Explaining Existence

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Explaining Existence

Post #1

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

Replying to post Lioness777
Lioness777 wrote: the 'scientific' theory that all the atheists love to quote is nothing but those men and women who have discovered what God has put on this earth to discover. Then they write about it.

Please tho I would like YOUR idea not a link of how you feel that there is a scientific explanation of existence. and I will then reply back to you simply...And who created the elements that has made life....life? For they just did NOT appear by themselves..
Alright. I will not link you to any other website, but will attempt to explain this to you in my own words. However, the question of existence is only the greatest question that we face. Clearly is is not an easy question to answer. I will attempt to make my reply as easy to understand as I possibly can. And as brief. But again, given the nature of the question, the answer will not be easy to comprehend. And it is not a question which is possible to answer briefly and still present all of the ideas necessary to make the answer cogent. So you will have to bear with me. And I stand ready to answer all questions after you have read what I have posted.


It is often said, and widely postulated to be true, that everything has a beginning. In fact this is entirely ERRONEOUS. Everything that we observe is in fact a continuation of things that went before. No discreet spontaneous beginnings are observed AT ALL. For example, none of us existed as discreet individuals prior to our conception. The material that had the potential to become us however existed with our parents, just as the material that would become them existed with their parents. Every particle in our bodies, from the moment of our conception to this very moment in time has existed for billions of years, AT LEAST, in other forms.

Einstein's famous theorem E=MC^2 tells us that matter and energy are co-equivalent. Matter is simply one of the forms that energy takes. And as nuclear fission has abundantly established, the energy potential of even small amounts of matter is quite enormous. The law of conservation of energy specifically tells us that energy itself can neither be created or destroyed. If the law of conservation of energy is a valid and inviolate law of physics, which is the very purpose of describing the physical laws of nature as "laws," then every particle of our bodies has existed eternally in various forms prior to our current existence, and will continue to exist eternally in other forms after we have passed away. Everything is recycled and reused again and again, eternally. Energy takes many forms, but it's potential always remains constant. If the law of conservation of energy is correct and inviolate, then energy, which is what the universe is, can neither be created or destroyed. Based on all observation, when we consider the beginning of the observable universe as a discreetly unique collection of energy, there is absolutely no basis for supposing that the universe simply popped into being where nothing had existed before. We have ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE with such a condition. Our experience is that CAUSE ALWAYS PRECEDES EFFECT. Based on all observation and experience, we have every reason to suppose that the universe was BORN as a result of conditions which already existed. And within our own universe this pattern of ongoing change, this FRACTALIZATION, continues through the process of the formation of black holes.

How did our universe begin? As something approximating a singularity, when matter/energy was squeezed into a point so dense that space would have nearly, at least, ceased to exist, and time would have approached, at least, infinite slowness. What happens when massive stars explode? The lightest elements are blown away and their heaviest elements are then reduced by the force of gravity into something approximating a singularity, from which not even light can escape and which then disappears from our plane of existence. Leaving only gravity for us to mark their passage. The question "Where did the energy for our universe come from" is echoed in the question, "Where did the energy in a black hole go?" The obvious answer in both cases is SOMEPLACE ELSE. A direction which is beyond the plane of our existence which we can not, as of yet at least, perceive. It IS clear however, that the energy in a black hole WAS DERIVED FROM OUR UNIVERSE. In other words, A CONDITION IN WHICH THE ENERGY EXISTED PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF THE BLACK HOLE. This and the law of conservation of energy implies, at least, that the energy of our universe existed in a condition prior to the big bang. And this of course implies a multi-verse. The existence of other universes is, as yet, only a possibility. The existence of other universes is implied by some of the current research, but is as yet unproven.

How many infinite possibilities of universes have been realized and will yet be realized, each with it's own set of parameters, given that energy is INFINITE IN DURATION? There is no answer to this of course, because infinity has no number. And within this range of infinite possibility, what are the chances that a just right bowl of porridge which allows for a universe which further allows for our sort of existence, will be produced? Given that we are dealing with infinity, the answer is SOMETHING APPROACHING 100%. The driving force behind this process seems to derive from quantum mechanics. Believers choose to call the process God, because this allows them to feel safe and secure in the belief that their existence is the result of some cosmic plan. Science simply calls it quantum mechanics however. Something to be studied and understood, but not worshiped.


