(October 24, 2016 at 3:42 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Please therefore everyone here, I suggest that you choose one god to work on, and propose your concept of the god you are presenting to prove the existence or non-existence of this god.

No, it doesn't work like that. I don't claim to "prove" the nonexistence of any god. The burden of evidence lays upon the claimant. My only claim is that for every god I've ever heard described, I find the evidence insufficient.

I do not have to disprove your version of god. All I need to do is hear your evidence and see if it is convincing or not.

(October 24, 2016 at 3:42 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Here is again, please bear with me, my information on the concept of God.
 

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

 

That's a pretty nebulous definition for a Protestant ... it looks more like a wedge waiting for a tap-tap here, a tap-tap there than it does an actual definition of the god you worship according to your own profile.
 

(October 24, 2016 at 3:42 pm)Mariosep Wrote: So, dear colleagues here, please present your information on the concept of the god, just choose one of the many Gods, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., that you know about; for in this way we will be connected in regard to what we are talking about, as to prove that it exists or it does not exist.

I've got better things to do than go through the litany of gods I don't believe in to please some guy online. Why don't you ask yourself why you don't believe in the other thousands of gods, and apply that reasoning to your own? You're an atheist too, for all those thousands of other gods. The only difference between you and I is that you've fenced off your own god and won't apply the same logic inside that particular pasture.

(October 24, 2016 at 4:29 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 4:26 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Never mind the blessings, wouldya pass the mustard?

None of that Grey Poopon crap, give me some French's!

(October 24, 2016 at 4:36 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: None of that Grey Poopon crap, give me some French's!

Bah, frog squat!

(October 24, 2016 at 5:27 am)Mariosep Wrote: This is my proof for God existing.

1. Formulate the information of the concept of God, thus:
"God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

Flaw: affirming the consequent.

Your first premise is also the conclusion you are trying to prove.

Quote:2. Look for instances of causation in reality outside of concepts in our mind.

3. We find countless examples of causation in reality outside of concepts in our mind.

Flaw: this is the fallacy of composition I mentioned in my previous post.

Premise 1: A is part of B

Premise 2: A has property X

Conclusion: Therefore, B has property X.

As I'm sure you can see, the above syllogism is false.

Quote:4. From the countless instances of causation in reality, we infer to the existence of a first and ultimate cause.

This does not follow from premises 1,2,3 due to previously mentioned fallacies.

It also looks like there is a hidden fallacy of equivocation. Which is probably more egregious than the fallacy of composition.

The things we observe that you are referring to as 'countless instances of causation', are all instances of existing matter and energy, being acted on by natural forces. Ex material, as it were.

The universe according to you, is not previously existing matter and energy being acted on by your god. He is creating (causing the universe to come into existence) ex nihilo.

Quote:5. We find that the first and ultimate cause of all instances of causation in reality corresponds to our information on the concept of God, namely, the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

This is a non sequitur. None of what you claim to be the attributes of your universe creator follows from any of your premises.

Quote:6. Conclusion: God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Does not follow from your syllogism. Every premise is flawed.

Modus ponens is broken.

Quote:What do you think about my proof for the existence of God?

Not much.

But that is besides the point. There is not a single logical argument for the existence of a god, that has the ability to prove that god actually exists. The best they can do is prove that it is not logically impossible. But in order for that to be true, the argument would have to be both valid and sound. Yours is not.

Why do you even bother?

Apart from this "member" for lack of a better word, possibly being a driveby or a troll, he's just regurgitating the same old we've seen about a gazillon times before.

Boring, to say the least.

(October 24, 2016 at 3:42 pm)Mariosep Wrote: [...]
 

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

 
 
So, dear colleagues here, please present your information on the concept of the god, just choose one of the many Gods, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., that you know about; for in this way we will be connected in regard to what we are talking about, as to prove that it exists or it does not exist.

You know that mankind has provided us with many many concepts of a father or mother figure in the form of a god or goddess.
Gaia, the Greek Mother Earth, giver of life.
Anu, the Sumerian sky Father, leader of the gods, supreme ruler, grand judge.
Abzu, also from Sumerian mythology, was the name for the primeval sea below the void space of the underworld.
Ometeotl, from the Aztec mythology in the creator of all creation.

(October 24, 2016 at 4:49 pm)abaris Wrote: ...he's just regurgitating the same old we've seen about a gazillon times before....Boring, to say the least.

I don't think you've seen this one before. It's uniquely confused. Most of these fly-by-night apologists haven't a clue about how the meaning of the terms they are using have changed since antiquity and the Middle Ages when the demonstrations were first formulated.

(October 24, 2016 at 5:06 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 4:49 pm)abaris Wrote: ...he's just regurgitating the same old we've seen about a gazillon times before....Boring, to say the least.

I don't think you've seen this one before. It's uniquely confused. Most of these fly-by-night apologists haven't a clue about how the meaning of  the terms they are using have changed since antiquity and the Middle Ages when the demonstrations were first formulated.

Well, that's Protestantism (or, in this case, probably a member of some post-Protestant splinter group) for you. At least you're gravitating toward the one Christian sect that has a serious intellectual tradition. I'll give you that.

(October 24, 2016 at 4:49 pm)abaris Wrote: Why do you even bother?

Apart from this "member" for lack of a better word, possibly being a driveby or a troll, he's just regurgitating the same old we've seen about a gazillon times before.

Boring, to say the least.

Look, Abs, even the heavyweight champ has to get in the ring and slap a sparring partner around to keep sharp.  Think of this as a workout!

(October 24, 2016 at 5:06 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I don't think you've seen this one before. It's uniquely confused. Most of these fly-by-night apologists haven't a clue about how the meaning of  the terms they are using have changed since antiquity and the Middle Ages when the demonstrations were first formulated.

But I still find it boring having the same circular arguments over and over. You know, when I was at university, medieval history and it's writings have been part of the curriculum. I can't really remember which one of the scholars the sheet was about I was handed to translate, but it had a picture and a caption reading "hochgelahrt man", which literally translated into "hichly learned man". This was about some guy from the 13th century, a clergyman, and I remember musing, what could you have known to be deserving of the title? Virtually nothing going by our standards, was the answer I came up with. Well, he probably knew his philosophers and the writings of his time, better than me, that's for sure. But that's also about all he knew. He knew nothing about the world and it's workings.