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

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[Iron Woode]

Are you Ajay new in this my thread here, I don't remember you from Adam and Eve.

So, can you comprehend my definition in four words on what is the definition of argument, namely: "Communication to prove something"?

You can play this game with me, now you ask me,

"And pray, what is the need if any, to prove something at all"?

Well, thinkers have been proving God exists or not since when man thought up the idea of God or gods, there must be a why.

In everyday life you might have to know how to prove that you are paying the correct income tax due to the internal revenue authority.

The lonely US service men overseas have to know how to prove that the girl they picked up is a genuine female, and not a transgendered guy.*

What about the proof in your drinks, how do you prove that it really is as inscribed on the label of the bottle?

Are you now convinced that you have got to know what it is and how to prove something - otherwise you will get cheated time and again with your hard earned money.

Now, with God, unless there is God existing, those folks who are getting donations for churches, training and support of priests and pastors and preachers, believers would be cheated were God not to exist.

.

*This 19 year old US Marine got a girl who looked as good as any girl looks like, i.e. female for all the external curves whatever, then when she got stripped, it turned out she was just a trans, so he got so frustrated that he beat her or him up and dumped her or him into the toilet bowl, head first.

The victim died but the marine insisted that he left her alive - long story short, he was detained in the country until they worked out some plea bargaining - if memory serves.

.

 

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[Marius Dejess]

Dear Elf:

Please, I am still waiting to read your definition of argument in the least number of words you can manage.

No need to go into vacuous verbiage to mis-impress readers that you are saying anything a propos the concept of argument in the least number of words you can manage.

.

Marius Dejess said:
On the other hand, without words we will not be able to most effectively and conveniently get to tell each other what we want to say to each other.

That is why for example in contract law it is indispensable for parties to the contract to make a list of words and their agreed on meanings.

Take the word sex, it used to mean whether a person was a male or a female, now there is the word gender.

Another word, relationship, it used to mean whether a person is connected to or with another person on consanguinity or affinity basis, now it means whether a person is living with another person and having sex acts between them.

That is why you and I have to be clear on what is the meaning of the word argument, for a lot of posters here use it to mean that they can put in a graphics of guys seemingly digging into the genital or anal i.e. rectum organ of another human or animal, and that for them is an argument for whatever they are arguing (for).
.

But above all, anyone here who cannot or will not think in all honesty and intelligence and with fruitfulness, as to give his definition of argument in his least number of words, let him not participate in this my thread here.

Here is again my definition of argument in just four words:

"Communication to prove something."

.

So you give examples to show how words matter and have distinct meanings, yet you fail to understand the meaning of the word communicate, or argument for that matter.
Communication is to make something public,that something could be anything a feeling an opinion a video of erin or somebody's knee,every post here is a form of communication and every post proves something.
Yet somehow you are annoyed by the fact that people are doing exactly what you ask from them,they are communicating to prove something to you. Mainly they are communicating to prove that you are a bot,and they do it with pretty good results so far.

Argument singular is "validatable information"
An argument is the "exchange of validatable information"

"you are late for dinner"
"your call that dinner?!"
"You will sleep on the couch"
That's an argument because each of these can be validated.

"there is a ghost"
"I'm a psychic"
"we are saved"
That's communication,you are saying things but nothing can be proven.

Marius Dejess said:
It is very common for folks to talk with words when they have no or wrong concepts of the meanings of the crucial words they use.

Yes, yes you do...over and over and over and over again.

 

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[TheELF]

Dear Elf:

Please, I am still waiting to read your definition of argument in the least number of words you can manage.

No need to go into vacuous verbiage to mis-impress readers that you are saying anything a propos the concept of argument in the least number of words you can manage.

.

exchange of validatable information

Anything else is just hot air coming out of your mouth.

 

[Marius Dejess]

Dear Elf, again I am most disappointed with you, because you miss to mention what is very important in your definition of argument in four words.

