To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

Cause and Effect.

Every effect requires a cause.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's all well and good, but how certain are we that all events are effects?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You wrote all that just to ask what I mean when I use the word "claim"? And you accuse me of verbosity?? I'm guessing the irony of those accusations is still lost on you.

Claim (noun): an assertion that something is true, typically without providing evidence or proof.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, can you name an event that didn't have a cause?

 

I'm not the person trying to beg the question on a metaphysical principle.

 

That may well be true, but can you think of anything that didn't have a cause?

jan.

 

I can conceive of the possibility.

 

You may be able to conceive, but your not going to prove it.

 

I don't have to prove it.

 

Can you name something whose cause was supernatural?

 

No. Not yet. Can you name something natural or cosmic that hasn't had a cause?

 

I can't.

 

Dear Sarkus, I think you have now a proposition, namely, that everything with a beginning needs a cause is false.

My proposition is that everything with a beginning needs a cause is true.


So let you and me give an example to illustrate our respective proposition.

What do you say?

 

I say that you still don't understand my position: I am not saying that "everything with a beginning needs a cause" is false. I am saying that I do not know whether it is true or false.
Again, I am not making a counter proposition to yours: I am merely questioning the soundness of your proposition.

Do you understand the difference between "I do not know if everything with a beginning needs a cause or not" and "the proposition that everything with a beginning needs a cause is false"?

Questioning the soundness of your proposition is not the same as stating that it is false. It is saying that it may be true, it may be false, but that you'll have to explain why you want us to consider and accept it as true.


Bear in mind, although given the repeated explanations I am doubtful that you yet grasp this, that I am not the one making a proposal here: you are. You are the one making the propositions and, presumably, from there you will go on to lay out an actual argument. But at the moment we are still trying to assess the soundness of your propositions.
That's all we're doing (or at least trying to do) here.

But you continue to evade and avoid for reasons I simply cannot fathom beyond you feeling an OCD-esque need to stick to a format of discourse that is simply inappropriate for the relationship between our respective positions (i.e. we are not offering competing theories here but instead I am merely testing your theory/argument).

The onus is wholly on you to stand up to the questioning and criticism of the argument you have put forth. And currently we're still stuck at the stage of trying to get you to support the soundness of your proposition.

 

Dear readers here, please pay close attention to my conversation with Sarkus.

Seattle, thanks for your return here, I was afraid I have lost you in this my thread.

--------------------------


Okay, Sarkus, let you and me go to a higher level of concern, namely, the totality of existence.


I say the totality of existence is a reality, do you agree to that?



Now, readers here, please pay close attention to the ensuing conversation: my attempt to get Sarkus connected with my concern, now into the matter of the reality of the totality of existence.


Perhaps you might want to know what I mean by the totality of existence.

It means a very big basket where everything that man talks about is put into, no matter whether it exists even just in man's mind with his imagination, or with scientists talking about virtual particles, or with innovative cosmologists talking about parallel universes or multverses, or whatever other verses they want to talk about.

But of course the most important things are things like the nose in our face and we ourselves and the actual universe we have for our home; and don't forget the nothingness that one cosmologist insists the universe came from or as he puts it as the title of his best seller, "A Universe from Nothing -- Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing."

As we are all possessed of reading comprehension, even without reading his book but just the title, it is clear for us that the man is going to convince all mankind that nothing and something and the universe are convertible, i.e., nothing is equivalent to something and to the universe; why? because nothing gives rise to the universe; and why would nothing do that? Because he tells us, "Nothing is unstable," so as we usually understand with us humans, when a guy is unstable then he is liable to give rise to something like a universe from nothing.


Okay, let us sit back and observe the participation of Sarkus in this latest attempt of mine to get him connected with me.

So, now you know, dear readers here, that by the totality of existence I mean everything that is anything at all, even just the word nothing; and you will notice that the concept of the totality of existence is larger than the concept of the universe and even the concept of God.

 

No, the most important things in terms of cosmology are not things like the nose on our face, in other words, easily observable common sense things. The most important things in cosmology are not obvious, the very small, the very large, the very powerful and energetic, the things most outside our realm of experience.

I don't know what you're going on about with this "reality of the totality of existence" nonsense.

 

All I see here is (yet another) "When in doubt resort to argument from incredulity" tactic.

I.e. a completely meaningless (and also unworkable and of no use whatsoever) "concept".

 

So rather than attempt to support your previous assertion you now change tack? Are you unable to support the assertions you have already made?

Do you mean "a reality" or simply "reality"? The former implies one of a plurality, the latter implies the only one.
And are you talking subjective or objective reality?
You may see this as trying to avoid the question, but you can't throw around rather key philosophical terms without being clear as to how you intend us to read them. I note you have tried to clarify "totality of existence" (which I'll address after your efforts) but you also need to explain what you mean by "a reality".

Your condescension is not only unwarranted but actually insulting. Please desist.
I consider my responses to you to have been fully connected with your concern, and it is only either your inability to comprehend or your unwillingness to actually support your assertions, coupled with a seeming dogmatic approach to the structure of the discussion you want to engage in, that has prevented any progress.