The stuff that makes up the universe at large and the stuff that makes up life is exactly the same stuff. We call it matter. Matter is made up of combinations of incredibly small energetic bits; negatively charged electrons combined with positively and negatively charged elementary bits of energy scientists call quarks, which have themselves combined together to form protons and neutrons. The reason this occurs is because opposites attract and the positively charged quarks, known as up quarks, are massively attracted to the negatively charged quarks, known as down quarks, and immediately join together into clumps. A pair of positively charged up quarks joined to a negatively charged down quark forms a particle we call a proton. A proton has a net charge of positive. A pair of negatively charged down quarks joined to a positively charged up quark forms a particle we call a neutron. A neutron has a net charge of neutral. While oppositely charged particles are strongly attracted to each other, particles with the same charges are strongly repelled by each other. During high speed collisions, or under the influence of heavy gravity, protons and neutrons are forced closely enough together to become bonded. The energy that caused this to occur is locked into what is now the newly formed nucleus of an atom. A negatively charged electron now becomes attracted to the proton/neutron because of the positively charged quarks it contains. It does not bond with the proton/neutron however, because of the presence of negatively charged quarks. This is the classic model of an atom; a nucleus and a free electron. This is in fact an atom of the basic element known as hydrogen. An atom which contains two protons and two neutrons, as well as two free electrons is an atom of the element helium. Both of these elements are gasses over a very wide range of temperatures. An atom containing three protons, three neutrons and three free electrons however is the metal known as lithium, which has very different properties from hydrogen and helium. Because as the numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons increases, the inherent property of the element changes. Two or more elements joined together form what are called molecules. Molecules are the stuff of matter; the stuff of the universe and the stuff of us.

At the heart of matter however, in the realm of quarks and electrons, there is a constant shifting of position, due to the effects of onging attraction/repulsion. Because oppositely charged particles attract each other, while like charged particles repel each other. This causes a constant ongoing roiling to occur at this most basic level, the elementary level of the quanta, which is known as quantum mechanics. It is the engine that drives all change and the universe itself. It is what is responsible for such phenomena as lightning, thunder, wind and rain, earth quakes and volcanoes. It's also the reason that plants grow and you have thoughts flying around in your brain. Thoughts are electrical impulses caused by positive and negative charges. This attraction/repulsion caused by positive and negative charges is pretty much responsible for EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS. It can even be responsible for intelligence like our own. And yet at it's basic level it is not itself intelligent. It occurs because these quantum bits, quarks and electrons, vibrate at a certain frequency. The frequency of their vibration determines whether they are positively charged, or negatively charged. The universe is simply reacting to itself you see. Because the universe itself IS energy according E=MC<2, and because matter is one of the forms that energy takes. And according to all observation and experimentation, energy can neither be created or destroyed. This is known as the law of conservation of energy. Energy is therefore ETERNAL, finite in amount, but infinite in duration. This understanding is neither a philosophy nor a declaration of religious belief. This understanding is simple observation. The universe exists in this configuration because energy comes in different quantum bits and these bits interact with each other. If they did not, then there would be NO CHANGE and NO UNIVERSE. The "evidence" which the universe provides us with tells us of ongoing change caused by quantum mechanics. It DOES NOT tell us that these mechanical causes are the result of intelligent creation. That idea was born in the minds of intelligent creatures struggling to understand the wonder of it all. And beyond that the questions are still wide open.


Now, some might not consider this answer to be brief. Given the nature of the question however, this is about as abridged as one could ask for. So take your time with it. Consider it carefully. I have read the entire Bible. I took my time and considered it carefully.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

User avatar
Hector Barbosa
Apprentice
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Scandinavia/UK

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #51

Post by Hector Barbosa »

[Replying to post 46 by William]
Basically what you appear to be saying is that niether position is more appealling than the other and for good obvious reason.

