Mariosep Wrote:Dear atheists colleagues, let you plan in your mind how you are going to prove the existence of atoms in objective reality outside of concepts in your mind, step by step.

When you have accomplished already in your mind the plan, then redact it in words, step by step.

Then you can follow your written down plan and go forth into objective reality to get everything and do every act needed to follow faithfully your plan: to arrive at the certainty of the existence of atoms in objective reality outside your plan as conceived in your mind and put down in writing, by which written plan you have guided yourself in arriving at the certainty of the existence of atoms in objective reality: outside of concepts in your mind and words in your written plan.

Objective reality can't be proven to exist. Its existence is an axiom. You either take it as a brute fact or lapse into solipsism.

Mariosep has asked us to prove the existence of noses, ignored what we said and is now asking us for proof of the existence of atoms. The answer is the same.

(October 26, 2016 at 3:56 am)Mathilda Wrote: How do you prove that nose on your face? Well now we're getting to the crux of the matter. Science doesn't work with proofs. It works with evidence. Something that you have completely ignored. We can observe the existence of noses, measure them, make falsifiable and testable hypotheses about the existence of noses. The evidence of noses is so overwhelming that we do not need a proof for their existence.

This is why only theists talk about proofs. Because they have no evidence.

Mariosep. You really need to start responding to what people are saying. All you are doing is spamming.

(October 31, 2016 at 10:41 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Dear atheist colleague Simon Moon, please change the word affirming in the line from you:

"This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one."

Choose the correct appropriate word, otherwise you are not a critical reader much less a critical writer.

And you are betraying your limited grasp of thinking and writing on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

Suppose you make a write-up for the proof of the existence of atoms in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind, step by step.


[quote='Simon Moon' pid='1432039' dateline='1477959694']


This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one.

You are stating your conclusion, that a god exists, in  your first premise.
[...]

Why should I change the correct word to something else?

What word would you rather that I have used?

You know, it is very easy to google the phrase, "affirming the consequent" to see it is the correct name for a specific logical fallacy.

In addition, it has not gone unnoticed by anyone here that you completely ignored my refutation of every one of the premises of your 'proof'. But instead, focused on one word of one of the fallacies of your proof, that you thought was incorrect.

But you have been ignoring the many refutations of your argument for 40 pages now, so, it would seem that your intellectual dishonesty is the only thing that you have been successful in proving.

Congratulations.

(October 31, 2016 at 7:52 pm)Mariosep Wrote:

Quote:Astreja, 386 [Excerpt] "It's absolute nonsense to use causation as evidence of anything more than... causation.  You simply cannot declare arbitrarily that a god caused this or that, and that your favourite god is the only possible explanation.  Go back and prove that your god is real, using empirical, lab-testable evidence rather than bad philosophy."

The empirical evidence from me is in Nos. 1 to 5, see below.

You please write a proof of something to exist in objective reality, what about atoms in space?

You have experienced the causation by you of a baby, so please also experience proving something like say atoms to exist in space, then you will comprehend my proof, okay?

click page 1 to see the proof in OP 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."

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.

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

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.

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

Mariosep, instead of spamming this thread with the same old shit, could you please look at the refutations made against your OP (of which there are at least thirty) and give us counter arguments to show they don't defeat your argument, or modifications to your argument which deal with them.

Because all that's happening at the moment is "I beleive in god because of X", "Well you're wrong about X so it is not a basis for believing in god", "Your wrong I beleive in god becoz of X". If you cannot either give us newer better arguments or show your original arguments to be able to defeat the counters you currently have no argument for believing in god.

(November 1, 2016 at 1:51 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote: Mariosep, instead of spamming this thread with the same old shit, could you please look at the refutations made against your OP (of which there are at least thirty) and give us counter arguments to show they don't defeat your argument, or modifications to your argument which deal with them.

Because all that's happening at the moment is "I beleive in god because of X", "Well you're wrong about X so it is not a basis for believing in god", "Your wrong I beleive in god becoz of X". If you cannot either give us newer better arguments or show your original arguments to be able to defeat the counters you currently have no argument for believing in god.

The obvious truth of all of the, so called, philosophical argument for the existence of a god (cosmological, teleological, ontological, TAG, etc), is that they only exist to convince the believer that they have a rational reason to believe in gods. They are not designed to convince nonbelievers.


All of them have stronger logical defeaters.

The most blatant example is the intellectually dishonest, William Lane Craig. He has been quoted on many occasions that even if all his arguments are defeated, even if he is shown evidence that disproves his religion, he will continue believing because of the "self affirming truth of the inner witness of the holy spirit'.

