I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?

[chimp3]

Dear TheMonster. please don't bring in my assumptions because if any at all they are in my mind, and you cannot presume to read what is in my mind.

Just tell me what is your information on the concept of God, so that we will get connected in regard to the God I know to exist and you claim to not exist, to discuss whether He exists or not in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

From me:
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."

When you have at all any information of the concept of God, then we can exchange thoughts, otherwise you can take my information, so that we can still exchange thoughts.

If you will not allow any information at all of the concept of God to be in your mind, I don't think it is possible at all for us two to talk on whether God exists or not.

---

Better, dear TheMonster, why not find out whether my assumption corresponds to reality in the objective world outside our mind, by we going together to search for evidence in the reality of existence outside our mind, of God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

The way you go about with assumption from my part and therefore you are not going to at least find out whether the assumption can be borne out or not, by us two searching for evidence in the objective reality of existence outside our mind, that is the way to eschew at all any effort from your part to act reasonably, by seeking refuge on the wrong plea of assumption from my part.

Your behavior is similar to your insisting that your friend has no money but only an assumption of having money, but you will not go with him to his home and get to see his money, or to the bank which will tell you he has money in the bank.

Can you at least see that that kind of a behavior is irrational?

---

In the meantime I am waiting for Asmodee, as he agrees to exchange thoughts with me on whether God exists or not, and I hope we can at least agree to act according to reason and intelligence, instead of throwing up all kinds of walls by which you will not see into reality.

Another wall against seeing reality is the continuous and insistent plea that for being the denier of a claim by the other side, you have no burden at all whatsoever to prove anything at all.

What about thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, or just thinking according to reason and intelligence?

Then there is this wall that it is impossible to prove a negative, therefore you don't have to prove anything when you deny something to not exist.

Have you ever thought that there is something very funny to say the least with that kind of a plea?

So basically , you are a tyrannical authoritarian control freak !ike your imaginary sky fairy?

[Primordial Bisque]

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.

God exists and created everything.
Stuff happens, and has a cause.
There must be a first cause, and my idea of God needs to be it.
Therefore, God exists and created everything.

Presupposition, special pleading, circular reasoning, oh my.

What do you think about my proof for the existence of God?

It's a petri dish of logical fallacies, therefore it stinks. I mean it REALLY stinks. Try again.

[LadyForCamus]

Dear TheMonster. please don't bring in my assumptions because if any at all they are in my mind, and you cannot presume to read what is in my mind.

Just tell me what is your information on the concept of God, so that we will get connected in regard to the God I know to exist and you claim to not exist, to discuss whether He exists or not in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

From me:
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."

When you have at all any information of the concept of God, then we can exchange thoughts, otherwise you can take my information, so that we can still exchange thoughts.

If you will not allow any information at all of the concept of God to be in your mind, I don't think it is possible at all for us two to talk on whether God exists or not.

---

Better, dear TheMonster, why not find out whether my assumption corresponds to reality in the objective world outside our mind, by we going together to search for evidence in the reality of existence outside our mind, of God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

The way you go about with assumption from my part and therefore you are not going to at least find out whether the assumption can be borne out or not, by us two searching for evidence in the objective reality of existence outside our mind, that is the way to eschew at all any effort from your part to act reasonably, by seeking refuge on the wrong plea of assumption from my part.

Your behavior is similar to your insisting that your friend has no money but only an assumption of having money, but you will not go with him to his home and get to see his money, or to the bank which will tell you he has money in the bank.

Can you at least see that that kind of a behavior is irrational?

---

In the meantime I am waiting for Asmodee, as he agrees to exchange thoughts with me on whether God exists or not, and I hope we can at least agree to act according to reason and intelligence, instead of throwing up all kinds of walls by which you will not see into reality.

Another wall against seeing reality is the continuous and insistent plea that for being the denier of a claim by the other side, you have no burden at all whatsoever to prove anything at all.

What about thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, or just thinking according to reason and intelligence?

Then there is this wall that it is impossible to prove a negative, therefore you don't have to prove anything when you deny something to not exist.

Have you ever thought that there is something very funny to say the least with that kind of a plea?

You must be a crank.

[Mariosep]

Thanks for your presence, dear everyone reading this thread.

Now, I appreciate the efforts of the posters here who do not attend to the proof from me but go into digressions with talking flippant utterances.