Consider what is that something important you miss in your definition, by comparing your definition to my definition:

From Marius:
[Argument is] Communication to prove something.

From Elf:
[Argument is] Exchange of validatable information.

.

ANNEX

Marius Dejess said:
Dear Elf:

Please, I am still waiting to read your definition of argument in the least number of words you can manage.

No need to go into vacuous verbiage to mis-impress readers that you are saying anything a propos the concept of argument in the least number of words you can manage.


From Elf:
exchange of validatable information

Anything else is just hot air coming out of your mouth.

 

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[TheELF]

Dear Elf, again I am most disappointed with you, because you miss to mention what is very important in your definition of argument in four words.

Consider what is that something important you miss in your definition, by comparing your definition to my definition:

From Marius:
[Argument is] Communication to prove something.

From Elf:
[Argument is] Exchange of validatable information.

.

ANNEX

Hey marius maybe you should really use google translate because nothing you say makes any sense.
I know that your religious beliefs are forcing you to do missionary work by just droning on and repeating the same phrases over and over because those are the phrases your higher ups did brainwash you with but communication has a separate meaning from argument,a dog barking at you is communication,he's communicating his hunger or whatever, someone bashing your head in is communicating,he's communicating his hate.
You can't use it to prove something.

 

[Marius Dejess]

See?

Elf is always taking to flight, instead of facing my challenge with honest intelligent productive thinking.

On the other hand, the man can be accommodated because owing to lack of or correctly, indolence, in the employment of man's brain, most folks don't take to do any thinking for themselves at all.

So, this is my challenge to him, to compare his four word definition of argument and my four word definition of argument, and detect what is wanting in his definition that is very important in a definition of argument:

From Marius:
[Argument is] Communication to prove something.

From Elf:
[Argument is] Exchange of validatable information.

.

Tomorrow, dear readers and fellow posters here, I will reveal to Elf, what is lacking very important in his definition of argument.

.

.

Hey marius maybe you should really use google translate because nothing you say makes any sense.
I know that your religious beliefs are forcing you to do missionary work by just droning on and repeating the same phrases over and over because those are the phrases your higher ups did brainwash you with but communication has a separate meaning from argument,a dog barking at you is communication,he's communicating his hunger or whatever, someone bashing your head in is communicating,he's communicating his hate.
You can't use it to prove something.

 

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[Marius Dejess]

Dear readers and fellow posters here, I promised yesterday to reveal, what is very important lacking in the four word definition of Elf for argument, compared to mine:

From Marius:
[Argument is] Communication to prove something.

From Elf:
[Argument is] Exchange of validatable information.

Elf is totally oblivious to point out to mankind what is the purpose of argument.


That is typical of today's phoney intellectuals, they don't have any concern about purpose at all, considering that they do not live for any purpose either.


Sad, very sad.

.
.

Marius Dejess
Senior member Sep 8, 2015

Yesterday at 6:07 PM #410
- - - - - - - - - -

See?

Elf is always taking to flight, instead of facing my challenge with honest intelligent productive thinking.

On the other hand, the man can be accommodated because owing to lack of or correctly, indolence, in the employment of man's brain, most folks don't take to do any thinking for themselves at all.

So, this is my challenge to him, to compare his four word definition of argument and my four word definition of argument, and detect what is wanting in his definition that is very important in a definition of argument:

From Marius:
[Argument is] Communication to prove something.

From Elf:
[Argument is] Exchange of validatable information.

.

Tomorrow, dear readers and fellow posters here, I will reveal to Elf, what is lacking very important in his definition of argument.

.

.

 

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[WilliamM2]

From Marius:
[Argument is] Communication to prove something.

So when will you start to prove something? So far you have failed.

 

[Iron Woode]

Dear readers and fellow posters here, I promised yesterday to reveal, what is very important lacking in the four word definition of Elf for argument, compared to mine:

From Marius:
[Argument is] Communication to prove something.

From Elf:
[Argument is] Exchange of validatable information.

