obviosity" to the honestly functional reason of man. You cannot accept that? We will see, how you can and thus should accept that. Yrreg I notice that in this forum when I write another post soon after posting a preceding one, the latter one is appended to the preceding one, so that it appears that there is one post instead of two separate posts. Well, I have come across such an arrangement in only one other forum I have been to. It is all right though, no trouble with me. But the fact in actual objective reality is that I wrote two posts, one intended for Mountanman, and the other afterwards as a post directed to anyone whom I could not be directing myself individually to each of you who have contributed a reply to my thoughts. You see, I am only one poster, and you are several; so my practice is to choose one who is in need of special attention because he has more interesting ideas, whereas others have what I call already time and again rehashed materials. But of course my judgment of what is original or more interesting materials and what are rehashed materials is not beyond challenge. Yrreg

The title of this thread is: God as the first cause. Seeking opinions on God as the first cause of everything not God. #Post 1 4 March 2012 - 10:31 AM yrreg What I see of atheists' socalled arguments against God is that they their socalled (fake) arguments are all evasions and obstructions. The existence of God is obvious to human reason, so if a human uses his reason correctly, properly, honestly, consistently, it is obvious to his mind that God exists as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. Now, atheists don't use their reason to see the fact of God's existence. What they do are evading the question and obstructing their reason so that their mind is self-deceived into the arrogance of saying that there is no evidence for God's existence. When you ask them what is their concept of evidence, they will run away; in particular once they if at all give their definition of evidence they dare not give examples of evidence in accordance with their definition. That shows that they are conspicuously aware though suppressing their awareness, that by their definition of evidence and examples of evidence, God will come forth certainly as existing, and the universe is the evidence. That is their way of evading the fact of God's existence. Now, next they obstruct their own reasoning faculty so perversely effectively that they themselves don't know that they are into obstructions of their reasoning faculty. How? Here is one very glaring perverse way of atheists' obstructing their reasoning faculty, by calling God a flying spaghetti monster. Ask them what they know to be God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe? To answer this question all they have to do is just to read the first verse of the Christian source book, the Bible: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."[/b] Gen. 1:1. Then they can just consult the common creed of Christians, the Apostles' Creed, here is the first verse of the Apostles Creed: "I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth."[/b] Why do they want to call God a flying spaghetti monster, and repeatedly in other ways like tooth fairy, or for Bertrand Russell the logician but ironically most self-deceitful of his own heart and mind (and his contemporaries saw him to be such all through and though), celestial teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars, and for some today's atheists, invisible pink unicorn? The reason is because the concept of God as the creator of heaven and earth cannot be rebutted at all. So they resort to making God sound ridiculous, but that is their perverse method of giving an appearance of rational discourse for the like of themselves, in order to obstruct their reason from seeing the obvious fact that God exists as creator of heaven and earth. So, all atheists here, no longer anymore resort to evasions and obstructions, come forth with your definition of evidence and samples of evidence. Then we can all work together to go forth into an expedition in reason to locate God the creator of heaven and earth, in the universe, which universe is my example of evidence, of evidence that points to the fact of God's existence. What are you waiting for? Yrreg

