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

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Pachomius, Nov 8, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,152
    Yeah, but we won't get anywhere if we can't question our basic premises. Just like common sense doesn't always apply to certain phenomenon outside our realm of experience, common meanings don't often apply to every philosophical question.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,303
    You get off to a bad start with misspelling my name.
    Again.
    I see no evidence that he asked for an explanation of this proposition.
    Perhaps you can indicate the post you refer to?
    He did question what you meant when you stated: "the totality of everything is a reality".
    And I would concur with Sarkus that it does require explanation before one can accept what you might mean by that.
    There's nothing to dialogue:
    You have stated a proposition.
    You have provided just a few examples to illustrate what you mean.
    But, as everyone has been telling you, you have not shown that it is a proposition that should be accepted about everything.
    That is the sticking point, Pachomius.
    That is the point beyond which you seem unable to tread.
    And you play the victim to deflect from your inability.
    It is tiresome.
    Yes.
    I understand.
    Everyone understands what you mean.
    But not everyone necessarily accepts it as a universal truth, especially with regard the universe itself.
    And I will remind you that this is not a court of law.
    Nor are you a judge.
    Nor does science or logic work on the basis of "reasonable doubt".
    No, thanks.
    I'll wait for you to actually support the universal applicability of the proposition you are making.
    It does not require someone to propose an opposite.
    It merely requires you to justify yours.
    It has fast become clear that having a viable communication with you is nigh on impossible.
    Words are exchanged.
    But there is no communication because it is as if you have a transmitter but no receiver.
    You do not listen to their questions, their criticisms, their concerns of your position, your proposition.
    Thus no progress is ever made.
    The one commonality in the breakdown / lack of any communication is you.

    So, are you going to push ahead with your proposition and show how you build an argument from it?
    Are you going to support your proposition to show how it can be accepted as universally applicable?
    If not, I question why you bother posting here at all.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Okay, Baldeee, allow me to just ask you to tell readers here what you can understand of this sentence:


    Everything with a beginning has a cause.


    Just don't not ask me to explain it, because I submit that anyone who is possessed of reading comprehension can understand it and to repeat the same thought it in other words, or in another language that people who know English also have a reading comprehension of i.e. the other language.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    If you WANT to learn, check this site out for an answer.
    http://lawsoftheuniverse.weebly.com/law-of-cause-and-effect.html
     
  8. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,303
    So you don't not want me to ask you to explain it?
    Or you simply don't want me to?
    See, you may not intend landmines, Pachomius, but you do not seem literate enough to avoid setting them anyway.
    But I won't ask you, regardless of you writing that you didn't not want me to (i.e. double-negative, so you did want me to ask).

    Then you want me to detail what I understand by that sentence, and then say that "anyone who is possessed of reading comprehension can understand it...".
    So effectively you are insulting me by asking me to prove that I am "possessed of reading comprehension".
    Thanks.
    Insult noted.


    What do I understand of the sentence?
    Simply that everything (being the totality of all there is, within the universe and elsewhere) with a beginning (both in terms of a mere change in form of that which already exists as well as that for which the beginning relates to the actual existence) has a cause (being something separate/different, in terms of arrangement of that which already exists, from that which has a beginning but is the reason for the beginning being brought about in that other thing).

    Now, are you going to move on with your argument, or are you going to complain again and again about something so that you never have to progress, while trying to make it out to be our fault, that you're the victim here?
     
  9. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Now is that time that I give up on Baldeee as like I did previously with Sarkus.

    Okay, I am now inviting another atheist to dialog with me on God exists or not.
     
  10. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    What is the point of what you are doing? Do you win a prize, even though the 2 fellas give up, not because you "won"

    It's impossible to prove that God exists, or He doesn't exist for that matter, subjective experiences are useless
     
  11. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    double post
     
  12. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,303
    I think it was Sarkus that gave up on you, as a number have done, not the other way round (ref: post #720).
    Although your MO seems to be to simply ignore all criticism of your position and, if in doubt, if faced with questions or criticism you don't have the ability to tackle, then heck, start afresh with someone new!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    There is no dialogue with you.
    You seem to have spent this entire thread saying nothing other making than one proposition.