As many here have already stated in this thread, a logical argument on its own, can not prove the existential reality of deities. You can't logic a god into existence. The most a logical argument on its own can show, is that the conclusion cannot be shown to be impossible. That's it. And that is only true of the argument is valid and sound, which Mariosep's is not.

Dear atheist colleagues here, thanks a lot for your presence and contributions to this my thread.

I am attending to you all but not taking you up one by one; my idea of getting to exchange thoughts with one at a time, it does not seem to be working as to obtain the effect of me and my chosen respondent party to exchange thoughts as to get linked, at all.

So, without much ado with replying to your everyone's posting here, and also please, I will not invest time and labor to take up your repeated but unfounded grievances against me, for that will take me away from my purpose in this thread, which is to observe how you think as to comment on my proof for God existing.

If only you also give an example of what and how you prove something to exist in objective reality outside of our mind and the concepts we have in our mind, then I submit you will see the truth, the fact, the logic, and how it my proof has support in the history of ideas with mankind.

I will now transmit this message, and see what reactions I get from you, oh ye atheist colleagues.

(November 1, 2016 at 3:48 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Dear atheist colleagues here, thanks a lot for your presence and contributions to this my thread.

I am attending to you all but not taking you up one by one; my idea of getting to exchange thoughts with one at a time, it does not seem to be working as to obtain the effect of me and my chosen respondent party to exchange thoughts as to get linked, at all.

So, without much ado with replying to your everyone's posting here, and also please, I will not invest time and labor to take up your repeated but unfounded grievances against me, for that will take me away from my purpose in this thread, which is to observe how you think as to comment on my proof for God existing.

If only you also give an example of what and how you prove something to exist in objective reality outside of our mind and the concepts we have in our mind, then I submit you will see the truth, the fact, the logic, and how it my proof has support in the history of ideas with mankind.

I will now transmit this message, and see what reactions I get from you, oh ye atheist colleagues.

The only grievance I think that matters, is your continued avoidance of responding to the refutations of your 'proof' in your OP.

And it started on the very first page of this thread. There are 10 posts on the first page, and half of them contain at least one legitimate refutation of your 'proof'. And where were your responses?

41 pages later, and we are still asking.

Not to mention, that you are just as guilty in derailing your own thread, first by not responding to refutations of your 'proof', then by posting some crappy red herring about proving that we have noses, or that atoms exist.

At this point, it might be best for you to open a thread with your 'proof' in the "Formal Debate' section, and challenging only one person to debate the validity of it. Then you won't have to worry about responding to all of us.

That section is here -

http://atheistforums.org/forum-23.html

(November 1, 2016 at 3:48 pm)Mariosep Wrote: [edit]

If only you also give an example of what and how you prove something to exist in objective reality outside of our mind and the concepts we have in our mind, then I submit you will see the truth, the fact, the logic, and how it my proof has support in the history of ideas with mankind.

[edit]

You just can't help yourself.

(October 24, 2016 at 10:41 am)Irrational Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 9:58 am)MysticKnight Wrote: There are many stronger (100% conclusive) arguments for God.

Which ones?

Dude? Seriously?!

WTF?! Why the NONEXISTENT ONES of course!!!

That is your trouble, dear atheist colleagues here, you keep on complaining that I am not refuting your objections, but I keep on requesting you to present an example of your proving with a write-up step by step, of something to exist in objective reality.

The difference between you and me in regard to proof of something to exist, is that I have presented a proof of something to exist, namely, God; but you nothing at all.

Anyway, I will wait for your example of a write-up of proof that something exists in objective reality.

Like this way, below, but of course you need not follow my example faithfully, just keep to the core configuration.

What about, which is what I also want to invite you, since several posts from yours truly in recent time, dear atheist colleagues here, namely: for us to work together as to concur on what is causation.

You see, the whole proof of God existing or not, hangs on the existence of causation in the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence.

So, dear atheist colleagues, please react to my two items in this message:

1. Produce an example from your own thinking, namely, your write-up of what and how you prove something to exist in objective reality, taking up with my example of my proof for God existing, see below, in ANNEX.

2. And/or accept my invitation to you to for us to work as to concur on what is causation.

While I am still writing this message, allow me to share with you all, dear atheist colleagues, what I found with Alexa's ranking of the popularity of Atheistforums.org; for you are atheists and this is an atheists founded, owned, and operated forum, so you should be concerned with Alexa's finding.

I submit the popularity of a web forum depends a lot on the quality of posts from the members of the forum.
         
Alexa's finding on the popularity of Atheistforums.org

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/atheistforums.org


ANNEX

click page 1 to see the proof in OP 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."

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.

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

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.

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