No. This is about your claim - not mine. You are trying to avoid the central accusation that you have made an unwarranted assertion with no evidence. This is just chop-logic. I can use your definition. The great thing is that you argument fails for almost every rational definition [...] So, it is obvious you do not have any solid thoughts of evidence as of universe that you understand genuinely what is evidence and what is the universe. Otherwise for evidence you should be able to give examples of what is evidence as you have given the definition of evidence. And as for the universe you have not given any definition at all that comes from your own thinking and formulated in your own wording. That says clearly that you do not understand at all what is the meaning of the thesis: The universe is the evidence for God's existence. ------------------ Back to your definition of evidence, the fact that you cannot or will not give examples of what is evidence, then it is conspicuous that you do not understand yourself what is your definition of evidence. For by being bereft of any samples of evidence, you betray yourself to be without any authentic grasp, i.e., comprehension of what is evidence, notwithstanding that you do pour forth words to seek to impress people that you know what is evidence, namely: according to you evidence is: But since you cannot bring forth examples of evidence, your definition of evidence is just all empty words. Let me repeat: For not being able to give examples of what is evidence, your definition of evidence is of no concrete relevancy to the world of actual objective existence, namely, that existence that is not founded on empty words alone. In which case your definition of evidence makes up an utterance of vacuous words. --------------------- Okay, work again on your definition of evidence as to be able to adduce from actual objective concrete existence examples of evidence. And do not anymore run away from giving your own definition of what is the universe. ----------------------- My definition of the universe is the totality of existence. Thanks for the compliment of your accepting my definition of universe, but I challenge you to do your own thinking and writing, as to present to every poster here and all readers of this thread what is your own self-thought out and self-worded definition of the universe. By being able and factually giving your very own definition and in your own wording of what is the universe, I can then be certain that you do know what is the universe, and understand the thesis: The universe is the evidence for God's existence. ------------------------------ To everyone else who keeps bringing up the false charge that there is no evidence for God's existence in the universe, please work with your mind (avoiding flippancy) and do serious genuinely productive thinking and writing in your own words, what is evidence -- and give examples. And also what is your own self-thought out and self-formulated concept of the universe. Yrreg

Repeatable and objectively documentable observations via a known and shared methodology that either tend to add weight to a theory or run contrary to the theory's predictions, processes, or axiomata and thus might disprove the theory. That the universe has changed is indisputable, but you seem to be positing some form of change of quality (otherwise why are you bothering) which I cannot see. "prior to the existence of time and space." Is a self-contradiction until and unless you accept something outside the universe. As this is the subject of the argument to rely on that acceptance is begging the question and logically very suspect. Your last sentence is just a blank assertion dressed in its Sunday best. /edit typo You have given a definition of evidence, now please give some at least two examples of evidence. About the universe, have you given your definition of the universe? I have given my definition of the universe, namely, the totality of existence. ------------------------- And don't engage in talking about Sunday best whatever, that is irrelevant. If something you read is a blank assertion, tell readers why it is a blank assertion without resorting to flippant association whatever which says nothing except the flippancy of the speaker. That is no substitute whatever for rational discourse. Yrreg Please edit again your post and take out the FSM, unless you have no rational force in your exposition and have to resort to irrelevant and flippant labeling. I propose that you first order your thoughts in preparation to putting down your thoughts in words. If you have to resort to labeling like FSM and you justify your labeling that you just want to tell readers that God is an unbelievable concept, just say God is an unbelievable concept or invalid concept, but you don't have to resort to labeling which says nothing but emotional flippancy from your heart and mind. After you declare that God is an unbelievable or invalid concept, explain why; but you don't need to resort to labeling, unless as I already said you are bereft of rational exposition and must substitute rational discourse with resorting to flippant labeling. Yrreg

The existence of God is not a pure assumption but a principle of human rational knowledge, otherwise you have no explanation for the origin of everything with a beginning. A pure assumption is like saying that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars, it is a pure assumption because it explains nothing that is worth or requires explaining, like how to explain everything in existence that has a beginning. --------------------- You make a lot about evidence, please just give me from your stock knowledge what is evidence. ---------------------- You also say: "I do not have a belief in any god or gods, i cannot define god because i do not believe there are any gods." See, you are being irrational in denying the existence of God when in the first place you claim not to have any definition of God or god. First, have an idea of the something that you do not believe in before you can say that you do not believe in it. Tell me, you don't believe in aswang, do you? You will ask me what I mean by aswang if you are rational. But you are not rational if without first finding out what is aswang, you already say that you do or you don't believe in aswang, i.e. even though you have no idea what is an aswang.* Again: first get the correct idea of something before you say that you don't believe in it -- or you believe in it. ----------------------------------- I am telling people that they are being flippant for saying that rabbits explain the existence of the universe or cheese explains the existence of the universe; however they would not be flippant if they first define what they mean by rabbits and by cheese, namely, as their words for the creator of everything in the universe that has a beginning. In which case I will just tell them to choose other words instead of rabbits and cheese, because these two words, rabbits and cheese, have already established definitions in English which is the language used in this forum. Now, if they then insist that for them rabbits and cheese mean whatever they want them to mean, then I will certainly tell them they are being flippant and in effect irrational: because these are already English words with established meanings and they just want to be troublesome instead of contributing to the exchange of sensible ideas and opinions. Yrreg *An Aswang (or Asuwang) is a mythical creature in Philippine folklore. The aswang is an inherently evil vampire-like creature and is the subject of a wide variety of myths and stories, the details of which vary greatly. ... Cf., en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aswang http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cts=1331232619940&ved=0CDYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAswang&ei=Sf9YT-X8BOmRiQeEgPHPDQ&usg=AFQjCNGHmfGf1pYJDDR5berYrDGaa20ldg

