I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?

[Astreja]

As you have reproduced the Russell/Copleston material multiple times in the last few pages, I have reported it as spam.

[Angrboda]

The Copleston Russell debate is not relevant to your proof. One more post of it and I'll report you for spamming.

[Primordial Bisque]

So. Mariosep has resorted to just telling people their worthless and spamming a 70 year old debate?

What a sore loser. A sore loser with no proof of god.

[LadyForCamus]

Maelstrom, you say:

"Dear Mariosep,

God does not exist.

Sincerely,
Faith's Nightmare and Misanthrope"


That is what I mean with you, dear atheist colleagues here, you are into all manners of flippancy and may I, unruly behavior, unbecoming to any posters who really sincerely honestly care to expound on his denial of God existing, with first presenting his information on the concept of God which they are denying to exist.

Otherwise, you are into evasions, and usually with flippancy or unruly utterances.

My I just submit that you are doing a great discredit to this forum, Atheistforums.org.

It is not yet too late to redeem your serious manners of posting in a forum that is read by peoples all over the internet; but his forum is losing readership with the march of time, owing to I submit the awful quality of your posts.

The only awful posts here are YOURS. Go away. No one likes you. And, you smell.

[brewer]

Maelstrom, you say:

"Dear Mariosep,

God does not exist.

Sincerely,
Faith's Nightmare and Misanthrope"


That is what I mean with you, dear atheist colleagues here, you are into all manners of flippancy and may I, unruly behavior, unbecoming to any posters who really sincerely honestly care to expound on his denial of God existing, with first presenting his information on the concept of God which they are denying to exist.

Otherwise, you are into evasions, and usually with flippancy or unruly utterances.

My I just submit that you are doing a great discredit to this forum, Atheistforums.org.

It is not yet too late to redeem your serious manners of posting in a forum that is read by peoples all over the internet; but his forum is losing readership with the march of time, owing to I submit the awful quality of your posts.

The only awful posts here are YOURS.  Go away.  No one likes you.  And, you smell.  

Surströmming?

[Whateverist]

Dear atheist colleagues here, please accept my thanks for your presence and contribution here in my thread.

Now, I have to say this about your posts, though: they are not doing you any credit to your self-respect, self-esteem, and thus ultimately any self-worth.

You see, dear atheist colleagues here, you can hide your identity in the internet, but you cannot hide from yourselves.

Please submit posts that are to your self-worth as a thinker and writer who dwells on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, delivered with all civility of tongue.

For the record, none of my posts has been submitted to you.  From early on it became clear that you were not responsive.  So don't trouble yourself.  We can do just fine with or without your feeble input.

[Simon Moon]

Dear Simon Moon, when you show up please go to this post (see ANNEX 2 below) from yours truly, it will enlighten you on what it is to join the issue.

Thanks, but no thanks.

You have already demonstrated that you are unable to be intellectually honest, so unless you can come up with actual evidence for your god, I may be done with this thread.

Your argument has several other flaws besides confirming the consequent. You have not even acknowledged them, or anyone's argument against them.

C: Well, my position is the affirmative position that such a Being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically.

And Copleston is just as wrong as you, William Lane Craig, Plantinga, etc.

A god can not be argued into existence. I can create a 'proof' using the same flawed arguments you used, to prove that "universe creating pixies" exist.

[Asmodee]

Man, this thread is getting nowhere super fast.  So how about I post a proof that the "creator" God of the Bible, specifically, does not exist?  I am choosing a specific deity for a couple of reasons.  One, it is impossible to give actual evidence that all gods do not exist.  It is extremely difficult, if you are arguing properly, to prove some vague concept of a god exists.  If it exists it can be named.  The ONLY reason to keep the particular deity vague and poorly defined is to keep from giving it too many characteristics, which makes the concept easier to shoot down, which is what Mariosep is doing.  The more vague and confusing you can make it, the more difficult it becomes to prove that god, specifically, does not exist.  Not that you have to, mind you.  It's not true unless you can prove it.  But I'm bored of 60 pages of posts containing about 2 pages of unique content, so I am going to give the evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist and, surprisingly, there is actual evidence it isn't real.  I won't give all of the evidence (there is PLENTY, as I'm sure you all know), just a logical refutation.

1) If God exists, magic exists
  The evidence - The Bible is littered with descriptions of magic, both of the type Christians refer to as "miracles" and the type not caused by God.
2) If magic exists, people can perform feats of magic
  The evidence - In the Old Testament even people who were not faithful were capable of performing some magic, whether it be turning a rod into a snake or speaking with the dead.  In the New Testament Jesus repeatedly tells his followers that they are capable of performing magic.  Peter even walked on water for a short time until he was frightened by the wind.  Even the faithful believe they are capable of doing magic "by the will of God" and man even believe in the magic of witches and Satan worshipers.
3) Magic does not exist
  The evidence - All claims of magic fall into exactly two categories.  Those categories are those which have not been proved to be true and those which have been proved to be not true.  This is EXACTLY what one would expect of something which is not real and, in fact, is the EXACT same for every pseudoscience and lunatic fringe pet project.  Bigfoot evidence falls into these two categories, UFO evidence, Loch Ness Monster evidence, vampire evidence, ghost evidence, etc.
4) Therefore, God does not exist

[Mariosep]

Thanks everyone for your presence and contribution.


Now, finally, Simon, you have shown up.

Mariosep Wrote: Dear Simon Moon, when you show up please go to this post (see ANNEX 2 below) from yours truly, it will enlighten you on what it is to join the issue.

Thanks, but no thanks.

You have already demonstrated that you are unable to be intellectually honest, so unless you can come up with actual evidence for your god, I may be done with this thread.

Okay, what about your being born from your parents, that is causation by your parents of your existence and life, is that not evidence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?

Thanks dear Simon for showing up, please stay with me.

[Asmodee]

Thanks everyone for your presence and contribution.


Now, finally, Simon, you have shown up.

Thanks, but no thanks.

You have already demonstrated that you are unable to be intellectually honest, so unless you can come up with actual evidence for your god, I may be done with this thread.

Okay, what about your being born from your parents, that is causation by your parents of your existence and life, is that not evidence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?

Thanks dear Simon for showing up, please stay with me.

Causation is a fundamentally flawed argument.  You are taking known laws of our universe, laws which we know to work ONLY "within" our universe, and trying to apply them as the rules which also govern "not" our universe.  Before the beginnings of our universe there was "not" our universe.  The laws of our universe govern all of space, time, matter and energy, none of which existed before the beginning of our universe. To show that there was a "first cause" you would first have to show that causation even existed before our universe, something which is impossible until we can observe something outside of our universe. And EVEN IF you could show this your argument could bring one to the conclusion that this first cause was a fairy fart. You're just picking your favorite thing for what that first cause is, giving no evidence that it is the thing you imagine. The odds of you just pulling the correct explanation out of your ass with no evidence to point to it are statistically insignificant.