The isolated system of existence and God.

[XenoFish]

6 hours ago, oslove said:

Please forgive me, Xeno, for you don't even know the true productive basics on how to define a word, the first of which is the following:

 

• Don't use the word to be defined in the drafting of your definition, that is what I call circular definition, which implicates that you are not defining at all, but just repeating the word to be defined, for example from your definition of the word, existence:
  • 1a: the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence the existence of other worlds.

Try to earn some units in a good college on how to explain words, concepts, and things as to make your shallow self and your dishonest partner onlookerofmayhem comprehensible.

 

Yes, you will tell me that your consulted dictionary and Google also use the word to be defined in the drafting of the definition of the word, but Google is a robot, and the authors of your consulted dictionary are under suspicions of aping (as in ape) robots, and you I assume are not a robot though a most unsubstantial brain.

Take notice here, dear everyone, when I ask for definitions of words, so that we can work together to concur on mutually agreed on meanings of words, I expect you to produce what you know to be the most appropriate and relevant definitions you must come up with, in re the issue in context.

.

Use the words properly, not how you deem fit. If you can't use them right then this is an epic waste of time. Not only for others, but yourself. In other words quit making junk up. 

[eight bits]

6 hours ago, oslove said:

Take notice here, dear everyone, when I ask for definitions of words, so that we can work together to concur on mutually agreed on meanings of words, I expect you to produce what you know to be the most appropriate and relevant definitions you must come up with, in re the issue in context.

Your definitions have been granted. I trust that your proof is soon to follow.

Or was that list after " Here is the reasoning that supports my advocacy: " supposed to be it?

Edited March 2, 2021 by eight bits

[XenoFish]

20 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Your definitions have been granted. I trust that your proof is soon to follow.

Or was that list after " Here is the reasoning that supports my advocacy: " supposed to be it?

I honestly do not think you'll get a productive response. 

This doesn't even feel like an actual discussion thread to me.

[XenoFish]

Feels like we're being talked at rather than talked to. If we don't play by ambiguous rules the game board gets flipped over. And it's our fault. 

[oslove]

9 hours ago, godnodog said:

Proof, where is the proof?
There is a reason why philosoply is not part of the scientific process.

 

As a matter of fact, I put this thread in the board, Philosophy and Psychology, but the powers that be here, they transferred it to Spirituality vs Skepticism.

By the way, what about we two, let us work together as to concur on what it is to prove something to exist in the objective world that is outside our mind, here is my definition of what it is to prove something to exist:

"Proof in re existence of something is the exposition whereby a proposition is supported by evidence in the objective world where we live and move and have our being."

 

Annex

From my post in https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/344159-the-isolated-system-of-existence-and-god/?do=findComment&comment=7186825

"Here again are my definitions of what is existence and what is evidence:

 

Existence is the object of man's conscious experience.

Evidence is anything at all existing which leads man to come to the existence of another thing, owing to a connection between them.

And here are my definitions of God and of proof:

God in concept is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Proof in re existence of something is the exposition whereby a proposition is supported by evidence in the objective world where we live and move and have our being."

.

[oslove]

For guys everyone here who are asking where is my proof on the existence of God, see it in the OP:
 

Quote

1. We all members of the taxonomy homo sapiens work together to arrive at a communally agreed on concepts of existence and God.

2. We see that in the isolated system of existence there are entities that are transient, meaning these entities have a beginning and an ending, for example, man has a beginning at birth and an ending at death.

3. Transient entities implicate the existence of an entity that is permanent and self-existent, which permanent and self-existent entity logically irrefutably is the cause of the transient beings.

4. So we go forth to search for the permanent and self-existent entity who is the cause of all transient beings.

5. And I for one searcher find Him, because to me He is present all the time and everywhere inside the isolated system of existence.

6. I for one a homo sapiens i.e. intelligent human, I have proved for myself the existence of God, in concept as the permanent and self-existent cause of all transient things inside the isolated system that is existence.

.

 

Now, you who say that is no proof of God's existence, see if you can also present your proof of no God exists.

Aha! You will say that you need not produce any proof because you are not making any claim, is that so?

Where did you come across this kind of an escape mechanism, by which you prove yourselves to be ignoramuses?

Any person making a claim whether affirmative or negative in a debate, is under the burden to prove it.

.

[XenoFish]

5 minutes ago, oslove said:

by which you prove yourselves to be ignoramuses?

Trying to use the whole bottle of vinegar to attract flies I see. 

[eight bits]

51 minutes ago, oslove said:

Any person making a claim whether affirmative or negative in a debate, is under the burden to prove it.

I haven't made any claim.

Tell me how point 5 fits into your proof, please:

Quote

5. And I for one searcher find Him, because to me He is present all the time and everywhere inside the isolated system of existence.

Where him is apparently from step 3: the* permanent, self-existent** cause of the transient beings.

* I didn't see where you proved uniqueness (if one uncaused whatever is possible, then what prevents a second one?)
**I didn't see where you defined self-existent.

and him suggests a person of some kind, apparently male. Where did you prove that, or, if you prefer, when you found him, what did you find exactly - or is this where "family forum" kicks in?

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by eight bits

[+Nuclear Wessel]

@oslove I was initially going to respond with a rather lengthy reply regarding your definition of existence and how it is a rather shallow definition, but I suspect I intuited that you were just looking for more of an excuse to make backhanded remarks towards atheism. 

Admittedly I was also somewhat miffed at the fact that you made the assumption that I ran away from you when in reality I was likely just uninterested in pursuing a discussion with you on the subject due to how low-effort your arguments are.

That and I think I am just ****ing tired of the whole god debate. Much of what you present is effortlessly refuted by any first year philosophy student. 

[rashore]

Thread closed for review.