What I have found out about God.

Page 36 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Marius Dejess

Senior member
Sep 7, 2015
320
34
101
Of course it is necessary to review the past to see whether we have improved or perhaps gone backward.

Have you guys never read this wisdom insight of historians:
""Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."*

So, I recall that I asked sandorski to tell me what for him it is to demonstrate something to be knowledge instead of belief.

Sandorski was asking me to demonstrate my certain (i.e. sure) knowledge that God exists, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

  • (From sandorski) I am going to suggest that what you call "certain knowledge" is actually just "really really really Believing". Knowledge can be Demonstrated. So please, demonstrate this Knowledge.


First, of course as usual I have to ask sandorski what is his idea of the verb, to demonstrate?

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/what-i-have-found-out-about-god.2580963/post-40328702

So, dear sandorski it is now or we are now into what will be post #880, from your post #2, where you asked me to demonstrate my belief into knowledge.

Have you looked up and also thought up what it is to demonstrate all this time?

Examine your mental database, and you will realize that there are plenty of words you use without really knowing what they mean.



*George Santayana (1863-1952)
.
 

Marius Dejess

Senior member
Sep 7, 2015
320
34
101
So, sandorski, here is what I know about demonstrating the validity of a claim.

1. If the claim is about something that man has access to with his senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste, and the super sense of consciousness, then to demonstrate is simply to bring the other party in the debate to the object of concern, for him to apply his senses on the object.

2. If the object of concern is beyond direct access to man's senses, then the party making the claim will just point out to the opponent party all kinds of circumstances available for examination, for the latter party and the claimant party to examine together, as evidence to the existence of the object under controversy.

There, dear sandorski, that is what to demonstrate means.

Do you have other steps by which man demonstrates to fellowmen on the validity of the claim, made by the claimant party to opponent party or parties?
 

UsandThem

Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
15,854
6,909
146
So, sandorski, here is what I know about demonstrating the validity of a claim.

1. If the claim is about something that man has access to with his senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste, and the super sense of consciousness, then to demonstrate is simply to bring the other party in the debate to the object of concern, for him to apply his senses on the object.

2. If the object of concern is beyond direct access to man's senses, then the party making the claim will just point out to the opponent party all kinds of circumstances available for examination, for the latter party and the claimant party to examine together, as evidence to the existence of the object under controversy.

There, dear sandorski, that is what to demonstrate means.

Do you have other steps by which man demonstrates to fellowmen on the validity of the claim, made by the claimant party to opponent party or parties?
satisfy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

Marius Dejess

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

Let us all contribute to our enhancement of knowledge.

In the following paragraph from the post reproduced below I mentioned evidence.
  • 2. If the object of concern is beyond direct access to man's senses, then the party making the claim will just point out to the opponent party all kinds of circumstances available for examination, for the latter party and the claimant party to examine together, as evidence to the existence of the object under controversy.

Here is my concept or definition of what is evidence, in the most concise and simple way I can manage, namely:

"Evidence is anything man knows to exist leading man to know another thing to exist."

For example, the existence of rain leads American indians to the existence of the rain maker god, to which they perform the rain dance.*

Rain is therefore the evidence to the existence of the rain maker god.


So, sandorski, here is what I know about demonstrating the validity of a claim.

1. If the claim is about something that man has access to with his senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste, and the super sense of consciousness, then to demonstrate is simply to bring the other party in the debate to the object of concern, for him to apply his senses on the object.

2. If the object of concern is beyond direct access to man's senses, then the party making the claim will just point out to the opponent party all kinds of circumstances available for examination, for the latter party and the claimant party to examine together, as evidence to the existence of the object under controversy.

There, dear sandorski, that is what to demonstrate means.

Do you have other steps by which man demonstrates to fellowmen on the validity of the claim, made by the claimant party to opponent party or parties?

*Among many Native North American tribes, the rain dance is an important annual ritual, especially among the Pueblos, Navajo, Hopi, and Mojave tribes of the Southwest region, where the land is most dry. ... Navajo dancers wear white feathers and blue turquoise representing wind and rain.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/native-american-rain-dance-history-ceremony.html.
 

UsandThem

Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
15,854
6,909
146
Here is my concept or definition of what is evidence, in the most concise and simple way I can manage, namely:

"Evidence is anything man knows to exist leading man to know another thing to exist."