Why? The existence of the universe is only evidence of the existence of the universe, nothing more, nothing less. It is not evidence that there was even a beginning since it's possible the universe has existed for eternity. That said, it is not evidence for a first cause of any kind and is certainly not evidence for the existence of any god. I like to invite you to give me from your stock knowledge what is evidence, because you use that word everytime and everywhere in the question of God's existence. ----------------------- You say that " it's possible the universe has existed for eternity." I would propose that you make the qualification that the universe as the totality of existence has existed for eternity, however as we humans now observe the universe, it is a totality of existence now that is not identical to the totality of existence prior to the existence of man and also prior to the existence of time and space. On that qualification I will heartily agree with you that the universe has existed for eternity. So, the universe as the totality of existence has existed for eternity even before the existence of man and the existence of time and space, that totality of existence that has existed and is existing for eternity is the totality of existence that consists in the existence of God. -------------------------- Please don't forget to give your concept of what is evidence, but from your stock knowledge. Yrreg

Well, as long as you've found a way to feel superiority to both sides, that's all that matters. Please define rabbits. Yrreg Please define "cheese." Please abstain from flippancy, it is not worthy of a serious poster. If you have no definition of what is evidence and have no concept of what is God and also give their respective examples, just read; but don't go into flippancy. It is of the utmost importance for viable and productive exchange of thoughts that posters who use a term for its substance in the advancement of their position should be ready to define the term, otherwise they should abstain from bringing in the term. One such term is evidence. Atheists are always demanding evidence for God's existence. I bring in the concept of first cause and also of God, and I have defined them. So, atheists who demand evidence for God's existence, define what you mean by evidence, then theists can use your definition to present evidence for God's existence. And also tell everyone what is your concept of God, for everyone to see whether you have the correct concept of God; and just restrict yourselves to God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe: because that is the God that atheists are really opposed to or denying existence of, it is the reason why they atheists are into debates with Christians and not with other religions having also gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, whatever. Yrreg To posters who are fond of just giving links, don't just give web references, produce the text you refer to, or better express the thought of the text you refer to in your own words. Adopt this rule and practice: Give the gist of the text referred to, and then give the cite. Otherwise you cannot really convince people of the worth of your reference and also more significantly its relevancy to the question by just giving the link. Reproduce the text you refer to as definition of a term or as an authority or also as an opinion akin to yours, or better and best, say in your own words the thought of the text you give a web link to. In this way you will show people that you have read your referred to web text or outside the web source, and have understood it adequately as to be able to re-state its thought content in your own verbal formulation. Yrreg

Is there evidence for God? Yes, I agree with posters here who maintain that the universe is the evidence for the existence of God. However, since atheists are the ones demanding evidence for the existence of God, I want them to tell us and everyone what they understand by evidence and also what is their concept of God. Give us your definition of what is evidence and examples, and also your concept of God and examples of God. Yrreg Come on, this is rubbish I could just as easily "assume" that rabbits created the universe Please define rabbits. Yrreg