Perhaps it is time to step it up a notch...take things to the next level?
I have been trying to do that for a few years now, going here is also an attempt and I have done a lot in the past 10 years to seek out both scientific knowledge and religious knowledge. I am really trying and honestly hope to find truth the could convince my logic, but so far there is always too great holes in everything I investigate on this topic to be convinced.
Quote:
But I can not be convinced by an argument without evidence and that includes the argument that scientists should be these objectively true Gods who makes no mistakes!

Perhaps too - notch down the emotional expression a tad there Hector?
While I myself understand your expression, in that some atheists do seem to regard science as the new god, and scientists as the new priests instructing the masses... it can be said without the emotional baggage 'tis all.
I appreciate the suggestion and observation. I agree my comment had emotional expression, that was intended to prove a point.

Is it the right strategy for debating here? I am not sure that it would make much difference, has anyone ever switched sides from debating on a forum? I doubt it. I don't think the truth convince people generally speaking as much as will or desire for something.

I am not here to convince anyone of a position since I don't have one yet, and I am not getting anything out of doing so. My desire is more to see what arguments can convince me or get a "report card" of what people are thinking, in the world about topics which are taboo to many because they tend to cause conflict.

So the emotional response is a way for me to keep motivated to debate, and to gauge what is out there.

I am sure I could do that with you with a less emotional response, since you seem more intellectual and aware than most even here, but I am not so sure I would get much of a response from anyone if I leave out the motion. Most of the debates here I have had using just logic has ended up with people ignoring it when they saw that they could not prove me wrong or bait me, and that would defeat my purpose in being here.

I am hoping to motivate people to find evidence of their arguments I have not seen, or at least to get a good impression of how people will respond against unbiased arguments they can not prove wrong.
We know that the biased arguments don't change much, for the only ones I have heard of switch sides, has been though personal experience, not through debates of one argument proving another wrong.

But I will try to remember to tone down the emotion when addressing you in the future ;)
Far as I am concerned, human beings are GOD in form, making it up as we go along and finding ways to overcome obstacles the physical universe puts in our way.
It is how I would expect a GOD in human form to behave.
That's a good argument I think, and I agree with you on evolution theory not proving or disproving God.

But how do you think human beings then came to be as "God in form"?

Are you convinced by the atheist or theists arguments such of life from nothing, a big bang, time or energy as creator or a God? Do you think we always existed or did we come from a creator or the material?

As I have learned truths, I have changed a lot myself...and this would support your theory of "God in form", I am just curious if you have gone too far in conclusion about origin or potential future progress beyond this life.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2346
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2005 times
Been thanked: 783 times

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #52

Post by benchwarmer »

William wrote: Out of reach for the majority, and not just a case of being too poor (which many would be) but also not having the type of brain wired like a scientist...we have to remember that people have their talents and some just are not scientists.
Not all brains are the same.
This is a valid point, but then those people will have to find their way some how. They still have the internet available to research what the peer review process is, learn how it works, and find where research is published. If they don't have the talent or means necessary to validate something they are left with only a few options:

1) Trust the peer review system and read all published research on the area of interest. Compare articles on the hypotheses and see if they jive. This is more or less 'free' though many publications will ask for money to access their sites.

2) Use wikipedia, youtube, and in general google the topic of interest. This is going to be a free for all, but you should at least find all the opposing views.

3) Read books on the area of interest.

4) Trust what your friends, coworkers, preachers, fellow church goers, etc. tell you.

If you can't verify something yourself, don't you think it would be wise to use the best possible secondary option? For me that is professional scientists in the relevant fields of research based on their peer reviewed published research.
William wrote: How did you get that from what I posted?

I am keen on scientific research, but have yet to be shown anything which shows that scientific method is useful in relation to ideas of GOD.
My apologies. Perhaps I mixed you up with someone else. I assumed you didn't trust the peer review process based on what you were saying, but I may have jumped to conclusions. Again, apologies.

