Mathilda's quick guide to quotes:

When replying to my previous post I see this:



This appears as this when posted:

(October 28, 2016 at 3:39 am)Mathilda Wrote: Mariosep, what is a god?

You should leave the quote tags and write your response outside of them e.g.




If you delete the quote tags and do this:




Then when I reply to your point I have to start sorting through your text because you were too lazy to do it yourself.

@mario, in case Mathilda's quick guide doesn't work for you try this thread to learn about how to properly use the quote function:
[Tutorial] How to use the quote function

Dear Mathilda, I don't change any font or font size, what I do is to copy and paste what I have written in the quick reply edit box at the end of a page, into Ms Word, to correct spelling, then return it to the Atheistforums edit box, next have a preview, if everything is all right in the preview, I click on the post link.

Sorry, about having to read what I think are called Ascii characters.

I will try to figure out how to use MyBB as to make my post the best it can be in MyBB.

Thanks for your feedback, appreciate it.

---

Post in At-forums as it appears on my computer screen.

---

Post in At-forums as it appears on my computer screen.
What about now?

Yes, thanks a lot I will take time and labor to master the formatting method of MyBB in AtheistForums.org.






That is the snapshot above, hope you can see it as an image, by snapscreen.


Best regards, oh ye atheists.

(October 28, 2016 at 5:48 am)Mariosep Wrote: Dear Mathilda, I don't change any font or font size, what I do is to copy and paste what I have written in the quick reply edit box at the end of a page, into Ms Word, to correct spelling, then return it to the Atheistforums edit box, next have a preview, if everything is all right in the preview, I click on the post link.

That would be why then. MS Word is adding a load of formatting instructions to it which are then be copied when you paste it back into the quick reply box.

You could paste into notepad and then copy and paste back into the web browser to remove the formatting instructions.

Back on topic though:

(October 28, 2016 at 4:42 am)Mariosep Wrote: A god in concept of course is a superior entity that people pray to for help.

A government or corporation is a superior entity. Usain bolt is a superior runner to me. I don't worship them as gods. Nor do I pray to them for help. Why aren't they gods?

What is a god made of? Where did it come from? What are its origins? What can it do? How can it do it? What environment does it inhabit?

We can answer all these questions about a nose on a face which is why we can believe that they exist.

(October 28, 2016 at 4:42 am)Mariosep Wrote: Well, I am or should I be astonished that you do not have any idea of god at all?

People who believe in a god have no idea what a god is. Yet they continue to believe in something that they cannot even define. They don't even know what they believe in.

(October 28, 2016 at 2:08 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Your "proof" is trash, bro. It's the same thing we see around here all the time.

"Blah blah first cause blah blah god of the gaps blah blah Pascal's wager."

Pass. Spin. Click. Repeat.

There you are, Red Beard!!! I've been wondering what you've been up to these days! Nice to see you posting again. [emoji3]

Mariosep Wrote:Next, please again try to accept my intention to be nice with atheists here, I hope you notice that I don't use language like the following:

Here is my standing reply to all jesus freaks:
GO BLOW JESUS OUT YOUR ASS!

If you would use language like that, it would be ultimately more courteous than the repetitive parody of ostentatiously academic prose so thick as to be nearly completely devoid of actual semantic content that you've been inflicting on us.

Mariosep, what is wrong with a common dictionary definition of God, like:

1(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

(October 27, 2016 at 12:13 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

MysticKnight Wrote:Yes I do. I stated these proofs in summary. I've gone through them in details arguing from the soundness of each premise and valid structure with true premises. If you are interested to go through them, shoot me a pm.  We can go through any of them.

You have time to go through them with me in detail in PM, but don't have time to repeat yourself in public? How about you just give me an example of the premise you are most confident is true? If you can show me one that bears scrutiny, I'll accommodate your odd request to go to PM where no one but us and the moderators can see our conversation.

We require perception. Either we are that perception that sees us as we truly are or something else sees us as we truly are, and maintains who we are. The reason we require percpetion is because consciousness is unlike physical thing, it requires a perceiver.

Either when we do an action, we become the judge and jury of how that action get's inherited to our value and constantly make that action part of our value or something else causes that.

I say the problem saying we are that which does it, determines our measurement and value, is that it would be done inaccurately at best (which makes our value not true in a sense) or falsely on total false grounds at worse (like what a person like Hitler might think of themselves). Another thing is we forget our actions or sometimes don't recognize our faults and bad habits.

Also the way we compare people whether to ourselves or just between people, is a judgement, but I don't think any of us claim we have the exact right criteria that is exactly accurate in that regard. Yet we acknowledge there is a real difference between people so who judges people truly and assigns their true value?

What I mean by that, if there is no judge, then we would not be estimating to what that judgement is. You may say well our judgement is good enough and close enough as it can get, but close enough to what?  Good enough compared to what? Even in that, we are silently acknowledge there is a truth.

We have true accourate self of who we are. And everytime we do an action, we are to a degree asleep to our innermost intention and secret behind that action. Yet that is the most important component, not simply what we tell ourselves why we are doing an action.

As many people lie to themselves of who they are and measure others with false judgement,  for us to even strive to come to "a more accurate view", there has to be an accurate view that sees us as we truly are.

Now I further argue that if you really think about it, you will recognize the best possible judge is the absolute judge, and in a sense and a way, no one can truly judge us but that judge.

And since we require judgement to have true existence as opposed to simply inaccurate existence and even in some cases total baseless identities people make up about themselves, if we have true existence, then God is required to exist.

So the premise in all this that is argued is "If we have true (objective accurate) existence, then absolute accurate sight that judges who we are in truth is required which can only be God".

If you can accept that much, we can then discuss whether we do have true (objective accurate) existence.

(October 28, 2016 at 4:42 am)Mariosep Wrote: So, I have in my mind the thought of the concept of God, namely, that in concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

That is no proof for His existence, but with that concept we can proceed to the reality of existence outside our mind. to search for all instances of causation which are evidence of the existence and operation of God, in concept first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Well, I am or should I be astonished that you do not have any idea of god at all?

Hello Mariosep. I'm an atheist and I too have a concept of what it is that supports god belief. You see, the only unequivocal fact regarding gods is that people have believed in them and held them in high regard in many places for a very long time. So I for one think that needs an explanation less glib than "people were dumb, now we're smart". So I am very happy to discuss the phenomenon of god belief with you and share with you my theory which preserves a good deal of dignity to its practitioners if you like. But I suspect you are intent on discussing "God" as something real in itself, outside of the relationship which people have with it. I confess that doesn't much interest me as I feel certain it is a dead end. But many atheists too prefer to discuss gods on the same terms as you, as literal things in themselves. So I'm sure you can find that conversation here too with someone. It's just that literal gods and their worshipers look pretty silly from a godless perspective.