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

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh, cunt, shit, fuck, no, not Dawkins! My atheism has been repudiated.

Replace "lead poisoning" with "Dawkins" and "Invincible-man's" with "Excited Penguin's"

[Mariosep]

Dear woman atheist colleague Astreja, I found it, your post where you mentioned about your(?) fear of hell that makes you so may I say rabid against God?

I commiserate with you, dear Astreja: you must have had some very bad trips in Christianism with some Christians I imagine you used to be on close terms.

.Please start a thread on how and why I [you] left God and gone over to join up with atheists.

On my part I just abstain from merging with such most distasteful Christians you must have been on quite close terms with, and then you got so terribly pissed with them as to even if I may, register for hell to get even with… God?

Please don’t get more mad, I am just sharing my own experience, I can understand you completely how you could most naturally and did get very much rabidly furious with your erstwhile fellow on close terms Christians, thus making you resolve to sign up with atheists.

That is some compensation.


Dear readers and posters here, I never mention hell in my posts, except in reference so far only once, in my exchange with Astreja.

Now, I will return to my research on the history of babies and how mankind came to the conclusion that they mankind are partners with God in the causation of babies.


Later.

Astreja  
Loose Cannon of the Æsir
Religious Views: Agnostic atheist
Posts: 192
Threads: 2
Joined: 8th October 2016
Reputation: 10
#827
RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
Yesterday, 04:25
_______________

God is looking for people who will trust him, obey him and most importantly love him. Trust and faith are key components of love and he is looking for us to demonstrate these traits to the Lord.

Well, that's *definitely* not Me.  I can't trust a god that would allow a hell to exist.  Ever.  Can't love it, either, and will not obey such a rat-bastard.

[The Grand Nudger]

The history of babies, lol?  How I came to be partners with god in creating babies?  Buddy, it wasn't god I was schtupping, he's not a partner on that one.  

I'm not even sure what to say, am I really in the presence of a person who doesn't know where babies come from.....? It aint heaven, or, at least, it aint heaven when they're done with it.

[Tonus]

These forums are so inactive that a thread like this is allowed to keep going? There is no real atheist conversation here.Pathetic.

Every now and then you get one or two theists who sign up with the intent of trolling and it can take a while for people to give up on them.  As long as they keep it to one or two topics it's not an issue, but if they start to infect other threads then it's time to shut them down.  The repetitive nature and empty rhetoric of the OP makes it easy to ignore the topic or to skim it quickly and move on.

[Asmodee]

I know idioms often don't translate well, but I found this for you, Mario.  Enjoy.

[downbeatplumb]

When a mummy and daddy love each other very much they have a special cuddle and so a baby is born nine months later.
Because we are animals that have evolved to reproduce sexually, billions of years after the first life emerged from the chemical brew of early earth.
Chemicals which are made from atoms largely created in the heart of stars by nuclear fusion.
A process that happens due to gravity which is warps in spacetime.
This goes back as far as our knowledge of science can see to the Big Bang.
What came before the big bang is mostly speculation.
But I am as sure as I can be that no god or gods played any pert in the process.

Why do I think that? you may ask.

Because god idea explains nothing.
If I ask how god made the universe what would you say?
What process did god use?
What materials?
How did it create space?
Where did it get the energy from?

You get the idea.

You would be unhappy if I said I knew how the universe started and just said "science" when you asked how it started, but that is exactly what every single theist does but with "god"

[GUBU]

<snipping the unedifying fellatio of William Lane Craig>

First of all Craig isn't an Oxford don, he isn't even a scholar. Secondly Dawkins isn't a coward for not debating him, if he had to debate every insane hobo who has voices in his head, he'd never get any biology done, and would then lose his job for lack of productivity.

Edit: Shrubbery now. Ni!

[Mariosep]

Thanks everyone for your presence and contribution.


I thought that I would be dispensing myself from dealing with Simon Moon, but I said to myself that I should really analyze carefully how he thinks in regard to babies caused by their papas and mamas, for he is telling me that I don't understand, namely, that babies came forth into existence with molecules re-arranging themselves, and that is material causation.

I could get him wrongly, but he is always around to correct me.

You see, dear readers here, atheists really do not care at all to get connected to the issue, God exists or not.

So everything they think up if at all they do think, it is to escape from any careful, systematic, coherent, consistent examination of the issue God exists or not.

Notice that they will never ever come up with their information of their concept of God, but they do have my information of my concept of God, they can read it, here again for them to get to read if they have not yet read it, for I have presented my concept of God nth times already here.

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

Now, dear readers here, Simon Moon is an expert in detecting fallacies, but I have to say this about his mastery of fallacies, namely, it is all in his mind, for he is a devotee of textbooks, that is where he gets his knowledge of fallacies, and also mammalian reproduction, but not from experiences in his life.

What so important about experiences in life?

Experiences in life, your own life and my own life, that is the core substance of our existence as conscious beings, that is why they are so very important.

You don't have experiences at all, then you are not existing as humans, but just at most only as robots, and your operator is the one existing as human, but you are only a piece of equipment, no experiences at all in the proper sense of experience.

You see, dear readers here, from his own lips he says that he has not had children, and he got his information on how babies come about, from textbooks on mammalian reproduction.

Now, in regard to causation of babies by papas and mamas, he brings in material cause, I bring in causation without any qualification as regards whether it is material or whatever else, except the phrase, by their papas and mamas.

Where does Simon Moon get his knowledge about material cause, which he is at great pains to make me understand?

Where else but from his collection of textbooks, in the case of material cause, almost certainly from his collections of textbooks on basics of philosophy.

In the philosophy of Christianism, there are four causes in bringing about an effect, namely:

Efficient cause
Final cause
Exemplary cause
Material cause

Simon Moon it appears never ever does any self-initiated thinking on where babies come from in term of causes, what he does when I bring in babies being caused by their papas and mamas, he grasps on his textbook knowledge of material cause, and comes up with molecules as the cause of babies and not their papas and mamas.

Well, dear Simon Moon, when you come over and tell readers that you just come over to laugh at me, also do some thinking on how you are forgetting the other three causes to bring about an effect, like babies, namely:

Efficient cause
Final cause
Exemplary cause
(Material cause, mentioned by Simon Moon)


Now, dear Simon and also dear atheists here, please do some serious thinking that is what I might call integrative and holistic, on babies caused by their papas and mamas to come to existence and life.


Okay, let us sit back and await Simon Moon to show up and laugh at me, but not doing anything of serious thinking on the other three causes, aside from material cause which are molecules, in the causation of babies, and not their babies' papas and mamas.

Let us see whether he will give some serious attention to thinking about the other three causes of any effect that is taken to be effect brought into existence by causation.

Efficient cause
Final cause
Exemplary cause
(Material cause, mentioned by Simon Moon)

[Crossless2.0]

You're still here?

Go get laid or something.

[Astreja]

First of all Craig isn't an Oxford don, he isn't even a scholar. Secondly Dawkins isn't a coward for not debating him, if he had to debate every insane hobo who has voices in his head, he'd never get any biology done, and would then lose his job for lack of productivity.

I've been trying to break a chronic addiction to debating insane hobos, but sometimes it's just too tempting.  Thank you, inventor of the "Ignore" button, whoever you are.