    I wish anyone else luck should they try to respond to you.
     
  13. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Okay, you be my witnesses, everyone here reading this present post.

    Anyone at all, please I invite you to have dialog with me on the issue of this thread from me, God exists or not.

    I will not say anything when you come forward, just that I will read your posts to see whether you are coming forth to talk with me, you do the talking, you talk first.

    Then after you have said your talk, then I will talk with you.
     
  14. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Well, no one is coming forward to say what he wants to say, and I will keep quiet.

    So, I will just reproduce the OP and invite everyone starting with atheists to just pick any words on which he wants to have a dialog with me.




    {Start quote] Pachomius, Nov 8, 2014 Post #1
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/to...-conflate-god-with-invisible-unicorns.143034/


    Pachomius said:

    AlexG said:

    Pachomius said:
    Now, let us come to atheists, tell me atheists here, can you prove there is no God in the nose in our face??
    Can you prove that there are no invisible unicorns in your nose? You can't prove the negative.​

    I seem to see the routine recourse to this kind of a sentence above from atheists, reproduced below:

    Can you prove that there are no invisible unicorns in your nose?
    It is supposed to be parallel to my question to atheists above, reproduced below:

    Can you prove there is no God in the nose in our face?
    But there is a crucial difference, in that in the question from AlexG there is an apparent double negative phrase, namely: no invisible unicorns, while in my question there is a single negative phrase, namely: no God.

    So, I like to ask AlexG, what is the purpose you are pursuing in writing a double negative phrase, no invisible unicorns?

    Suppose we use the verb "to exist" instead of "to be, is or are," so the two questions will be modified thus:

    From me a theist, Pachomius:

    Can you prove there does not exist ( instead of "is no" ) God in the nose in our face?
    From an atheist, AlexG:

    Can you prove that there do not exist ( instead of "are no" ) invisible unicorns in your nose?

    Now, I admit that I cannot prove that God does not exist in our nose, because God is everywhere.


    What about you, AlexG, can you prove invisible unicorns do not exist in your nose?


    I see a very intriguing basis for starting a new thread, here is the title of the thread:

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

    I will get it started once I have posted this message.

    Right away I will inquire of the atheists here, is it all right to conflate God with invisible unicorns?

    _________________
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 9, 2014
    Pachomius, Nov 8, 2014 Report #1 Reply

    {End quote]​
     
  15. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,303
    And thus you have gone full circle.
    Back to the beginning.
    And have unsubtly and disrespectfully evaded every effort to discuss the matter with you.

    As indicated from the outset, this entire thread is been based on a woeful misconception of the atheist position.
    Done so by someone with a clear bias against atheists.
    Done so by someone with a clear agenda of not actually discussing anything.


    You are a troll, Pachomius.
    The sooner you are dealt with accordingly the better.
     
  16. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Dear readers here, you be my witnesses.


    Okay, Baldeee and atheists here, do you at all have anything you care to do dialog with me about, I am waiting and waiting and waiting.


    So, no more dilly-dallying over nothing, bring forth your concern and let us have dialogs.


    The way I see you atheists, you have exhausted your verbosity in aid of vain pomposity, but nothing of any substance in re the debate seriously of God exists or not.


    Prove me wrong, come up with something you want to dialog with me about.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,925
    You keep repeating claims like that long after several posts by others have debunked them. They are all false. Not everything has a beginning, not everything with a beginning has a cause.

    You have confused a useful and universally employed shorthand mode of abstracting and thinking and analysis, employed by humans to make up for their limitations, with a property of the universe itself.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    Looks like we're all done here. Thread closed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page