• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Page 25 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

UsandThem

Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
15,109
5,909
146
Dear readers and my opponents here and atheists:

I want you my opponents to know that you are not my enemies, but only opponents, like as opponents in a sports game, okay?


The OP is the following:

"The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not."

The focus is on the word, how.

Now, you my opponents and atheists to all appearances are of the conviction that God does not exist, I on the contrary, that God exists.

By some kind of a crude analogy, you and I are like competing teams in a sports game, say, basketball: so we agree to observe the same rules in the performance of our respective physical skills, by which conduct we will both come to recognize which side, you or I, win in the game.


So, what do you say, dear my opponents and atheists?

Will you concur with me that the first 'rule' is we all you and I admit the fact that we are existing?


Dear readers, what is going to be the reactions of my opponents and atheists to this my present post?




 

Marius Dejess

Senior member
Sep 7, 2015
320
34
101
Dear readers and my opponents here and atheists:

I want you my opponents to know that you are not my enemies, but only opponents, like as opponents in a sports game, okay?


The OP is the following:

"The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not."

The focus is on the word, how.

Now, you my opponents and atheists to all appearances are of the conviction that God does not exist, I on the contrary, that God exists.

By some kind of a crude analogy, you and I are like competing teams in a sports game, say, basketball: so we agree to observe the same rules in the performance of our respective physical skills, by which conduct we will both come to recognize which side, you or I, win in the game.


So, what do you say, dear my opponents and atheists?

Will you concur with me that the first 'rule' is we all you and I admit the fact that we are existing?


Dear readers, what is going to be the reactions of my opponents and atheists to this my present post?

So, my dear opponents and atheists, you do not deny that we all you and I, we are all existing.

The next 'rule' requires us all to accept the fact that we all came from our respective pairs of papa and mama.

What do you say to that?

It's a fact, so you cannot challenge it, consider that even the ancient Romans know about it, here is their legal axiom

Contra factum non est argumentum.*


Tell me, what do you think is the next now third 'rule'?

And we must concur on it, okay?


*Against the fact there is no argument.
 

UsandThem

Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
15,109
5,909
146
So, my dear opponents and atheists, you do not deny that we all you and I, we are all existing.

The next 'rule' requires us all to accept the fact that we all came from our respective pairs of papa and mama.

What do you say to that?

It's a fact, so you cannot challenge it, consider that even the ancient Romans know about it, here is their legal axiom

Contra factum non est argumentum.*


Tell me, what do you think is the next now third 'rule'?

And we must concur on it, okay?

*Against the fact there is no argument.
Benny1.gif
 

Marius Dejess

Senior member
Sep 7, 2015
320
34
101
Dear everyone here:

Yesterday I was asking you this question:

Tell me, what do you think is the next now third 'rule'?
And we must concur on it, okay?

No one has proposed a third rule, so I will volunteer the third rule, which I suspect that militant atheists will want to bring up, namely, the rule of infinite regress.*

Dear everyone, look it up and study it, and tomorrow I will show you how it is not any genuine argument against the existence of God.


Dear readers and my opponents here and atheists:

I want you my opponents to know that you are not my enemies, but only opponents, like as opponents in a sports game, okay?


The OP is the following:

"The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not."

The focus is on the word, how.

Now, you my opponents and atheists to all appearances are of the conviction that God does not exist, I on the contrary, that God exists.

By some kind of a crude analogy, you and I are like competing teams in a sports game, say, basketball: so we agree to observe the same rules in the performance of our respective physical skills, by which conduct we will both come to recognize which side, you or I, win in the game.


So, what do you say, dear my opponents and atheists?

Will you concur with me that the first 'rule' is we all you and I admit the fact that we are existing?


Dear readers, what is going to be the reactions of my opponents and atheists to this my present post?

So, my dear opponents and atheists, you do not deny that we all you and I, we are all existing.

The next 'rule' requires us all to accept the fact that we all came from our respective pairs of papa and mama.

What do you say to that?

It's a fact, so you cannot challenge it, consider that even the ancient Romans know about it, here is their legal axiom

Contra factum non est argumentum.*


Tell me, what do you think is the next now third 'rule'?

And we must concur on it, okay?


*Against the fact there is no argument.

*
God and the Infinite Regress (2563 words)

“It’s turtles all the way down”

One of the many arguments put forward as evidence for the existence of God is that of necessity. That God must necessarily exist in order to explain and overcome certain questions and problems regarding existence. The problem of ‘infinite regress’ is one such problem for which God is posited in order to overcome. So what is the ‘infinite regress’ problem?

