(October 26, 2016 at 10:15 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Dear colleagues here, please try to see that I am all the time trying to get us to agree on something at all, but I see you to not want to work at all to agree with me on something at all: so that we can get going for having already a common ground.

I tried first with the information on the concept of God, which I think any Westerner educated know what is God in regard to the common information, and even Japanese who are not Christians, even their children who know English, when asked what they know about God, they answer, He is the one Who did everything that exists which is not Himself.

That endeavor by me did not work to get us starting with you to see why at all you should concur with me on the information of God which I proffer; in its place you say many things which will lead us into endless digressions.

I even refer you to the Finnish Dictionary of Atheism, for you to get information what is the concept of God, the most fundamental generic concept, but I guess you have not consulted that dcitionary.

Now, I am if you take care to notice, I am into at least getting us you and me, to work as to concur on what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind, or in brief outside of our mind.

Am I getting somewhere with this latest endeavor?

I have not seen anyone yet going into this direction, at this point in time, but let me read the posts I have just read but quickly, to see if I missed someone who also like me tries to figure out what it is to prove, for example, something as simple as the existence of the nose in our face - please wait I will be back.


[ Gone for some minutes but now back. ]

This is the post #204 where I gave the suggestion for us to work together as to come to concurrence on what it is to prove something to exist, like the simple nose in our face.

I guess it is still too early for you posters to figure out what to and how to reply or react to the post concerned.


http://atheistforums.org/thread-45866-po...pid1426743

*sigh*

Here's a basic process that can be repeated:

1. Close your left eye.
2. With your open right eye, look to the left.
3. Observe the protrusion of flesh. Give it a squeeze if you like.
4. This protrusion of flesh is called a nose.
5. Therefore, a nose exists.

You're asking for proof of something - the nose - that is already empirically evident. It can be seen, touched, and tasted - if that's your thing. It is also responsible for being a conduit to your olfactory system, which is important; and breathing, which is generally a healthy thing for you to do.

As for a God...well, there isn't one. Anywhere. Sorry buddy.

(October 24, 2016 at 5:27 am)Mariosep Wrote: What do you think about my proof for the existence of God?

You can't logic gawd into existence.

BTW - #4 is a HUGE non-sequitur.

(October 26, 2016 at 10:15 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Dear colleagues here, please try to see that I am all the time trying to get us to agree on something at all, but I see you to not want to work at all to agree with me on something at all: so that we can get going for having already a common ground.

I tried first with the information on the concept of God, which I think any Westerner educated know what is God in regard to the common information, and even Japanese who are not Christians, even their children who know English, when asked what they know about God, they answer, He is the one Who did everything that exists which is not Himself.

That endeavor by me did not work to get us starting with you to see why at all you should concur with me on the information of God which I proffer; in its place you say many things which will lead us into endless digressions.

I even refer you to the Finnish Dictionary of Atheism, for you to get information what is the concept of God, the most fundamental generic concept, but I guess you have not consulted that dcitionary.

Now, I am if you take care to notice, I am into at least getting us you and me, to work as to concur on what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind, or in brief outside of our mind.

Am I getting somewhere with this latest endeavor?

I have not seen anyone yet going into this direction, at this point in time, but let me read the posts I have just read but quickly, to see if I missed someone who also like me tries to figure out what it is to prove, for example, something as simple as the existence of the nose in our face - please wait I will be back.


[ Gone for some minutes but now back. ]

This is the post #204 where I gave the suggestion for us to work together as to come to concurrence on what it is to prove something to exist, like the simple nose in our face.

I guess it is still too early for you posters to figure out what to and how to reply or react to the post concerned.


http://atheistforums.org/thread-45866-po...pid1426743

---

.-.

It is now in my location as I write this post, 11:10 a.m., Thursday, October 2016.


Dear colleagues here, please think of something you want me to work or us to work on as to concur on, something from you, but just keep track of the title of the thread, "I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?"

No, I will not now be the one to propose something for us to work on to come to concurrence, so that we will have something in common to get started on with the thread.

It is instead I am proposing that you now, you be the ones to propose something you want us to work together on as to come to concurrence, so that on that common ground we can get started on the thread.

So long as you hang on to this concept of "proof", what discussion can happen?

So long as you refuse to state your beliefs, I don't have to have any opinion.

Is that a cock I hear crowing, Peter?

(October 24, 2016 at 3:42 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Thanks everyone for your presence and participation.
 
If I may, let us first get connected with the concept of God, for if we don't have the same concept of God, then we will be acting irrationally talking about whether He exists or not, when we are not having the same thing in our minds - that is talking past each other's head, which is an irrational behavior by us all.
 
And also if I may, let us just concentrate on one God, even though there are thinkers who propose that there be many gods, etc.
 