----------------------- Are you saying that God exists and the Christian God is God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, saying that these two statements are pure assumptions? What is a pure assumption? First, by way of illustration: There are assumptions that are not pure assumptions, for example, two men surviving a shipwreck got marooned in an island isolated from the rest of mankind, totally unknown to mankind, they got washed to this island unknown and totally uninhabited by humans when they were in their early teens; twenty years later a ship happened to stray accidentally near this island, and the navigator realized that it is one island not known to mankind; so they sailed toward it and the captain and some sailors disembarked; quietly and in stealth they took careful notice not of two men only but several, however only two are in their thirties while the rest are much younger of various ages and all boys. The captain and his men right away assumed that one of the two much older men must be a woman. That is an example of an assumption that is not a pure assumption. A pure assumption is one that is not needed to explain anything at all. An example of a pure assumption would be a teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars,* which is not needed to explain anything in need of an explanation. The existence of God as per concept in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, as creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, that is not a pure assumption. It is not a pure assumption because it is needed to explain how everything in the universe that has a beginning came about. So, don't be so quick to make of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, as the first cause and thus creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, to be an assumption understanding it as a pure assumption. Time to realize that there are erroneously socalled assumptions that are not pure assumptions but necessary assumptions, and therefore they are not assumptions but fundamental principles of human rational knowledge. Yrreg *See, http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html

I am talking about God as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. You must first state that there is no first cause, and then say that there is no evidence of any such existence as a first cause, except the concept, or even the concept itself of the first cause is an invalid concept. But you have strayed from the topic by asking a question which is also irrelevant, what caused God to exist if He does exist. Please think about the concept of a first cause from which all things originated directly or indirectly by intermediate causes which came from the first cause. Please abstain from asking a question that is irrelevant to the topic. And please also acquaint yourself with the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, this concept of God precludes the question what or who caused God -- for if anything or anyone caused this God then this God is not God, not in the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe. Now, if you have another concept of God which concept is not the one in the Christian faith and not in His fundamental relation to the universe as the creator everything in the universe that is not Himself, then you are not dealing with God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe. I am talking about the first cause and God as the first cause, with the concept of God as understood in the Christian faith. Yrreg

I just came from the chat room with an attempt to get people to exchange thoughts with me about God as the first cause; then suddenly my words did not come out anymore, and I tried to post the same words again, and they did not come out anymore -- and I could not send anymore words for they don't appear anymore in the chat room when I press 'Enter'. So I left the chat room, feeling that perhaps there is some trouble or the chat room of sfn does not allow my kind of thoughts to come out, namely about God as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. I am now here in the general philosophy board, and I hope that it is all right to start a thread here on God as the first cause, and seek other people's thoughts on that question. ----------------------- Now, the God I am talking about is the God in the Christian faith Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is that He is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself. As there is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about, I identify that something always existing with God, and wherefore God is the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. Yrreg

A small event like a drop of rain falling toward the ground in Washington D.C. will not lead eventually to a tsunami in Japan, because its force is dissipated in a split second time before it can (the force) travel later and farther and longer as to reach Japan. However, it can and does cause an effect in a person's life lasting for his lifetime, for good or ill, if it leads to a freak accident in the person as to make him lose an eye, like this: The drop of rain falls on the head of this person, let's call him Doe, and Doe feels it on his head and with one hand he reaches to his head to touch the wetness on top of his head to determine: whether it is rain or something else wet but unwelcome, like a drop of excrement or urine from a flying thing above, he gets distracted and does not see that he is stepping into a manhole with the cover removed and does step into it, and falls flat with his face on the pavement, and his left eye lands on a stone big and sharp enough to bust the eyeball: so he loses one eye -- for the rest of his lifetime. That is someone losing an eyeball but it is not a tsunami in Japan later or elsewhere thousands of kilometers away. Yrreg

I like to invite the science people here to comment on my opinion below: Thanks for any comments. Yrreg