The ‘infinite regress’ argument posits that we cannot have an infinite amount of preceding events or causes. For if we have an infinite amount of preceding events then we can never get to where we are now, that there must ultimately be a ‘first cause’ or ‘prime mover’. An example that has been used to explain the problem is that of the soldier waiting for orders to fire.

[ . . . . ]

This means that God either had a beginning, and therefore a creator, or God suffers from an infinite regress problem. Each moment before creation was the result of it actively choosing not to create the universe; and those moments go on ad infinitum. This is one of the reasons I find myself unable to believe that this god concept could be responsible for the creation of the universe. It simply seems illogical that a being that makes choices, and is subject to cause and effect, that has existed forever could have created anything.
https://www.answers-in-reason.com/religion/god-infinite-regress/ This is an atheist website.
 

Marius Dejess

Senior member
Sep 7, 2015
320
34
101
Dear everyone:


Thanks to all you who have patiently stayed with me to date.

One of my goals with web forums is to test my thoughts.

When I get folks to agree with me, I am happy, and with folks who don't - I love very much to exchange thoughts with them on a sustained time, so that finally we do come to a concurred on position, though we both might have modified our original thoughts.

So, you notice that I brought up an atheist using the idea of infinite regress to prove that God does not exist, because the idea of a God creator stirs up the idea of the cause of the God creator and this latter one brings up another preceding God creator and on and on and on ad infinitum, so that mankind is still waiting for the end of the infinite regress - as the series is infinite we are all still waiting but futilely the very first God creator cause.

I guess you, dear my opponents and atheists here, you entertain the foregoing thought, and you are happy, that I am trapped into an endless infinite regress, yes?

Do you know of the dictum of the ancient Roman lawmakers, namely: Contra factum non est argumentum?*

May I therefore propose that you do more thinking: honestly, intelligently, and productively



#609 Yesterday at 7:57 AM Marius Dejess said:


Awesome thanks for the apparent PRO-atheism link !!! :p

Apparently "Marius Dejess" IS an atheist "ITSELF" ??? :D


==================
“Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand. Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.”

― Neil Peart


*Against the fact there is no argument.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
20,165
3,238
126
May I therefore propose that you do more thinking: honestly, intelligently, and productively
Fair enough ... So what I'm thinking is that since this lame bot-script-thing
isn't actually self-aware or intelligent its incapable of believing in anything.

That includes God.

Therefore "Marius Dejess" is in fact 100% an atheist! :p
 
  • Haha
Reactions: UsandThem

UsandThem

Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
15,109
5,909
146
Therefore "Marius Dejess" is in fact 100% an atheist! :p
I think we need to concur on why Marius Dejess hates God so much?

What did God ever do to you Marius? Is it because you're in the Roman tribe of homo sapiens, who are your opponents? Are you on the drugs, Marius?

54.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

Marius Dejess

Senior member
Sep 7, 2015
320
34
101
Here is a comment I posted in someone's blog whatever, enjoy it !?!?!?

Am I a narcisist here, or in the internet?

I just seem to be very keen to expound on my thoughts on God and that He exists, even though some posters think that I am insulting them, but I don't stop my contacts with them, it is they that go away from me because they see me to be insulting them.

Perhaps that is the narcisist in me, for I would have a good laugh by myself.

Or I am a mean person?

I have just been to the website of this person, and I think he is a narcisist, I made this comment, namely:

Definitely God exists in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

That is the most honest intelligent productive thought with any human being.

I ask everyone, can there be a complete picture of reality of existence without God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning?

I ask the author/owner of this site, please host a forum.

What personal reasons do you have to not host a forum?

Have I contributed any comments in this site before?

https://selfawarepatterns.com/2013/11/08/evaluating-god-scientifically/comment-page-1/?unapproved=111764&moderation-hash=8576d90b73950f5f924a1b7fb8bd1c43#comment-111764

And yes, my comment is awaiting approval by him - hahahahahaha!
 

UsandThem

Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
15,109
5,909
146
BTW, I signed up on the forum you posted in order to show the site owner you're a dumb ass bot, and not to waste any of their time with your bullshit.

If only we had a gotten a similar warning about you, Marius of the homo sapien tribe, and
ATHEIST.

tenor-1.gif
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY