It's like watching a puppy trying to use the litter tray for the first time by itself, isn't it? Only with more shit.

(December 2, 2016 at 7:47 pm)Jesster Wrote: It's funny how he thinks he's actually accomplishing something.

Or even making any kind of sense.

(December 2, 2016 at 7:44 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Thanks, readers, you have just added some 50 readers to my previous count earlier this morning; so, there are readers coming on and on to read my thread - thanks!

I think a more accurate description is that there are readers coming on your thread.

(December 2, 2016 at 7:47 pm)Jesster Wrote: It's funny how he thinks he's actually accomplishing something.

The alternative is recognition of abject failure, and how could that -possibly- happen with the big guy on your side?  These are the questions.

I always think it's weird something as amazing and powerful as God needs help just to get us to notice it. And it still doesn't work.

I guess he must have fitted me with a bullshit filter, stopping me sensing all these magical things that are supposedly going on all the time.

Dear pretend coffee shop owner,

How did you get to an intelligent creator from a first cause? And if there can be an uncaused first cause, why can't there be multiple uncaused first causes?

Dear readers here, thanks for your presence, we have a new poster here, one Aoi Magi in post #1036; I will attend to him as soon as I finish with my promise to you about this morning I will tell you how we prove experience to exist, when we have proven existence to be in the totality of reality by way of evidence from experience of the nose in our face.

How do we prove the existence of experience, by resorting to our having proven existence which existence we have proven by way of evidence from experience - all which appears to be a case of circular reasoning?

Namely: proving existence from experience, and then proving experience from existence?

First, that would be a case of circular reasoning if we do nothing but work on words and concepts all in our mind only, but not when we go into the objective reality of things in the default status of the totality of reality which is existence.

And that is the core mistake of atheists, they have got nothing of any reasoning with their denial of God existing (in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning), but circular reasoning all in their mind only, manipulating words and concepts using at most only different words and concepts for the same ideas, all in their mind only, never coming to the realm of objective reality like the nose in our face and babies we procreate.

Owing to their vacuity of true argument against God existing, they atheists have to instead avail themselves of raving mad foul language when they appear to be into explaining falsely if at all God does not exist, and also into personal insults against theists like yours truly, and against God, by calling God demeaning names, like Tooth Fairy, Teapot Orbiting in Space (Bertrand Russell), Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn.. all because they have got nothing of any serious and solid substance reason and intelligence against the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

And then, take notice, atheists are always angry and hateful, and exuding inner conflict owing to their bad temper inspired from fear, because of their taboo or phobia against thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, which is evidence of inner conflict precisely, in their heart and mind because God has created mankind as to be hard-wired to know how to think on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas: and that is why atheists are so mixed up, the consequence of which is their anger, hate, spite, and generally raving mad foul language when they take to participating in the debate on God exists or not.

Okay, let me tell you now how proving existence from experience and experience from existence is not circular reasoning: because we are taking into account the objective reality of existence and experience, like this:

We have proven existence by evidence of experiencing the nose in our face, now let us prove that the nose is in the totality of the reality of existence, which is the default status of things in being, by ourselves resorting to the harmless but very convincing to conscious and reasoning and intelligent and honestly intellectual folks, resorting to the following simple slitting of a slight short cut, with any pair of scissors in the nostril skin of the nose of an atheist, telling him that when the cut is already bleeding even just slightly, we will take him to the nearest emergency ward for the emergency surgeon to snitch back the cut and stop the bleeding, then the cut will heal without any visible scar at all: there, that is the proof of the existence from the experience of us seeing how the nostril bleeds when we slit a so much as a short slight cut on it.

Ask the atheist, Will you accept the challenge of a slit in your nostril, or you will now already admit that any experience by us is the proof from experiential evidence itself of the general fact of experience existing?

Hopefully, that atheist is not crazy as to accept the challenge to have us effect a slit in his nostril; but even though he be crazy and accept the cut from and by us of the slit in his nostril, the sight from us and all bystanders of the bleeding from this nostril, which is the experience of seeing, that experience is the proof of the existence of experience.

There, that is the proof of the reality of experience as also another instance of the dictum, that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

And there is no circular reasoning at all, because the specific concrete instances of the existence of experience proves the general fact of the existence of experience.

No, in the concrete reality of existence and experience: experience proves existence, and existence proves experience – you have got to possess a good mind to grasp that subtlety; and atheists owing to their brain being self-stymied by their raving mad foul language and anger, hate, spite, ill-will against God and theists, they don’t because they can’t have a good mind.

Okay, now to  Aoi Magi, you ask:

[Enumeration from Mariosep]
“1. How did you get to an intelligent creator from a first cause? 2. And if there can be an uncaused first cause, why can't there be multiple uncaused first causes?”

To Question 1, go to ANNEX below, my proof among several instances of proofs from me, read in particular No. 4 step.

To Question 2, google and read on Occam’s razor, then return here and you and I will talk about the meaning of Occam’s razor, in case you do not grasp the force of Occam’s razor in the world of genuine intellectuals in settling silly useless issues from inane shallow thinkers.

ANNEX

In post #1017 on 2nd December 2016, 04:03 to 04:17 Mariosep Wrote:RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
_____________________


Okay, dear atheist colleagues here, let us go together into my proof for God existing, so that you will already stop with complaining that I have not proven God exists.

But you see, the trouble in talking with atheists is that you atheists don't care to first work with me together on the meanings of words used, like for example, what is evidence.

Anyway, here goes.

My proof is essentially founded on the evidence in the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence.


1. In the totality of reality which is existence we you and I know about babies, and the nose in our face.

2. Babies and nose in our face do not create themselves.

3. So they need a creator to bring them to the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence.

4. As they babies and nose do exist in the totality of reality which is existence, it follows that a creator first and ultimately created them.

5. There, babies and nose are two instances of evidence 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.

6. That is the proof from evidence for God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.


So, you do comprehend with the above steps Nos. 1 to 6, that I have proven the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

---

So, let us all dear readers here sit back and await with bated breath for the comments of atheists on my proof for God existing.

And please, dear atheists, no more complaining that I have not proven God exists, first and foremost in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

---

(December 3, 2016 at 5:41 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Dear readers here, thanks for your presence, we have a new poster here, one Aoi Magi in post #1036; I will attend to him as soon as I finish with my promise to you about this morning I will tell you how we prove experience to exist, when we have proven existence to be in the totality of reality by way of evidence from experience of the nose in our face.

How do we prove the existence of experience, by resorting to our having proven existence which existence we have proven by way of evidence from experience - all which appears to be a case of circular reasoning?

Namely: proving existence from experience, and then proving experience from existence?

First, that would be a case of circular reasoning if we do nothing but work on words and concepts all in our mind only, but not when we go into the objective reality of things in the default status of the totality of reality which is existence...

Mario I understood all of the words you wrote individually, but the order in which you put them made no sense at all. If you can sum up what you are saying in a pithy sentence or two that would be easier to understand than the complete drivel you present.

To be clear I cant refute what you wrote because there seems to be nothing of substance to refute, just a random collection of words

You can get it from his OP, which amounts to "I presume that god exists and has certain qualities, and then I work backward towards that conclusion." Shockingly, this leads him to ignore contrary evidence and arguments and depend on weird and nonsensical "proofs" that he can't even clearly express.