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

[downbeatplumb]

---

You see, dear colleague LadyForCamus, please exert effort to discern that it is elementary, namely:

When we have not yet concurred on what it is to prove something, it is impossible for you, that there is proof already, with the one I have expounded on step by step in the OP, just click on Page 1, and you will come to the OP.

So no matter what proof I presented it is to you no proof - but from my part it is proof.

The difference however between me and you is that I have presented my proof in the OP, just click Page 1 and you will come to it; on your part however I want to see if ever you have presented a proof for the existence of something,

What about this proposition, below, prove to the readers and posters here that it is a true proposition:

• The default status of things in the totality of reality or being is existence.

Or think and write up the proof of something so simple like the existence of the nose in our face; I have done that, let you try your proof of the nose in our face to be existing, in another way.

Here is my proof for the nose in our face, I will reproduce it from my earlier post:

 

• Mariosep #204 http://atheistforums.org/thread-45866-po...pid1426743 [See text in bold].     Dear colleagues here, I fear that this thread could be locked up when the posts here are getting into irrelevancies and flippancies.   So, as Asmodee has not yet reported here, I will pursue my purpose here which is to get your comments on my proof for the existence of God.   May I request that we all take up with an academic mood by which if we were in an academic environment we would take care to think as to deliver our thoughts without showing signs of irrelevancies and flippancies - that is a most enticing temptation afforded by the anonymity of the internet.   So, may I request that we go into the work to think up what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality of existence outside of concepts in our mind, and independent of our mind?   First, for myself, even to prove the existence of the nose in our face is difficult already, though everyone with a nose, that includes everyone here I dare presume, knows for a certainty that the nose exists in our face; still to think on how to prove it with concepts and words and statements made up of words and redact that all in clear concise and precise language, that is not a simple and quick act.   Anyway, will you concur with me that in the case of things like the nose in our face, the best and most reliable proof consists in you and me touching each one our respective nose and then the nose of everyone else?   At this point there will always be someone who insists that he is not sure he exists in objective reality of existence, much less his nose if any at all, how do we dare with him?

So, dear colleague LadyForCamus, it is the easiest thing to do in the world, saying no proof, no proof, no proof... but do you know what it is and how to prove something to exist in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind, and redact the proof in writing. step by step in clear simple concise and precise words?

---

Still got nothing then.

[Mariosep]

Dear colleagues here, I am not yet conversant with the formatting codes here, so please bear with me.

Now, it is simple to prove the existence of the nose in our face, because we just have to touch it, therefore it is a matter of direct experience with our external senses.

What about something that is beyond our direct experience, How do we prove that it exists or it does not exist in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind?

[GrandizerII]

"Something can't come out of nothing."

I have no problem with this one. It's similar to saying that married people cannot be bachelors. Of course, this is assuming we're talking about the absolute "nothing" rather than the "Kraussian" nothing.

[chimp3]

Here is my proof for the nose in our face, I will reproduce it from my earlier post:

 

• Mariosep #204 http://atheistforums.org/thread-45866-po...pid1426743 [See text in bold].     Dear colleagues here, I fear that this thread could be locked up when the posts here are getting into irrelevancies and flippancies.   So, as Asmodee has not yet reported here, I will pursue my purpose here which is to get your comments on my proof for the existence of God.   May I request that we all take up with an academic mood by which if we were in an academic environment we would take care to think as to deliver our thoughts without showing signs of irrelevancies and flippancies - that is a most enticing temptation afforded by the anonymity of the internet.   So, may I request that we go into the work to think up what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality of existence outside of concepts in our mind, and independent of our mind?   First, for myself, even to prove the existence of the nose in our face is difficult already, though everyone with a nose, that includes everyone here I dare presume, knows for a certainty that the nose exists in our face; still to think on how to prove it with concepts and words and statements made up of words and redact that all in clear concise and precise language, that is not a simple and quick act.   Anyway, will you concur with me that in the case of things like the nose in our face, the best and most reliable proof consists in you and me touching each one our respective nose and then the nose of everyone else?   At this point there will always be someone who insists that he is not sure he exists in objective reality of existence, much less his nose if any at all, how do we dare with him?

So, dear colleague LadyForCamus, it is the easiest thing to do in the world, saying no proof, no proof, no proof... but do you know what it is and how to prove something to exist in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind, and redact the proof in writing. step by step in clear simple concise and precise words?

Wow, You write an OP that claims you have proof of god ...

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

.....and then think it is difficult to prove the nose on your own face. You may have a smidgen of skepticism but it certainly is not honed to a razors edge.

[I_am_not_mafia]

What about something that is beyond our direct experience, How do we prove that it exists or it does not exist in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind?

If we can't measure it or something affected by it somehow then we can't demonstrate that it exists, yet alone prove.

Anything else is mere speculation or hypothesis.

[downbeatplumb]

Dear colleagues here, I am not yet conversant with the formatting codes here, so please bear with me.

Now, it is simple to prove the existence of the nose in our face, because we just have to touch it, therefore it is a matter of direct experience with our external senses.

What about something that is beyond our direct experience, How do we prove that it exists or it does not exist in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind?

With evidence.

That is why they built the large hadron collider to provide evidence that quantum theory was what it was thought to be.

You see without evidence all you have is words.

But when it comes to the god idea, it does not have enough going for it to call it a theory, it fails at every  step. It is so vague.
"God created the universe" is a typical canard of the lazy thinker.
It does not say how it created the universe and they are just content to leave it at that. 
It would be like a scientist just saying, "quantum" for everything they don't understand.
"What made the universe?", "probably something quantum" they'd say and not look into it or provide any evidence to support it.

Do you see the poorness of your technique? of why it does not convince?

[Mariosep]

Mathilda says:

If we can't measure it or something affected by it somehow then we can't demonstrate that it exists, yet alone prove.

That is very good. But pray, what is the it you are not capable of measuring or demonstrating that it exists, does it have a name?

[downbeatplumb]

Mathilda says:

If we can't measure it or something affected by it somehow then we can't demonstrate that it exists, yet alone prove.

That is very good. But pray, what is the it you are not capable of measuring or demonstrating that it exists, does it have a name?

I thought we were talking about gods here, so the thing with no evidence would be god or gods. I would go further and say that the whole supernatural realm is based on stories for children with no evidentiary or explanatory basis.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Mathilda says:

If we can't measure it or something affected by it somehow then we can't demonstrate that it exists, yet alone prove.

That is very good. But pray, what is the it you are not capable of measuring or demonstrating that it exists, does it have a name?

The it being anything that can't be measured. Whether it is God, space unicorns, a soul, ghosts or non-corporeal hyper-dimensional waffle makers.

If it has no discernible effect on reality then you can't prove that it exists.

[robvalue]

"Something can't come out of nothing."

I have no problem with this one. It's similar to saying that married people cannot be bachelors. Of course, this is assuming we're talking about the absolute "nothing" rather than the "Kraussian" nothing.

I don't thinks it's quite the same. By definition, you can't have a married bachelor. But you could have literally nothing, then somehow, something is there. It's possible to describe a way it could happen, even if the actual possibility or mechanics are unknown.

Of course, all of our scientific models would indeed suggest that you can't get something from nothing. But they are only models at the end of the day, and there's probably plenty of reality we can't access. Also, we've never had access to "nothing", to be able to study it.