For example, the existence of rain leads American indians to the existence of the rain maker god, to which they perform the rain dance.*

Rain is therefore the evidence to the existence of the rain maker god.
Logic.gif
 

UsandThem

Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
15,854
6,909
146
Hey there "Marius Dejess" .... you big ATHEIST you !!! ;)
You think you know someone, only to find out they are card-carrying atheist!!!!!

Sharing links to atheist websites in support of their "position". You are here to try and trick real Christians into believing in a false prophet. Get out of here you devil aka "Marius". We know you want to try and beat the devil in an arm wrestling match, but your strength is no match for the true lord and savior, Jesus Christ. And finally Marius shares a link to some earth, wind, water, and fire worshipping "Native North American tribe" non-believers? How dare you compare them to the savior.

Be gone ATHEIST!!!!! We see your true face!!!!!! You are the devil!


PrettyFace.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

Marius Dejess

Senior member
Sep 7, 2015
320
34
101
Okay, you guys are so lonely being atheists, that you quickly co-opted me right away, because I brought up the atheists’ site, where one atheist smart dude inverted the fallacy of the infinite regress, as the foolproof argument against the existence of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with beginning.

You guys probably betray yourselves for ignorance in not knowing about the Trojan horse - hehehehe, you seem to be not only bringing the Trojan horse into your barracks, but even swallowing it bait, hook, weight, string, and rod.

Okay, I will tell you that the smart atheist ideologue either is into Alzheimer’s disease, or into dishonest un-intelligent non-productive thinking and writing - from my evaluation, it is the latter factor than the first, i.e. dishonest un-intelligent non-productive thinking and writing.

Here, read the text in question from the atheist ideologue, below in quote, but I will tell you already, that the author knows that you guys are a bunch of innocent simpletons, with no exposure to some degree however small of academic learning.

His readers are all atheists here like you guys, so he can make you feel so secure that he has made it impossible for God to have been the first cause to have brought about the existence of man and the universe and everything with beginning: by inverting the fallacy of infinite regress against God, to avail you of some shallow camouflage comfort.


God and the Infinite Regress
20th January 2016 Dave Rowlands

God infinite regress the turtle moves turtle turtles

“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.

If we imagine a soldier waiting for orders from the soldier before to fire at the enemy. The soldier at the front asks the soldier behind if they have permission to fire. That soldier then asks the soldier behind them, then that soldier repeats the same process. Eventually we must come to a soldier that gives permission to fire, otherwise the soldier at the front of line would never be able to fire. There must be a soldier who is the ‘first cause’, the one that gives permission 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/
 

UsandThem

Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
15,854
6,909
146
Okay, you guys are so lonely being atheists, that you quickly co-opted me right away, because I brought up the atheists’ site, where one atheist smart dude inverted the fallacy of the infinite regress, as the foolproof argument against the existence of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with beginning.

You guys probably betray yourselves for ignorance in not knowing about the Trojan horse - hehehehe, you seem to be not only bringing the Trojan horse into your barracks, but even swallowing it bait, hook, weight, string, and rod.

Okay, I will tell you that the smart atheist ideologue either is into Alzheimer’s disease, or into dishonest un-intelligent non-productive thinking and writing - from my evaluation, it is the latter factor than the first, i.e. dishonest un-intelligent non-productive thinking and writing.

Here, read the text in question from the atheist ideologue, below in quote, but I will tell you already, that the author knows that you guys are a bunch of innocent simpletons, with no exposure to some degree however small of academic learning.

His readers are all atheists here like you guys, so he can make you feel so secure that he has made it impossible for God to have been the first cause to have brought about the existence of man and the universe and everything with beginning: by inverting the fallacy of infinite regress against God, to avail you of some shallow camouflage comfort.
You're pretty angry for being an ATHEIST.

However, I agree with Jesus on this one.

Jesus.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

UsandThem

Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
15,854
6,909
146
What's the point of that youtube vid getting posted over and over?
It follows them posting the same bot BS over and over (Marius wastes everyone's time). Not one person takes the OP seriously, but they keep going on and on and on......
 
Jun 18, 2000
10,963
491
126
Okay, I guess. The bot's posts are funny to read in a botty, satire kind of way. The youtube replies are just annoying as fuck.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY