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

[Mariosep]

Pixin, you say: "You [Mariosep] make claims based on your own interpretation of your perceptions and that is not proof."

You are not looking at the right direction, and hopefully with your senses and brain all in normal working condition.

Have you looked at how your papa and mama caused you to come to existence and life, Yes? No?

You see, Pixin, you are now playing the card of what and how we are uncertain of the existence of objective reality.

I should dispense myself from interacting with you, because ultimately with that kind of a card, you should go and keep to yourself because your cannot at all be certain you are not an illusion or you are not into self-delusion of your existence; go and join Buddhists that don't accept the existence of their selves - but they still beg for food every morning - of course that is in the Far East, the home of Buddhism, not with the Buddhist converts in the West.

I am not going to waste my time and effort interacting with you; you should go to the streets and protest against Trump's winning the election, if you be a US voter, on the ground that everyone is into interpreting their own perceptions, including yourself, so there is no certainty of Trump's winning the election, much less of there being an entity called Trump.

That is what I notice with atheists, they still go into the most hoary and unrealistic ideas from nonsensical ideologues feeling themselves so smug, with sprouting "there is no certainty because we are into interpretation of what our unreliable senses and consciousness perceive.

Try something more normal, like that there are babies whom everyone normal in his psychology loves.

Think about what is normal, and stop playing yourself to be abnormal.

[pocaracas]

You have not once addressed what I have written on this thread.... but it's ok... it's ok... some of it will stay in your subconscious...

Now, please just interact with Simon Moon and give him your thoughts on how to show me that I am wrong with my proof for God existing.

Why?
It's your thread, I respond to you.... I'll respond to him when I want and I don't want to, right now.

Because I am only one person and not a battalion, and you are many, so it is most convenient in regard to time-saving and labor cost-cutting for me to just interact with Simon Moon, besides he is good at fallacies, and I am good at observing causation in the objective reality of existence where babies are caused by their papas and mamas.

No, you are not good at observing causation. You are incredibly inept at it.
Mamas and papas bring pre-existing materials together to form babies.
Biology describes how that happens.... Chemistry can go further and describe many many other events where things that come together form something else... and a few events involved in biology, too.
If we proceed to things smaller than molecules... say atoms... and physics is the discipline used to describe the events that bring things together and form some other things...
Keep going into smaller things and you get into QCD and the like... still technically physics...

So, down deep, everything you perceive as being caused is described by physics. And everything is a case of taking some material, combining it with some other material, and resulting in some yet another material. Sometimes, mass gets converted into energy and vice-versa, but we know that those can be interchangeable (mass equals energy, with a proportionality constant, E = mc^2).

So.... kindly tell the rest of the class how your god's causality fits in this picture.

Dear readers here, please think about this thought from yours truly:

“The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.”

You see, when you think on that thought from yours truly, you will come to the knowledge that existence is composed of things existing from other things, and things existing from, by, through, in, of themselves or itself; and that thing that exists from, by, through, in, of itself, that is the entity that corresponds to my concept of God, namely, God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

So, now your god god is everything.... such a wonderful all-encompassing and utterly useless concept...

[Plixin]

Pixin, you say: "You [Mariosep] make claims based on your own interpretation of your perceptions and that is not proof."

You are not looking at the right direction, and hopefully with your senses and brain all in normal working condition.

Have you looked at how your papa and mama caused you to come to existence and life, Yes? No?

You see, Pixin, you are now playing the card of what and how we are uncertain of the existence of objective reality.

I should dispense myself from interacting with you, because ultimately with that kind of a card, you should go and keep to yourself because your cannot at all be certain you are not an illusion or you are not into self-delusion of your existence; go and join Buddhists that don't accept the existence of their selves - but they still beg for food every morning - of course that is in the Far East, the home of Buddhism, not with the Buddhist converts in the West.

I am not going to waste my time and effort interacting with you; you should go to the streets and protest against Trump's winning the election, if you be a US voter, on the ground that everyone is into interpreting their own perceptions, including yourself, so there is no certainty of Trump's winning the election, much less of there being an entity called Trump.

That is what I notice with atheists, they still go into the most hoary and unrealistic ideas from nonsensical ideologues feeling themselves so smug, with sprouting "there is no certainty because we are into interpretation of what our unreliable senses and consciousness perceive.

Try something more normal, like that there are babies whom everyone normal in his psychology loves.

Think about what is normal, and stop playing yourself to be abnormal.

In the immortal words of Hitchens.....CRACKPOT!!!!!

[Mariosep]

So, you deny that babies like you once were, are not caused by their papas and mamas?

Okay, then describe how babies come about from the Big Bang to the completion of babies coming forth from the maternal portal of their mamas to the outside world.

And don't forget to factor in my thought, namely:

"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

[pocaracas]

So, you deny that babies like you once were, are not caused by their papas and mamas?

Okay, then describe how babies come about from the Big Bang to the completion of babies coming forth from the maternal portal of their mamas to the outside world.

And don't forget to factor in my thought, namely:

"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

If you want me to put into words what took Nature a bit over 13 billion years to accomplish, then you must be out of your mind.
But keep showing us that state of mind that you're in: disingenuous.

[Simon Moon]

Dear Simon Moon:

I have given the proof of God existing nth times already, starting from the postulation of the concept of God, to the evidence in objective reality outside of our mind, in all instances of causation, like conception and birth of babies by their papas and mamas, thus to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence, namely: an entity in existence corresponding to the posited concept scil. first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, which I call God.

Yes you have posted it way too many times.

And I, and many other people have showed why it is a logically invalid argument. Even if I give you the benefit of doubt on the affirming the consequent fallacy, your argument still contains other fallacies that invalidate its modus ponens.

Here they are again:

Fallacy of composition. You continue to make this mistake. Just because we observe cause and effect within the universe, does not mean causation applies to the universe itself.

Answer this; since time and space did not exist until the expansion of universe, how would causation occur? Causation, by definition, requires time and space. In other words, causation is a temporal and spacial phenomena.

Fallacy of equivocation. You use the phrase ' instances of causation' with 2 different meaings.

The first is describing the causation within the universe, which is just a rearrangement of existing matter and energy, known as creation ex material.

The second definition you use for ' instances of causation' is the creation of the universe out of nothing, which is creation ex nihilo.

Please directly address these two points. No one here has ignored your 'proof', but you have disingenuously ignored our refutations.

I created another thread with a similar title to this one, using the same argument you have used, to prove that Universe Creating Pixies exist. Yes, I admit that it is a joke thread. But that does not change the fact that my 'proof' is no different than yours, but leads to a different conclusion.

Show me why my argument on the other thread fails to prove that Universe Existing Pixies exist, but your argument proves that a god exists.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-46189.html

[Foxaèr]

Again I ask, where is the proof?

[Simon Moon]

Again I ask, where is the proof?

Well, that is the bottom line.


Philosophical arguments, like the OP's version of the cosmological argument, can never prove the existential reality of what they are trying to prove.

The OP fails to understand why you can't 'logic something into existence'.

Arguments like the one in the OP only exist to fool the believer into thinking that they have rational reasons for their beliefs.

[Mariosep]

Okay, everyone in particular Simon Moon, have you gone into objective reality of existence to contemplate the causation of babies as you once were, by their papas and mamas, instead of dwelling in your mind only.

[Simon Moon]

Okay, everyone in particular Simon Moon, have you gone into objective reality of existence to contemplate the causation of babies as you once were, by their papas and mamas, instead of dwelling in your mind only.

Yes.

What's your point?

The causation of babies is the rearrangement of existing matter and energy, via purely biological means.

Please tell me what this has to do with your flawed 'proof' for the existence of a god.

And please address my points in my previous response to you in post #736.