The scientific method would be useful in relation to ideas of God if God were to produce anything observable. If we are simply talking about god concepts, then you are correct that it is not very useful.
William wrote: It is simply more a question of philosophy than science anyway.
Agreed. Which is why some of us get bent out of shape when others wade in here and claim they have evidence of creationism or the creator. When the rubber hits the road we quickly see they having nothing but rim.
William wrote: For example, scientific research may have provided evidence to show that no biblical flood happened, but this in itself does not mean that GOD (even the biblical GOD) therefore does not exist.
Agreed. Yet some will be happy to provide youtube videos and personal opinions and present them as scientific evidence.
William wrote: What it does point too is that stories were made up and attributed to that idea of GOD, but this in itself does not mean that the GOD does not exist. It may mean that the way the GOD is presented is not truthful.
Agreed.
William wrote: Where science can be useful in determining that - the reliability of any story attached to any Idea of GOD, sure. I personally have no issues with that, but still regard science as a less than ideal tool for the Job of proving or disproving the idea of that GOD, and certain other ideas of GOD I am aware of.
We sure are starting to agree a lot. What's happening here :) Just kidding, it's nice to get on the same page.
William wrote: For me though, the question is not how I arrived here, but WHY I am here, and science nor politics has any answer that will satisfy the latent curiosity of consciousness...especially individual consciousnesses who feel that they are getting the sharp end (or short end) of the stick in relation to political agenda, those who invest in systems of disparity and scientists who sell their knowledge to support corruption, only se me as a commodity and have no interest in any other reason why I exist and would even go so far as to encourage me not to even think about that.
Why will be hard to answer. You will probably never discover that. You will be rich and famous if you do (and can prove it) :)

William wrote: Not sure how that related to the subject of GOD existing or not?

Far as I am concerned, human beings are GOD in form, making it up as we go along and finding ways to overcome obstacles the physical universe puts in our way.
It is how I would expect a GOD in human form to behave.

But forgive me, you proberbly don't know my position on the subject. [linky]

Also, here: [linky]
Thanks for sharing your position.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14192
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 912 times
Been thanked: 1644 times
Contact:

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #53

Post by William »

benchwarmer wrote:
William wrote: Out of reach for the majority, and not just a case of being too poor (which many would be) but also not having the type of brain wired like a scientist...we have to remember that people have their talents and some just are not scientists.
Not all brains are the same.
This is a valid point, but then those people will have to find their way some how.
Sure - how many have the time to do this, even if they have the inclination to tear there attention away from the mundane things which otherwise likely distract them?
They still have the internet available to research what the peer review process is, learn how it works, and find where research is published.
GOD bless the internet platform!
If they don't have the talent or means necessary to validate something they are left with only a few options:

1) Trust the peer review system and read all published research on the area of interest. Compare articles on the hypotheses and see if they jive. This is more or less 'free' though many publications will ask for money to access their sites.

2) Use wikipedia, youtube, and in general google the topic of interest. This is going to be a free for all, but you should at least find all the opposing views.

3) Read books on the area of interest.

4) Trust what your friends, coworkers, preachers, fellow church goers, etc. tell you.

If you can't verify something yourself, don't you think it would be wise to use the best possible secondary option? For me that is professional scientists in the relevant fields of research based on their peer reviewed published research.
You are preaching to the choir here benchwarmer.

To the reader who might not be so convinced that what they are told is the truth, even if it can be found on the internet - you know that saying? - "It was on the internet so it MUST be true!" - and for every 'fact' there is an opposite 'fact' to contradict...the nature of humans who have idle time is not often to invest that time in pursuit of knowledge which ultimately cannot be confirmed or denied adequately in relation to the overall position of the individual human being, especially in relation to ideas of GOD.

You and I might like :study: I personally like to study the overall idea of GOD in relation to human beings - Granted, it won't make me well off or successful in the eyes of my human brethren, but I find my choices rewarding in other ways.

How did you get that from what I posted?

I am keen on scientific research, but have yet to be shown anything which shows that scientific method is useful in relation to ideas of GOD.

My apologies. Perhaps I mixed you up with someone else. I assumed you didn't trust the peer review process based on what you were saying, but I may have jumped to conclusions. Again, apologies.
Understand. We all do that from time to time, especially on internet forums.
The scientific method would be useful in relation to ideas of God if God were to produce anything observable.
The idea of GOD I am investigating is that everything observable IS a product of a GOD...but it is also complicated...essentially I 'see' GOD as Consciousness.
Also, I have my experiential reality to study and connect the dots.

