Dear Dave, I am so glad that you have accepted my invitation for us two to dialog on the "Proof of the existence of God." Pachomius said: ↑ What do you say, should we first work together to come to a concurred on concept of God? Dave said: I think "concept" is better used while talking about ideas for making a new car. Concept model. The nature of God is too complex to explain... do you agree? The concept of God is not complex at all when we just consider in concept what is the role of God in relation to the universe and man. Here is my concept of God in His role in relation to the universe and man: God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning. What about you, what is your concept of God?
Why do you mention Rihanna Jason? Message me if you want, if you don't want the trolls spitting their crap.
Well we disagree on the first hurdle. I don't think God does "operate" the Universe, He brought it into existence and now it evolves naturally, like life on earth. My concept: He is the father of all existence, and lives both in our universe and outside of our universe at the same time.
Jason, it is my belief and hope that all human beings, in fact all beings in the universe will one day live in peace and harmony together, but I'm no demon expert. When Jesus died on the cross he said something true and powerful: Luke 23:34 34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. I have no evidence I just feel that Jesus' sacrifice and words are a universal truth.
Thanks for your reply, Dave. My concept of God: God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning. Your concept [Dave] of God: He is the father of all existence, and lives both in our universe and outside of our universe at the same time. I notice that you are not from what I see just now an atheist, and all the time I thought you were one, but then when I was busy with Spidergoat and Sarkus and Seattle and Baldeee, I was not paying close attention to you. You don't agree with me that God is also operator of the universe He created, you say: I don't think God does "operate" the Universe, He brought it into existence and now it evolves naturally, like life on earth. I will just ask you since you are keen on proof, how do you prove that God does not operate the universe which I understand from you that in the first place you accept God created the universe. You will ask me in turn, how I prove that God operates the universe? Here is my proof: because whatever else God creates for the universe so that the universe will operate with and from these things God also created to keep the universe operating, He is in fact supplying to these things which the universe requires to operate as you put it: [after creating it] now it evolves naturally, like life on earth -- otherwise how can the universe plus nature continue to exist and to operate, if not still and continuously by God's presence and action? Please explain, how God can now leave the universe and everything else he created in order for the universe to as you put it: now it evolves naturally, like life on earth. Can the universe and nature once created by God continue existing and operating by themselves without God's conservation and God's continuous ceaseless supplying them with His what we might call, say, existence juice? Annex {Begin quote] Pachomius said: ↑ Here is my concept of God in His role in relation to the universe and man: God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning. What about you, what is your concept of God? Well we disagree on the first hurdle. I [Dave] don't think God does "operate" the Universe, He brought it into existence and now it evolves naturally, like life on earth. My concept [Dave]: He is the father of all existence, and lives both in our universe and outside of our universe at the same time. davewhite04, Yesterday at 10:16 PM #66 {End quote]
If you disagree with Pachomius then how do you explain God's "existence juice"? That is his proof, God's existence juice. God created the universe and in order for it to continue to operate it requires existence juice and, as far as I know, the only supplier of existence juice is God. Dave will probably say that the universe, once created, doesn't require existence juice but how is that possible? What logic can there be in denying that the universe operates on God's existence juice? What other kind of juice could there possibly be for the universe to operate on? Therefore, the statement must be true that "God created the universe and anything with a beginning and continues in his role as the operator of the universe due to his role as the supplier of existence juice.
Pachomius is just a bundle of question-begging and circular logic: God exists because God caused us and we exist, therefore God exists. There's no "proof" unless you blindly accept the propositions he begins with. Unfortunately he remains wilfully ignorant to this rather glaring hole in his position, although I have yet to fathom whether that is through simple dishonesty on his part or just stupidity, not that I care too much either way, but it is probably better to know what character you're dealing with.
The burden of proof lies with you as you're making the claim. Proof for me in this context would be scripture from the bible. I will get to the rest of your post when I get back.
Which begs the question of how you know the Bible, or whatever scripture you resort to for "proof" is actually correct. If your "proof" is akin to: "it says in This Chapter and This Verse that..." then that is no proof at all... it is merely a shifting of what you need to prove (i.e. the authenticity and accuracy of the scripture being referred to). At some point any such claims of proof relying on scriptural authority will run up against the need to validate said authority, or simply admit they have no proof and that what they claim is merely a matter of belief. Of course, you could cut out the middle and go straight to such an admission?
I'm trying to understand which kind of theist I'm debating with. I am actually much closer to the scientific answer then the generic "God did it". A common misconception of theists is the fact that God gave us science for a reason, and theists tend to belittle great minds. I'm debating a theist so using the bible primally is essential for this debate.