Elf is totally oblivious to point out to mankind what is the purpose of argument.


That is typical of today's phoney intellectuals, they don't have any concern about purpose at all, considering that they do not live for any purpose either.


Sad, very sad.

the only purpose of this thread is to make people believe you are a superior thinker but in reality you are just a repetitive troll.

No one is interested in debating your "proof of God". No one really cares about your definitions of argument or communication.

So, why not start a thread about some other topic? Or is this bot incapable of doing so?

 

[Marius Dejess]

So when will you start to prove something? So far you have failed.

Dear William, it seems that you have not been in this thread before.

So, for your orientation, read the following text:

Title of thread: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Thread starter: Marius Dejess
Start date: Jun 7, 2016


Post #1 https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...prove-god-exists-or-not.2475879/post-38272953

There is endless debate over God existing or not.

But there is no talk at all about how to concur on what it is or how to prove or disprove that something at all exists in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

I think I can and do so prove for myself that God exists, and you can also if you will concur with me on how to prove that something at all exists in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

Here is step No. 1 in proving or disproving that something at all, be it the nose on our face or God existing in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind:

No. 1 Parties engaged in proving or disproving something to exist must first work to concur on the concept of the thing, anything at all be it the nose on our face or God, otherwise it is an insane exchange of thoughts because parties will be talking past each other's head, and that is not communication at all or getting connected at all.

What do you guys here say?

When you accept my step No. 1, then I will or you guys here can propose step No. 2 for us all to work on to concur on it.

.

 

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[Marius Dejess]

Dear visitors to my thread, thanks for your presence here in my thread, it is a most gratifying sight to see you here.


I just hope that my honest intelligent productive thinking is profitable to you, in your search for useful knowledge, by which you will achieve a life that matters to you, that means that you have a role in the realm of existence.


My wish for you is that you always ask yourselves the question, what is the purpose I am seeking with what I am occupying my time and endeavor (with)?

Dear readers and fellow posters here, I promised yesterday to reveal, what is very important lacking in the four word definition of Elf for argument, compared to mine:

From Marius:
[Argument is] Communication to prove something.

From Elf:
[Argument is] Exchange of validatable information.

Elf is totally oblivious to point out to mankind what is the purpose of argument.


That is typical of today's phoney intellectuals, they don't have any concern about purpose at all, considering that they do not live for any purpose either.


Sad, very sad.

.
.

Marius Dejess Yesterday at 6:07 PM #410
- - - - - - - - - -

See?

Elf is always taking to flight, instead of facing my challenge with honest intelligent productive thinking.

On the other hand, the man can be accommodated because owing to lack of or correctly, indolence, in the employment of man's brain, most folks don't take to do any thinking for themselves at all.

So, this is my challenge to him, to compare his four word definition of argument and my four word definition of argument, and detect what is wanting in his definition that is very important in a definition of argument:

From Marius:
[Argument is] Communication to prove something.

From Elf:
[Argument is] Exchange of validatable information.

.

Tomorrow, dear readers and fellow posters here, I will reveal to Elf, what is lacking very important in his definition of argument.

.

 

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[Marius Dejess]

So, back to Elf.
- - - - - - - - - -


Dear Elf, you say:

...communication has a separate meaning from argument,a dog barking at you is communication,he's communicating his hunger or whatever, someone bashing your head in is communicating,he's communicating his hate.
You can't use it to prove something.

I fear Elf will seek refuge in flight, still I will take my chance and detect whether he does honest intelligent productive thinking and writing, with addressing two questions to him.


Attention , Elf!

You say: "communication has a separate meaning from argument."

I have two questions for you:

1. Tell everyone here, what is the difference between communication and argument?
2. Can you do any argument without communication?


There.

Now let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness how if ever Elf will answer the two questions above, still I fear he will run away.