It is a BIG subject.
If we are simply talking about god concepts, then you are correct that it is not very useful.
Correct. Those are more the Department of Philosophical Studies and require burden of truth.
It is simply more a question of philosophy than science anyway.
Agreed. Which is why some of us get bent out of shape when others wade in here and claim they have evidence of creationism or the creator. When the rubber hits the road we quickly see they having nothing but rim.
That is avoidable if one does not place hope in others showing them GOD. I cannot myself even imagine how anyone can have evidence of creationism or evidence of a creator, assuming the evidence being spoken of is scientific in nature.
I haven't witnessed anyone making such claims either, so until I do, I cannot really give more comment about it than this.
Perhaps you have some examples of this being the case?


As I see it, even if I were the saintliest person you could ever meet, and attributed that to my understand of 'what GOD is' this in itself wouldn't convince you that GOD actually therefore must exist, now would it?
For example, scientific research may have provided evidence to show that no biblical flood happened, but this in itself does not mean that GOD (even the biblical GOD) therefore does not exist.
Agreed. Yet some will be happy to provide youtube videos and personal opinions and present them as scientific evidence.
That is besides the point though isn't it? Obviously they are confused as to what actually represents scientific evidence.
It doesn't matter because in that it doesn't prove the existence of GOD it doesn't disprove it either.
It is simply as display of confusion and ignorance related to the unverstanding of what scientific evidence has to consist of.


What it does point too is that stories were made up and attributed to that idea of GOD, but this in itself does not mean that the GOD does not exist. It may mean that the way the GOD is presented is not truthful.

Agreed.


Where science can be useful in determining that - the reliability of any story attached to any Idea of GOD, sure. I personally have no issues with that, but still regard science as a less than ideal tool for the Job of proving or disproving the idea of that GOD, and certain other ideas of GOD I am aware of.
We sure are starting to agree a lot. What's happening here :) Just kidding, it's nice to get on the same page.
Until individuals CAN get on the same page, they cannot really evolve from the language of argument from position to the language of logical courteous discussion.


For me though, the question is not how I arrived here, but WHY I am here, and science nor politics has any answer that will satisfy the latent curiosity of consciousness...especially individual consciousnesses who feel that they are getting the sharp end (or short end) of the stick in relation to political agenda, those who invest in systems of disparity and scientists who sell their knowledge to support corruption, only see me as a commodity and have no interest in any other reason why I exist and would even go so far as to encourage me not to even think about that.

Why will be hard to answer. You will probably never discover that. You will be rich and famous if you do (and can prove it) :)
For me - as long as I develop a reasonable and logical answer to the question, that is all that counts. I feel rich even now, with the answer I have developed so far but it is MY answer. Why? Because I accept it as such.

And what is my answer?

1: I am here to experience a beginning from the point of absolute ignorance.
(I can also say the same of everyone)

2: As I develop in self awareness I am literally molded into something others say I am, and I can trace that back through the parents, grandparents, et al and realist the same pattern has been in process since ancient times. In this I can do one of two things. Accept it and play the part or reject it and find out for myself who I am.

3: I am Consciousness (obviously) but also incarnate in human form.

4: GOD is Consciousness.

5: I am here to learn who I am in that context.

6: I am an aspect of GOD (Consciousness) incarnate into human experience.

What does that even mean?

It means that I am responsible for expressing that into the external world in a correct manner which brings no shame on the idea of GOD. (and rejects any overtly negative and imbalanced connotations re the idea of GOD)
It also means that if I am, then everyone is and I should treat everyone accordingly, even if they do not see themselves in this way.

All up "Why Am I?"="I am that I have the opportunity to rehabilitate through the power of my own will in accordance with my heartfelt appreciation for my idea of GOD."
Thanks for sharing your position.
No Problem. I hope you will at least contemplate my position since I went to the trouble of explaining it a little. :)

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #54

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 46 by William]
It can be assimed that there will indeed be scientists who are corrupt.
And still more easily proven that clergymen, even Popes have been corrupt.
Still more difficult to show that goat-herds from 6000 years ago weren't making things up.