Very much so. His concept of God leaves out the nature of God. Does He have any qualities? Is He omnipotent? Because could not an omnipotent God create a universe that requires no maintenance? Where is his proof of God's operations?
Hmmm. I'm trying to resist the urge to call you up on your use of the term "fact" in that last sentence... Doh! I've just done it! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I admire your endeavour, but Pachomius has raised his challenge (on this and another now closed thread) to atheists as well as theists, and any "proof" should be irrespective of pre-existing beliefs. Otherwise you are left with a proof that is conditional upon the veracity of the underlying beliefs/propositions. One can certainly try to argue him on the point of whether his concept is even supported by scripture or not. But that is an entirely separate issue from one of "proof" - which he is attempting to demonstrate through "fact and logic" (I think is his phrase) - unless one can, as part of the proof, unequivocally demonstrate that what scripture says is factual, and that the interpretation of scripture one adheres to is true. But so far Pachomius has shown neither the ability to attempt such, nor the decency to actually discuss any perceived criticism of his position. He claims logic can prove God to exist, yet he can not even get past the first hurdle of showing how his propositions are sound. Nor has he ever gone past the stating his initial proposition (although he calls even that proposition an "example of logic"). But please do not let me stop you attempting the endeavour. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
These criticisms/concerns/issues have all been levied at his position previously, but he merely retreats to restating his proposition in an effort to find someone who won't raise such pertinent matters. His argument appears to be the well-trodden Cosmological Argument, and all the frailties therein, but he has as yet to actually provide the detail of his argument beyond his repetitive propositioning for us to be sure. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's like a child playing doctor. He's imitating the form of a rational argument, without actually understanding what logic and reason are.
Dave says: "I'm debating a theist so using the bible primally is essential for this debate." Please be informed I am propounding that from thinking on facts and logic without any revelation from God man can and does come to the certainty of God existing in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning. So, Dave, I am inclined to see in you that you have the conclusive position of God existing on reasoning from facts and logic, without any dependence on revelation, I am glad that we two are concurred on that, namely, God can and is known by man even without revelation. Now I will share with you this insight about atheists' heart and mind. Dear readers here, you know, after all these failed attempts to get atheists to talk sense with me, I have come to the insight that it is certain they are not into the real world, but they are into a world of words. It is like this, they use words to react to words from me, but not to the realities of the real objective world by which we are using language to communicate among ourselves humans on precisely the things that are existing in objective reality outside our concepts and words. I will give you an example of atheists' talks when it comes to the existence of God or not. Here is one case, I say that in concept God is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning. That is the concept of God in my mind, in my world of concepts in my mind, I have not yet gone forth into objective reality outside of concepts in my mind, but it is by this concept and word of God, namely, my concept and my word, of God, that it represents in our mind the entity in objective reality that in objective reality is the creator and operator of the objective reality which is the universe or which universe we humans are also objectively existing in. Now, here come the atheists with their keeping to only the concepts and words but not getting linked to reality outside their minds, they will almost always object that with the concept of God from me I am already into what is called the fallacy of begging the question, i.e., assuming the existence of God when the existence of God has not been proven yet. At this point I tell them, with the concept of God and the word God which represents the concept of God in our mind, in our mind of concepts, when we have concurred that such a concept represented by the word God, namely, God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, then we can already go forth to locate God objectively existing in objective reality, i.e. into the realm of reality outside the realm of concepts in our mind, i.e., outside our mind, into the objective world of reality of which reality the universe and we ourselves humans are parts of, and we are as the universe is, we are both actually objectively existing -- AND LOCATE GOD pursuant to the description in concept of and by the word, God, namely, an entity creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning. But either they atheists do not have the capability of seeing that kind of a link into reality or they are dishonestly keeping on and on and on and on forever and ever in the realm of concepts and do nothing more than just dwell on concepts and words, like as I said, insisting that with my concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning I am already assuming the existence of God wherefore into the fallacy of begging the question. Can you get my insight into what I call the incapability of atheists or their dishonesty of not getting linked to the objective reality of the universe and of our own existence, in where we both I and atheists as we are in objective reality existing, we can go forth with the concept of God to locate the entity represented by the concept/word God, which I have been working to get them to concur or to propose their concept of God, namely, from my part, that God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning. Tell me readers here, do you understand what I am trying to communicate to you about, and that sad to say, I have to use concepts/words to do so, it cannot be otherwise; and please do not just keep on and on and on dwelling on concepts/words that you totally forget to keep aware that you and I are objectively existing and dwelling in the universe and we have objectively existing body parts like the nose in our face: and therefore we can already get going to locate God as described in the concept/word of God, namely, as the in concept i.e. in description, the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning. Well, dear readers here, if you don’t understand my expatiation above, please ask me in what particular details do you not understand?