So, allow me to invite you dear colleagues sending posts here, seemingly to yourselves to have toppled my proof for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and the operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning. seemingly yes, but to yourselves only: because you do not know what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside of concept in our mind.

Please forgive me, but I have to ask you, perhaps you care to enlighten me on what you know, what it is to prove the existence of something, like say, the nose in our face.

When you tell me how you prove the existence of the nose in your face, that is already one nose that you have chosen to or I mean I have proposed that you prove to me, to exist in your face.

So, go ahead now, dear posters who do not comprehend what it is to prove something to exist in objective reality of existence outside of concepts in our mind, go ahead now and think on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, then write down your proof for the existence of the nose in your face, I mean each one of you.

Should there be only one willing to think as to see what it is to prove something, in the present context, existence of the nose in our face, and factually put down in writing his post for the audience of readers to examine his proof of his nose in his face, then I will first congratulate him for not shirking from the challenge, unlike what I observe to be the case with posters here in denial of God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, to wit that they routinely take to digression with flippant remarks,

Then I will examine your one poster's daring to have proven and written down for record in the history of mankind's thinking, how he did prove and put down on record his proof, of the existence of the nose in his face.


So, dear readers, let us all sit back and wait with bated breath for the resourceful one poster to set forth the proof of the existence of the nose in his face, in the reality of objective existence outside of concepts in our mind.

[I_am_not_mafia]

And yes, I know God exists

You think you know. You don't actually know. You can't prove it. You can't demonstrate it using the scientific method. If theists could, they would. And doing so shouldn't be too hard for them if they believe that by praying to a god that they can be cured of common colds, illnesses or be given lucrative jobs.

I am very curious to know how atheists come to know or whatever it is with them about denying God existing.

Science baby.

Most atheists don't believe that gods do not exist, they just lack a belief that they do exist. I personally believe that there is no God.

If your god were to exist then the modern world would not exist. The existence of gods is so at odds with everything we know about science that at the very best your god if it were to exist would be completely and utterly irrelevant to our lives.

Add to that the whole ignostic slant where you can't even define what a god is and that it is logically inconsistent. It is just not possible for a god, heaven or hell to exist based on everything that we now know. The existence of the modern world is testament to the truth of what we know.

[I_am_not_mafia]

you don't have to care.  Any more than my brother cares about the Oort cloud.  But its there.

People don't worship the Oort cloud because it's completely irrelevant to our lives. Nor do we pray to the Oort cloud assuming that it can sense the internal state of our brains, intelligently understand it and then change our lives by micromanagement of matter and chance.

[Mariosep]

.

Well, I guess it's too early to expect a response to my post above.

But it just came to my mind that the best way for folks to know what it is to prove something to exist in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind, is for them to try to prove something like the nose in our face, to exist in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind, to prove to a critical audience of readers, so that means they not only prove but must also redact in writing their proof, step by step.

That is why posters here who are to my observation too facile with refusing to see the validity of 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, let them prove something as common as the nose in their faces, and redact the proof in writing, showing how the process of proving is done, step by step, in clear, concise, and precise words.

---

- -

I just read about proof by science.

That is very good, now I invite the experts in science to prove the existence of the nose in their faces, and redact the proof in writing, that means in clear precise concise words, step by step.


Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath the proof by experts in science with science the existence of the nose in their faces, and redact the process of proving in written language, with clear concise and precise words - step by step.

[robvalue]

Still waiting for you to tell me why I should care about any God. I refuted your arguments ages ago as well.

Atheism is a reaction to reality. Not caring about God is another matter. I couldn't give a fuck about it.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Dear TheMonster. please don't bring in my assumptions because if any at all they are in my mind, and you cannot presume to read what is in my mind.

That's odd. You believe that a god can read your mind but another human being can't. What is required for some other intelligent being to read your mind? How can your god do it but another human can't?

[I_am_not_mafia]

Just a tip Mariosep, stop trying to make your posts so verbose and get to the point. You're trying to sound erudite but you're failing. You're using words wrongly and making it more time consuming for other people to figure out what you are saying. People just aren't that interested in what you have to say to try wading through a post in the style of a badly written 19th century gothic horror novel.

But it just came to my mind that the best way for folks to know what it is to prove something to exist in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind, is for them to try to prove something like the nose in our face, to exist in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind, to prove to a critical audience of readers, so that means they not only prove but must also redact in writing their proof, step by step.

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.