PRETTY EASY to check on any scientist making any claim.

Did neither of you read the OP?
It answers most of your assertions, when it doesn't actually dismiss them.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14192
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 912 times
Been thanked: 1644 times
Contact:

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #55

Post by William »

Willum wrote: [Replying to post 46 by William]

It can be assumed that there will indeed be scientists who are corrupt.
And still more easily proven that clergymen, even Popes have been corrupt.
I don't know about that. I think it is on par but the problem is bigger in relation to politics and hidden agendas in which scientists must be involved, even if at different levels.
Still more difficult to show that goat-herds from 6000 years ago weren't making things up.
Still hard to say. It could just as easily be assumed that while scientists tell us some things, they could keep other things from us.

Sort of reversal of 'making things up'
PRETTY EASY to check on any scientist making any claim.
Besides the point I made.
Did neither of you read the OP?
Speaking for myself, I didn't. Why? Has the focus shifted from that?
It answers most of your assertions, when it doesn't actually dismiss them.
Skimming through it now, I see that yep I did read it and got the gist.
If you think anything specific therein has answered most of my assertions feel free to present that as evidence to back up the claim.
Same goes for the dismissive bits you mention.

Meantime, I wrote this today and posted it here. [linky] I did not write it specifically in answer to the OP, but nonetheless it presents an argument in reply to the OP of this thread.

From the OP
The "evidence" which the universe provides us with tells us of ongoing change caused by quantum mechanics. It DOES NOT tell us that these mechanical causes are the result of intelligent creation. That idea was born in the minds of intelligent creatures struggling to understand the wonder of it all. And beyond that the questions are still wide open.
Wide open and debatable for that.

From the link I provided in this post;

:arrow:
Biological Evolution is a platform in which intelligence can and does display itself.
Mother Nature
(as a real, living, singular/individual entity.)

Looking for GOD? Then look no further.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #56

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 55 by William]

Hey, I am a scientist, and I have perfect understanding of many of those things you think are being kept.

Well, enjoy your beliefs, they seem non-sequitur, however, a rational man would believe someone off the street over ignorant goat-herders 6000 years ago.

Perhaps you should go to them for you medical treatments as well. Learn from them aeronautics! Philosophy, they certainly knew how to build boats better than modern ark-builders! So many things 6000 year-ago goat herders know so much more about!

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14192
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 912 times
Been thanked: 1644 times
Contact:

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #57

Post by William »

Willum wrote: [Replying to post 55 by William]
Hey, I am a scientist, and I have perfect understanding of many of those things you think are being kept.
Q: What things would these be, specifically?

Q: Are you saying in this that there are scientific things which you know of that are not known by the most of the rest of humanity?
Well, enjoy your beliefs, they seem non-sequitur, however, a rational man would believe someone off the street over ignorant goat-herders 6000 years ago.

Perhaps you should go to them for you medical treatments as well. Learn from them aeronautics! Philosophy, they certainly knew how to build boats better than modern ark-builders! So many things 6000 year-ago goat herders know so much more about!
You appear very much to have a hangup about certain aspects of Human History.
This explains well enough such hang-ups. [linky]

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #58

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 57 by William]

No, I am saying that you have no counter to these points, and your only recourse is to take my sentences and make questions out of them.

That, admits defeat to me, and signals that you should reconsider your positions. My point.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14192
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 912 times
Been thanked: 1644 times
Contact:

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #59

Post by William »

Willum wrote: [Replying to post 57 by William]

No, I am saying that you have no counter to these points, and your only recourse is to take my sentences and make questions out of them.

That, admits defeat to me, and signals that you should reconsider your positions. My point.
So when you are questioned about your statements of position, you consider somehow that the one questioning is admitting defeat.

Let me know when you change your mind and I will once again read your posts.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #60

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 59 by William]

Absolutely! At least when the questions are ingenuous. It's called "stump the dummy."
The very definition!

So, by not going over the post again, you get to walk away unaffected, free to go on believing what you already believed, despite have no good counters.

Go well.

Post Reply