Jump to content

yrreg

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About yrreg

  • Rank
    Quark
  1. To know something in the broadest sense of the word means to have any idea at all about that something. For example, atheists call God a flying spaghetti monster, they know what is a flying spaghetti monster, it is all in their mind, but they have not shown a flying spaghetti monster yet as to prove to mankind that God is such a flying spaghetti monster which they have located in the reality of existence outside their mind. So, to know something is to have any idea at all in the mind of humans and also in the reality of existence outside the mind of humans. Now, to prove something
  2. 040512thr 0856h I will be back later in the evening or tomorrow morning. Yrreg Okay, you agree with me that you see there has always been something. What is my point? The thread is about: "God as the first cause. Seeking opinions on God as the first cause of everything not God." What do you say, can you reason from the fact that there has always been something to the fact of God's existence as the first cause of everything not God? I will be back... Yrreg
  3. Well, I don't read any constructive utterances so far. Yrreg
  4. It seems that that people who bring in the false dichotomy issue are motivated by the need to not answer the question whether there has always been something. So, as I already offered, don't give attention to the yes or no words, just answer "Has there always been something?" If you answer "There has always been something," then you are into the actual objective reality of existing things wherein we humans are situated and everything we talk about are situated. However, should you answer "There has not always been something," then you are saying there was a situation wherein there
  5. 040312tue 0825h I think I read now that someone or some folks here want to talk about evidence. Didn't I ask you guys who are atheists to produce your concept of evidence as from your own stock knowledge, and then to give two examples, and also most importantly to explain how evidence works to ascertain the existence of something in the actual objective reality of existing things? But now I have realized that first things first: "Has there always been something existing?" Let us all work first on that question. Yrreg
  6. 040312tue 0810h That is the perennial trouble with atheists, they don't know about first things first, like if they were to travel they don't ask first how much money they have. Okay, let me see if you are capable of occupying your mind on the matter of God's existence or non-existence, on first things first. Tell me has there always been something existing? There are smart but in effect insane atheists who go straight to the first question of existence yes or no, by working on concepts and words and pseudo math to establish that the universe of existence came
  7. 040312tue 0743h [ Note to readers: I will now always prefix the date and time of every new message I write in my recurring session here in this forum, so that readers will know that there are several separate messages even though the system here puts them all together for having a close chronological link among themselves. ] I will just ask you: 1. What is first line of Genesis? 2. What is first line of the Apostles' Creed? Yrreg
  8. Well, since atheists are presumed to be reading people, therefore they must have read about what they insist does not exist, namely, about God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe. How can atheists claim to know God does not exist when they don't read about Him: in particular since atheists aim their critique against Christians, it is reasonable on their part and to be taken for granted that they do read about the Christian faith looking into all the materials about God. If you atheists do not know the sources of the Christian faith which you must address
  9. Well, it is not enough that you allege my question,"Has there always been something: yes, no?" is founded upon a false dichotomy. Please explain what is a false dichotomy and then show how my question is founded on a false dichotomy; otherwise anyone can just run away from answering a valid question by just declaring that the question is founded on a false dichotomy. That is most convenient but it is really a cop-out, just like declaring that I don't know therefore everyone else is not supposed to know either, namely, stop using his mind to think. Yrreg First, of
  10. You are talking about the suffering of humans. Before anything else, and I don't know what you are proving, let us not talk about the suffering of humans which are you and me. First things first, is there a first cause which Christians identify as God and define as the creator of everything in the universe that has a beginning or is not God Himself. That is why I am asking atheists here what is their reply to this question: Has there always been something: yes, no? Yrreg
  11. Sorry guys, I have not been active here since the above post. Now, you guys want me to put up or shut up. Okay, I will just ask you this question, though I have not read your posts since I was last here on March 14, 2012, and today in my place it is April 1, 2012: Has there always been something existing: yes, no? You see, to put up something from my part and whether it is really putting up something, depends upon you. I can be putting up already things but you still insist that I am not in regard to the topic of this thread, God as first cause, in which case the
  12. I still have not come to any examples of evidence, even though I seem to have seen someone here presenting his concept of what is evidence. Quote from Yrreg For posters who have given a concept of what is evidence, please give two examples of evidence. I am sorry if you have given two examples, but you must also explain how the two examples you give if any at all I mean of examples, are illustrations and actual instances of what is evidence as per your own concept or adopted from other sources of what is evidence. If you anyone have given two examples of what is evidenc
  13. What I see of atheists' socalled arguments against God is that they their socalled (fake) arguments are all evasions and obstructions. The existence of God is obvious to human reason, so if a human uses his reason correctly, properly, honestly, consistently, it is obvious to his mind that God exists as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. Now, atheists don't use their reason to see the fact of God's existence. What they do are evading the question and obstructing their reason so that their mind is self-deceived into the arrogance of saying that the
  14. The title of this thread is: God as the first cause. Seeking opinions on God as the first cause of everything not God. #Post 1 4 March 2012 - 10:31 AM yrreg What I see of atheists' socalled arguments against God is that they their socalled (fake) arguments are all evasions and obstructions. The existence of God is obvious to human reason, so if a human uses his reason correctly, properly, honestly, consistently, it is obvious to his mind that God exists as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. Now, atheists don't use their reason to
  15. No. This is about your claim - not mine. You are trying to avoid the central accusation that you have made an unwarranted assertion with no evidence. This is just chop-logic. I can use your definition. The great thing is that you argument fails for almost every rational definition [...] So, it is obvious you do not have any solid thoughts of evidence as of universe that you understand genuinely what is evidence and what is the universe. Otherwise for evidence you should be able to give examples of what is evidence as you have given the definition of evidence
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.