Let's go back to the beginning of this thread
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
Examine your mental database, and you will realize that there are plenty of words you use without really knowing what they mean.
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?
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?
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.
Dear everyone here:
You think you know someone, only to find out they are card-carrying atheist!!!!!Hey there "Marius Dejess" .... you big ATHEIST you !!!
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/
You're pretty angry for being an ATHEIST.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.
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......What's the point of that youtube vid getting posted over and over?
What's the point of that youtube vid getting posted over and over?
Go ahead and ignore me, I don't mind.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.
I don't mind your posts other than this thread. Just annoying and pointless.Go ahead and ignore me, I don't mind.