(October 28, 2016 at 11:47 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(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.

Ah... the psychology of belief...
A fascinating subject! Although it's one that believers usually fail to grasp properly.
It's not easy to psychoanalyze oneself.

Even therapists require other therapists.

Whateverist, I been wanting to get in the following conversation.

If a perfectly great being exists, what conclusions can we draw about religion? Would there be a true religion or not? If the former, what would it be? What essential characteristics would it have and why? If the latter, why?

If you ever want to engage in that discussion, I am willing to do so.

But I find many people are willing to go that to hypothetical step, because, they want to keep things at "If God exists, so what, it doesn't change anything, all religions stay false" type mentality.

Let me know if you ever want to discuss this issue.

Well, that was a fun conversation. A bit repetitive as every response pretty much contained the same thing.

So, here is my concept of God. God is a ducky who first and foremost is the cutest ducky ever. And he has no butthole because buttholes are gross and duckys are not. Discuss.

(October 28, 2016 at 2:22 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(October 27, 2016 at 5:06 pm)Asmodee Wrote: I have replied.  If you don't want to talk to me, I'm actually okay with that.  But don't pretend I'm the one who walked away.

Mariosep is doing the same with me.

Repeating the same questions, ignoring the responses and then saying that I am the one who has walked away.

Yeah, at first I thought it was a language barrier.  Now I'm thinking he's just screwing with us.

(October 28, 2016 at 11:58 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(October 28, 2016 at 11:47 am)Whateverist Wrote: 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.

Ah... the psychology of belief...
A fascinating subject! Although it's one that believers usually fail to grasp properly.
It's not easy to psychoanalyze oneself.

Even therapists require other therapists.

http://art.cafimg.com/images/Category_23...638551.jpg]http://art.cafimg.com/images/Category_2305/subcat_15061/h6U4txLh_1602141638551.jpg

(October 28, 2016 at 11:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Whateverist, I been wanting to get in the following conversation.

If a perfectly great being exists, what conclusions can we draw about religion? Would there be a true religion or not? If the former, what would it be? What essential characteristics would it have and why? If the latter, why?

If you ever want to engage in that discussion, I am willing to do so.

But I find many people are willing to go that to hypothetical step, because, they want to keep things at "If God exists, so what, it doesn't change anything, all religions stay false" type mentality.

Let me know if you ever want to discuss this issue.

But see I don't want to discuss literal "perfectly great beings" at all.  I'm only interested in discussing the phenomenon of god-belief in humans.

(October 28, 2016 at 12:01 pm)Asmodee Wrote:

(October 28, 2016 at 2:22 am)Mathilda Wrote: Mariosep is doing the same with me.

Repeating the same questions, ignoring the responses and then saying that I am the one who has walked away.

Yeah, at first I thought it was a language barrier.  Now I'm thinking he's just screwing with us.

I actually entertained the notion it might be an apologist-bot.

(October 28, 2016 at 3:19 am)Mariosep Wrote: About my attempts to get us linked as to understand each other's thoughts, may I suggest that we ask each other questions which by answering them we will get to know what we are communicating to each other.


First, the thread is about my proof for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

That is a thought in my mind, it has to do with a concept.

Now, perhaps you will say that I am getting what? corny or patronizing toward you?

Amway, is there something you cannot understand in this message, anything at all; let us just now not come to proof of God existing or not existing, but just what you might not understand any of the lines in this message.

Or you want to ask me questions, please do so.

Yeah...no. I don't really have any questions, and I don't think I failed to understand your "proof." It's just another rehash of the First Cause argument, which, like I said, is trash. It proves nothing. It is a series of bald assertions not supported by anything real.

(October 28, 2016 at 1:44 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(October 28, 2016 at 12:01 pm)Asmodee Wrote: Yeah, at first I thought it was a language barrier.  Now I'm thinking he's just screwing with us.

I actually entertained the notion it might be an apologist-bot.

LOL, it's either a really sophisticated bot or a really UNsophisticated person.  That thought amuses me.

I don't think a bot would miss everybody's replies, though.  Unless that's just an excuse to jump from one person to another when it gets complicated.

Qwraith asks:

"Hypothetically speaking, Mariosep;

If other universes are a reality and some being from a universe other than our own was the entity responsible for creating our universe, would you consider that being to be god?"

My answer, Yes; because then it satisfies my definition of God, namely, in concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe i.e. ours, and man and everything with a beginning.


Incidentally, dear readers when this message does not come out okay, let me know, for I am now not using MS Word to spellcheck.

I just do everything in the Quick Reply edit box and no more previewing.


Back to existence of God or non-existence of God.
However, when I learn that this entity from another universe created our universe, etc., and there are other universes, then my reason and intelligence will be keen to think on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, as to come to God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of all the universes whatsoever and everything whatsoever that depends on a first and ultimate cause for its existence, and I will call that entity, God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of all universes and man and everything depending on the first and ultimate cause of everything with a beginning.

Why? Because my reason and intelligence inclines me to think as to come to that conclusion.

Suppose every universe is independent in its own existence without whatsoever dependency upon anything at all, and every universe cannot howsoever be extinguished at all: then my conclusion as a dependent entity with reason and intelligence will be: Wow, now I can ask the God of this or that universe whether things are better in their universes, for me to apply to join them - unless of course I cannot do that, namely, migration at all - then that's just too bad for me.

So, dear atheist colleagues here, what is your comment to my proof for God, in the OP - just click on page 1 to see my proof, starting with my concept of God, namely, in concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.