(November 1, 2016 at 8:44 pm)Stimbo Wrote: ... Not again.

That reminds Me:  Has anyone seen My bowl of petunias?

The OP's 'proof' is nonsense...

Dear atheist colleagues, please: I am asking you to prove the existence of atoms, in order that you will experience what and how it is to prove something to exist in objective reality outside of concepts in your mind.

You see, dear atheist colleagues, you cannot comprehend my proof of God existing unless you have experienced proving something to exist, like I suggest the existence of atoms, or if you prefer something else of your own choice.

I see you, dear atheist colleagues, to be altogether blind to the distinction between the world in our mind of concepts, and the world outside our mind of objects which are independent of our mind and the concepts in our mind: so that if we do not exist or we lose our mind, as when a person becomes unconscious or may I say, insane, the reality of existence of everything continues to prevail in the what I call default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence.

Because of this failure to be cognizant of the distinction between the world of thoughts, concepts, imagination, etc. in our mind, and the world independent of our mind outside of our mind or may I say, brain, you can and do woefully merge them together: as to think that you are catching me in a fallacy of affirming the existence of the thing still to be proven to exist.

You see, dear atheist colleagues, you woefully or miserably conflate the enunciation of a concept for the affirmation of existence of the object corresponding to the concept in our mind - of the object.

And this concept of the object has to do with the objective existence 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 - mind you that is a thought, a concept, a proposition, etc., all in my mind, that is not any kind of affirmation that God already exists from the concept all by itself in our mind.

God's existence is still going to be proven with us going out to the objective reality of existence outside our mind, to look for evidence for the existence of God, evidence such as all instances of causation whereby one thing brings about the existence of another thing, for example, think or observe that we all are caused i.e. brought into existence by our parents.

And from that evidence like human procreation of fellow humans, babies, we infer to the existence of the first and ultimate cause of causes (intermediary causes), which cause of causes corresponds (careful now at this point, not to get all oblivious to the distinction between the world in our mind and the world outside our mind) to the concept of God, in our mind or my mind if you will, which concept says that in concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Can you comprehend what I am telling you all the time, with my mention all the time the phrase, existence outside of concepts in our mind.

Keep attentive however, dear atheist colleagues,  to the fact that without a mind and the concepts we have in our mind, we are not humans but at most robots created by computer engineers, and there are human persons who conduct themselves like robots, regrettably, owing to their rote memory of things they have been inculcated on by their master ideologues.

Hope you find this explanation to be efficacious in opening up your mind to the distinction between the world in our mind, and the world of objective reality of existence outside and independent of our mind, but we need our mind to know about the world outside our mind.


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.

(November 2, 2016 at 4:29 am)Mariosep Wrote: Dear atheist colleagues, please: I am asking you to prove the existence of atoms, in order that you will experience what and how it is to prove something to exist in objective reality outside of concepts in your mind.

Already answered

How it happened in practice:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/2015112...e-of-atoms

(November 2, 2016 at 4:29 am)Mariosep Wrote: God's existence is still going to be proven with us going out to the objective reality of existence outside our mind, to look for evidence for the existence of God, evidence such as all instances of causation whereby one thing brings about the existence of another thing, for example, think or observe that we all are caused i.e. brought into existence by our parents.

And from that evidence like human procreation of fellow humans, babies, we infer to the existence of the first and ultimate cause of causes

Your inference is wrong. What causes a snowflake?

(November 2, 2016 at 4:29 am)Mariosep Wrote: without a mind and the concepts we have in our mind, we are not humans but at most robots created by computer engineers,

What is a mind and how is it different from a brain? Can you have a mind without a brain?

(November 2, 2016 at 4:29 am)Mariosep Wrote: You see, dear atheist colleagues, you woefully or miserably conflate the enunciation of a concept for the affirmation of existence of the object corresponding to the concept in our mind - of the object.

This sentence doesn't mean anything because you were trying to be clever with long words and were using them incorrectly:

Conflate: combine (two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc.) into one.
Enunciate: express (a proposition, theory, etc.) in clear or definite terms.

So what you could have said instead, far more succinctly which would allow people to actually understand what you are saying and respond without having to parse your tortured text was:

'We see theories and the objects they apply to as being one and the same thing.'

Please give evidence where this has ever occurred in this thread.



You see dear theist colleague, my esteemed Mariosep, whilst you pontificate verbosely and needlessly interject unnecessary asides into your sentences, much like I am doing in this very sentence which could easily have been edited out thereby avoiding distracting the reader and confusing her as to what I am talking about, your disinterested reader has glossed over because they are not sufficiently invested in what you feel compelled to express because you refuse to engage with them or respond to their counter arguments.

(November 2, 2016 at 4:29 am)Mariosep Wrote: I see you, dear atheist colleagues, to be altogether blind to the distinction between the world in our mind of concepts, and the world outside our mind of objects which are independent of our mind and the concepts in our mind: so that if we do not exist or we lose our mind, as when a person becomes unconscious or may I say, insane, the reality of existence of everything continues to prevail in the what I call default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence.

You know?.... you're right... .this is absolutely correct. Allow me to paraphrase:
You Are Altogether Blind To The Distinction Between the World in your mind of concepts and the World Outside Anyone's Mind.