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.
 
 
You see, we have got to work on one god at a time, and we have got to work as to concur on the concept of god we are talking about to prove that he exists at all or not, in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.
 
 
Here is my concept of God, of course you can use the word god instead of God, for your one god that you choose to work on, as to come to his existence or non-existence.
 
Here is again my concept of God, and please bear in mind that it is the information of the concept of God from me, it is not any proof at all by proposing the concept of God; for without any information about something at all, i.e. the concept, we would be acting irrationally talking about its existence or non-existence, as we will be as I said talking past each other’s head, on different things.
 
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.

 
 
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 seem to be here simply to convert us nasty heathens. That won't go over well.

(October 24, 2016 at 6:36 pm)Mariosep Wrote: just into denying gods exist but without any ado about how they get to their conclusion.

Well. Yet another one who knows fuck-all about what atheism really is.

Color me un-surprised.

(October 25, 2016 at 7:13 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Asmodee says" "So why don't we keep it simple?  Tell me to which god you are referring?  Where is this god defined?  Is it just a definition you came up with yourself?"


I have said this nth times here in this thread, "My concept of God is that in concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

That's not a description of a gawd. That's a description of it's job.

(October 26, 2016 at 11:21 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 5:27 am)Mariosep Wrote: What do you think about my proof for the existence of God?

You can't logic gawd into existence.

BTW - #4 is a HUGE non-sequitur.

He's not even trying that. He's looking to nonsense god into existence.

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

He doesn't actually say how he makes this inference.

Why can't there be a cycle of causation for example? We see this the whole time in reality.

Take snowflakes for example. Complex and intricate structures. You could argue that something caused them to exist, but it's actually part of the water cycle given certain conditions. They land, melt, merge into the seas, water evaporates, gets lifted higher until it condenses out into cold air, moves into freezing conditions, comes across dust or pollen nuclei and grows into new snow flakes. Which point is the first cause in that cycle?

I love it when people make sweeping statements like that.

"Time must have had a beginning."

"Something can't come out of nothing."

"Everything has a cause."

"You can't have infinite regression."

My intuition/observation makes me think that... =/= It is a fact that...

This is why we do science. It's why we don't start with assumptions we want to establish. We make as few assumptions as possible in order for the science to function. I really don't care what random person X states to be universally true. Come back when you have some sort of results to show for it, or when it has any relevance to anything. If you think you can "prove" something fundamental about reality without getting out of bed, chances are you're just wasting everyone's time.

You see, dear colleague LadyForCamus, please exert effort to discern that it is elementary, namely:

When we have not yet concurred on what it is to prove something, it is impossible for you, that there is proof already, with the one I have expounded on step by step in the OP, just click on Page 1, and you will come to the OP.

So no matter what proof I presented it is to you no proof - but from my part it is proof.

The difference however between me and you is that I have presented my proof in the OP, just click Page 1 and you will come to it; on your part however I want to see if ever you have presented a proof for the existence of something,

What about this proposition, below, prove to the readers and posters here that it is a true proposition:

• The default status of things in the totality of reality or being is existence.

Or think and write up the proof of something so simple like the existence of the nose in our face; I have done that, let you try your proof of the nose in our face to be existing, in another way.

Here is my proof for the nose in our face, I will reproduce it from my earlier post:

 

• Mariosep #204 http://atheistforums.org/thread-45866-po...pid1426743 [See text in bold].     Dear colleagues here, I fear that this thread could be locked up when the posts here are getting into irrelevancies and flippancies.   So, as Asmodee has not yet reported here, I will pursue my purpose here which is to get your comments on my proof for the existence of God.   May I request that we all take up with an academic mood by which if we were in an academic environment we would take care to think as to deliver our thoughts without showing signs of irrelevancies and flippancies - that is a most enticing temptation afforded by the anonymity of the internet.   So, may I request that we go into the work to think up what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality of existence outside of concepts in our mind, and independent of our mind?   First, for myself, even to prove the existence of the nose in our face is difficult already, though everyone with a nose, that includes everyone here I dare presume, knows for a certainty that the nose exists in our face; still to think on how to prove it with concepts and words and statements made up of words and redact that all in clear concise and precise language, that is not a simple and quick act.   Anyway, will you concur with me that in the case of things like the nose in our face, the best and most reliable proof consists in you and me touching each one our respective nose and then the nose of everyone else?   At this point there will always be someone who insists that he is not sure he exists in objective reality of existence, much less his nose if any at all, how do we dare with him?

So, dear colleague LadyForCamus, it is the easiest thing to do in the world, saying no proof, no proof, no proof... but do you know what it is and how to prove something to exist in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind, and redact the proof in writing. step by step in clear simple concise and precise words?