Hey marius maybe you should really use google translate because nothing you say makes any sense.
I know that your religious beliefs are forcing you to do missionary work by just droning on and repeating the same phrases over and over because those are the phrases your higher ups did brainwash you with but communication has a separate meaning from argument,a dog barking at you is communication,he's communicating his hunger or whatever, someone bashing your head in is communicating,he's communicating his hate.
You can't use it to prove something.

.

 

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[Marius Dejess]

Elf is not answering my two questions to him, in re his statement, communication has a separate meaning from argument:

1. Tell everyone here, what is the difference between communication and argument?
2. Can you do any argument without communication?


Dear Elf, you write but don't think adequately, for had you thought adequately you should not have said that communication has a separate meaning from argument.

Think, and think twice, and even think thrice, and revise your message before you click on the send button.

Marius Dejess Sep 8, 2015 Yesterday at 7:07 AM #420
- - - - - - - - - - - -


So, back to Elf.
.

Dear Elf, you say:

...communication has a separate meaning from argument,a dog barking at you is communication,he's communicating his hunger or whatever, someone bashing your head in is communicating,he's communicating his hate.
You can't use it to prove something.

I fear Elf will seek refuge in flight, still I will take my chance and detect whether he does honest intelligent productive thinking and writing, with addressing two questions to him.


Attention , Elf!

You say: "communication has a separate meaning from argument."

I have two questions for you:

1. Tell everyone here, what is the difference between communication and argument?
2. Can you do any argument without communication?


There.

Now let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness how if ever Elf will answer the two questions above, still I fear he will run away.

TheELF said:
Hey marius maybe you should really use google translate because nothing you say makes any sense.
I know that your religious beliefs are forcing you to do missionary work by just droning on and repeating the same phrases over and over because those are the phrases your higher ups did brainwash you with but communication has a separate meaning from argument,a dog barking at you is communication,he's communicating his hunger or whatever, someone bashing your head in is communicating,he's communicating his hate.
You can't use it to prove something.

.

 

[lnanek]

> #1 Parties engaged in proving or disproving something to exist must first work to concur on the concept of the thing

OK. Human tribes that could more easily band together and fight other tribes had an advantage over other human tribes. The tribes with this ability reproduced more than tribes that didn't. One of the genetic factors contributing to this ability would be one that makes the tribe members believe in some higher being.

Belief in the higher being could then be used to compel cooperation. This is similar to how the book; Guns, Germs, and Steel; mentions that the only animals that could be domesticated were ones with dominance hierarchies where humans could substitute for the pack/herd alpha. Therefore god is the effect of the optimal genetics for the human brain creating a belief in a higher being resulting in superior cooperation.

Given that concept, I think it's possible to prove this genetic factor exists or not. Just like how we've proven that genes exist for digesting milk in adulthood and such genes were very effective and spread through the population.

 

[Marius Dejess]

Dear Inanek, allow me to commend you, that you are a gentleman intellectual.

The thread is about:
"The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not."

Now you quote from the OP this line:

"#1 Parties engaged in proving or disproving something to exist must first work to concur on the concept of the thing..."
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...prove-god-exists-or-not.2475879/post-38272953

I like to inquire from you, do you mention in your message who are the parties engaged in proving or disproving something to exist etc.?

> #1 Parties engaged in proving or disproving something to exist must first work to concur on the concept of the thing

OK. Human tribes that could more easily band together and fight other tribes had an advantage over other human tribes. The tribes with this ability reproduced more than tribes that didn't. One of the genetic factors contributing to this ability would be one that makes the tribe members believe in some higher being.

Belief in the higher being could then be used to compel cooperation. This is similar to how the book; Guns, Germs, and Steel; mentions that the only animals that could be domesticated were ones with dominance hierarchies where humans could substitute for the pack/herd alpha. Therefore god is the effect of the optimal genetics for the human brain creating a belief in a higher being resulting in superior cooperation.

Given that concept, I think it's possible to prove this genetic factor exists or not. Just like how we've proven that genes exist for digesting milk in adulthood and such genes were very effective and spread through the population.

 

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!