Your god exists in YOUR mind. People's gods exist in People's Minds.
It is Woefully Absent from the World Outside People's Minds.

(November 2, 2016 at 4:29 am)Mariosep Wrote: Because of this failure to be cognizant of the distinction between the world of thoughts, concepts, imagination, etc. in our mind, and the world independent of our mind outside of our mind or may I say, brain, you can and do woefully merge them together: as to think that you are catching me in a fallacy of affirming the existence of the thing still to be proven to exist.

Would you like some olive oil with that word salad?
If anyone is wishing to merge the two concepts of "existence" it is the theist.
Look at your "proof": first you create an ad hoc mental concept, then presume that the Observable Universe is all there is and further mangle the meaning of "causation" to suit the purpose of inserting your mental concept into a hypothetical start of the Universe.

Let's see if I can make you understand:
When you cause something to exist, say a table, you are merely rearranging pre-existing materials - wood, nails and other assorted things, into your desired table. Depending on how good you are at table-making, you'll get a wonky table or a very finely balanced one.
When a tree grows, it is absorbing nutrients from the soil, as well as the air to build itself up.
A star is a conglomeration of protons (Hydrogen nuclei), brought together by their own gravity. In it, these elements are fused to create new, more complex, elements, such as Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Iron... Some of the constituents of all known living things.

Everything that exists, everything that we think of as independent objects, are all built up from the same sort of material... for all we know, all of it a result of the big bang... or something else...
All that causes a change has been found to be of Natural origin... which, in itself, had been caused by something else also Natural.

The perceived routine causation of transforming some material and energy into something else is not comparable to the causation (ex nihilo) you're wishing to posit on your deity of choice. This is the main reason why your argument is flawed.... yours and every sort of cosmological argument, too.

Didn't I tell you to be careful with words way back on page 1? I did, look here: https://atheistforums.org/thread-45866-p...pid1424351.
Why is it that, more than one week after that, you're still being obtuse?... oh, I know! I know! Because of your "failure to be cognizant of the distinction between the world of thoughts, concepts, imagination, etc. in our mind, and the world independent of our mind outside of our mind or may I say, brain,"

(November 2, 2016 at 4:29 am)Mariosep Wrote: Can you comprehend what I am telling you all the time, with my mention all the time the phrase, existence outside of concepts in our mind.

Oh I can comprehend what you tell us. I can comprehend it very well.
But you can't..... you're one of these robots you talk about here:

(November 2, 2016 at 4:29 am)Mariosep Wrote: Keep attentive however, dear atheist colleagues,  to the fact that without a mind and the concepts we have in our mind, we are not humans but at most robots created by computer engineers, and there are human persons who conduct themselves like robots, regrettably, owing to their rote memory of things they have been inculcated on by their master ideologues.

How fitting you should mention this!
It's exactly how I view all, ALL, every single one of the believers in deities.
That's not to say that all theists are guilty of being sad puppets of their masters. It's just how I choose to engulf them all in a single bag. It's wrong, I know... but it works marvelously on the grand grand grand majority.... I'm all for practical effect!

You tell me: when did you first become aware of the concept of god?
Not this concept you're failing to prove. The generic god that permeates most human societies. Tell me, when in your life did you gain consciousness over that concept?
Odds are the truthful answer will be "before you can remember". And that, my obtuse friend, is why YOU are a puppet.

You have fallen in the trap.
You acquired the concept, people told you it was real, you took it at face value. You then grew and wanted to be different, to think different.... yeah right, your poor puppet brain can't let go that easily... so it (your brain) fashioned this rationalization for its own acceptance of the god concept. Given your inability for better reasoning, possibly due to a lack of education, or time or whatever, you then accepted this rationalization. It seems so plausible to your mind that you want to let the whole world know about it.
I understand the drive, I understand the origin, I understand the poor reasoning, I understand how your mind worked against you, I understand why you're here, I understand that most of the things we write here go way over your head.
We see puppets like yourself come by here all the time. We've told them all this countless times. It's possible that, with each retelling, we forget some details that become obvious to us, but that would be precious for you to have so you can follow our reasoning a bit better... but such is life.

(November 2, 2016 at 4:29 am)Mariosep Wrote: Hope you find this explanation to be efficacious in opening up your mind to the distinction between the world in our mind, and the world of objective reality of existence outside and independent of our mind, but we need our mind to know about the world outside our mind.

See what I mean?
No, you don't... I know you don't.
You still think your proof is watertight and we're the ones being purposefully obtuse, right?

Proving the existence of atoms, GCSE level:

Brownian Motion

Now prove this "God" to the same standard.

Mariosep Wrote:Dear atheist colleagues, please: I am asking you to prove the existence of atoms, in order that you will experience what and how it is to prove something to exist in objective reality outside of concepts in your mind.

So you don't know how to prove the existence of atoms but you think you've proved the existence of God?

What Mariosep doesn't realise is that knowledge doesn't just have explanatory power, but has to be useful. And in doing so, this is further evidence that it is correct.

If we weren't correct about atoms then we would not have chemistry, or electronics. If we were wrong, Mariosep wouldn't be using a computer to try to convince us that we can't prove the existence of atoms.