Presumably the basket is also inside itself?
And presumably it includes everything that we can not possibly know about and have never talked about?
If it does not include those then how can it be the totality?
Just because we don't or can't know about something does not mean it does not objectively exist.

This is just one large strawman, Pachomius. It has very little, if anything, to do with your "totality of existence" once you have stated that the cosmologists notion of "nothingness" is also included in the basket.
The rest just stems from your lack of understanding of what that notion is, and instead you cling to the one notion/meaning of "nothing" that you are familiar with, and argue as if the cosmologist's argument is using your notions, when you know full well that it is not.

Please stop with the condescension. It is wholly unwarranted.

 

Dear readers here, please pay close attention to the conversation I am trying to engage Sarkus with:

-------------------

{quote]Pachomius
I say the totality of existence is a reality, do you agree to that?
{/quote]

{quote]Sarkus
Do you mean "a reality" or simply "reality"? The former implies one of a plurality, the latter implies the only one. [Sarkus, Yesterday at 5:27 PM #718]
{/quote]

Dear Sarkus, choose either option you prefer, but please leave the other option open, so that when we are through with our exchange on your first option, we will go to the second option.

To guide you, Sarkus, on what I mean by reality, you can search for every instance of the word reality [only two] in the text below and figure out what I mean by reality; and please abstain from useless distinction when you can search the meaning of the common word reality by looking up every instance [only two] of the word in the write-up of a writer. And also take up the whole write-up to get to know what is reality in my understanding of reality in the write-up.

And believe me, Sarkus, I am not into laying semantic landmines because that is a silly endeavor, and I want to get the impression that you are not into wasting the time and effort of readers in this thread.


Addressing the readers of this thread:
Pay close attention to how Sarkus is behaving in this conversation I am trying to engage him with.

That thing about a reality or reality alone is just his way of wasting time and labor for everyone except himself to engage in whatever he is into, but not any engagement on the basis of proposition and counter-proposition.

The way I know this poster's history with me, it is one of wishy-washy dilly-dallying useless talk, instead of connection on the basis of my one proposition and his opposite proposition.

I told him already to cease with his verbosity in aid of vain pomposity and also on his verbosity in aid of obfuscation, but the man does not seem to take the cue; so let us all sit back and see what he is up to.


Here is the post I wrote prior to the present one:

{quote: Pachomius, Yesterday at 9:51 AM #715]

Okay, Sarkus, let you and me go to a higher level of concern, namely, the totality of existence.


I say the totality of existence is a reality, do you agree to that?



Now, readers here, please pay close attention to the ensuing conversation: my attempt to get Sarkus connected with my concern, now into the matter of the reality of the totality of existence.


Perhaps you might want to know what I mean by the totality of existence.

It means a very big basket where everything that man talks about is put into, no matter whether it exists even just in man's mind with his imagination, or with scientists talking about virtual particles, or with innovative cosmologists talking about parallel universes or multverses, or whatever other verses they want to talk about.

But of course the most important things are things like the nose in our face and we ourselves and the actual universe we have for our home; and don't forget the nothingness that one cosmologist insists the universe came from or as he puts it as the title of his best seller, "A Universe from Nothing -- Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing."

As we are all possessed of reading comprehension, even without reading his book but just the title, it is clear for us that the man is going to convince all mankind that nothing and something and the universe are convertible, i.e., nothing is equivalent to something and to the universe; why? because nothing gives rise to the universe; and why would nothing do that? Because he tells us, "Nothing is unstable," so as we usually understand with us humans, when a guy is unstable then he is liable to give rise to something like a universe from nothing.


Okay, let us sit back and observe the participation of Sarkus in this latest attempt of mine to get him connected with me.

So, now you know, dear readers here, that by the totality of existence I mean everything that is anything at all, even just the word nothing; and you will notice that the concept of the totality of existence is larger than the concept of the universe and even the concept of God.

{/quote]

 

You're not trying to engage in any conversation. That much is abundantly clear. Conversations tend to move forward.

You still haven't answered whether you are talking about subjective reality or objective?

It is lack of semantic clarity at the outset that can cause confusion and disagreement later on. If you use a term that has a plurality of interpretations, such as "reality" (which is a philosophical minefield in itself), then forgive me if I want you to be clear with what you mean.

First, just drop your dogmatic insistence on the need for proposition and counter-proposition. This is not a formal debate about competing theories, as has been explained to you. This is you making a proposition, presumably followed by the rest of your argument, and me (and others) examining what you say. If you can not cope with this, move somewhere where your approach is adopted.
Second, if you can not see the significant difference between something being the reality or merely a reality then maybe you are out of your depth here. You may see it as wasting time and labour, but if a house falls down because someone couldn't agree whether something was the load-bearing wall or a load-bearing wall, it is surely time well spent.

Again this dogmatic insistence on proposition/counter-proposition. All I have done is ask you questions about your propositions, to seek clarity with what you mean, thus with whether I agree with them (which you did ask me), and you condescend and insult me yet again.


Excuse me, Pachomius, if I am now finished with you.
I feel I am on the receiving end of a mental condition, coupled with a lack of comprehension of English, that I am unfortunately unsuited to cope with.