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

[LadyForCamus]

Oh my god, GO AWAY.

[Mudhammam]

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?

Oh, I see what you did there. You rephrased what is essentially Aristotle's Prime Mover argument, and then smuggled in a conception of a first cause that possesses the attributes which you pulled out of thin air and applied to your imagined deity. Not a very persuasive or original argument.

[Mariosep]

The Gentleman B says:

Mariosep Wrote:
Here, I will give you the link:
http://www.dlc.fi/%7Eetkirja/dictionary.htm

That page is a steaming pile of bullshit. Very little, if anything, in it relates to atheism."


Dear sir, I encourage you to produce also a dictionary of atheism to represent your best thinking on what is an atheist and how to think as a atheist.

And people will know from your nationality what and now atheists in your country think about what and how to be, to act, to relate to other people, etc., as atheists in your country.

I see that the atheists of Finland are telling fellow humans like themselves what and how atheists in Finland think, and relate to all the things and ideas and etc. in the world they are a part of and they are a part of mankind; that is why they put all the things in their dictionary of ATHEISM, namely, from the heart and mind and eye of atheists in Finland.

Please dear The Gentleman B, I encourage you sincerely to produce also a dictionary of atheism, so that I will consult it to know what is your information on the concept of God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., and what it is to prove the existence of something to exist in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind, but of course with the concepts in our mind as the reference platform for our search for evidence on the entity that corresponds to the concept of it, in our mind.

Otherwise how can any man know what he is denying to exist, as well also what he is certain to be existing, if he does not have any information at all about the concept of the thing men are denying to exist or to not exist?

[Primordial Bisque]

Here is the definition of god in the Dictionary of Atheism produced by atheists in Finland.

God: A deity or a god, is a postulated supernatural entity, usually, but not always, of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by humans. They assume a variety of forms, but are frequently depicted as having human or animal form.

Sometimes it is considered blasphemous to imagine the deity as having any concrete form. They are usually immortal. They are commonly assumed to have personalities and to possess consciousness, intellects, desires, and emotions much like humans.

Such natural phenomena as lightning, floods, storms, other "acts of God”, and miracles are attributed to them, and they may be thought to be the authorities or controllers of every aspect of human life (such as birth or the afterlife).

Some deities are asserted to be the directors of time and fate itself, to be the givers of human law and morality, to be the ultimate judges of human worth and behaviour, and to be the designers and creators of the Earth or the universe.

This really doesn't tell us anything except personality traits we assign to our deity of choice, and how we attribute natural phenomena to it. In other words, it's mainly a run down of how human beings assign characteristics to their own creation (aka. god).

But, what IS a god, exactly?

[Ravenshire]

The Gentleman B says:

Mariosep Wrote:
   Here, I will give you the link:
   http://www.dlc.fi/%7Eetkirja/dictionary.htm

That page is a steaming pile of bullshit. Very little, if anything, in it relates to atheism."


Dear sir, I encourage you to produce also a dictionary of atheism to represent your best thinking on what is an atheist and how to think as a atheist.

And people will know from your nationality what and now atheists in your country think about what and how to be, to act, to relate to other people, etc., as atheists in your country.

Why in the fuck would I want to put together a dictionary that has a definition of a single word?!? Atheism isn't about anything except not believing in gawd(s).

I see that the atheists of Finland are telling fellow humans like themselves what and how atheists in Finland think, and relate to all the things and ideas and etc. in the world they are a part of and they are a part of mankind; that is why they put all the things in their dictionary of ATHEISM, namely, from the heart and mind and eye of atheists in Finland.

Good for the Finnish in wasting time developing an irrelevant dictionary

Please dear The Gentleman B, I encourage you sincerely to produce also a dictionary of atheism, so that I will consult it to know what is your information on the concept of God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., and what it is to prove the existence of something to exist in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind, but of course with the concepts in our mind as the reference platform for our search for evidence on the entity that corresponds to the concept of it, in our mind.

As I said above, atheism is about one thing and one thing only. Not believing in gawd(s)

Otherwise how can any man know what he is denying to exist, as well also what he is certain to be existing, if he does not have any information at all about the concept of the thing men are denying to exist or to not exist?

Would you, for fuck's sake, quit misrepresenting almost every atheist on the planet? Very few atheists flat out deny the existence of gawd(s), yet you keep pounding that drum and it's getting really fucking old.

In general, atheists do not believe in gawd. This is because we've never been presented with anything which convinces us. No compelling arguments, no compelling evidence. Nothing but dusty old books, a bunch assertions and a few allegories thrown in for flavor.

In general, we do not go running around claiming there is no gawd, or gawds do not exist. It's not our thing. Would you please, please, please get that through your thick fucking skull?!?


On second thought, here's your "dictionary of atheism":

"Atheist: Someone who doesn't believe in gawds (including the rare person who actively denies the gawd concept).

Atheism: Not believing in gawd(s)"

There you are. The 100% complete and accurate dictionary of atheism.

Side note:
As part of my user name, it's perfectly ok for you to use the term bastard. Since it's not being used as a slur or an insult in that context it's been stripped of it's taboo.

[Mariosep]

Astreja says (#289), but first, thanks Astreja, for coming over, we are both new here; there, that is my greeting to you, and I want to tell you I love all women because women are the mothers of mankind.



From Mariosep
So we have two items here:

1. The information on the concept of God.
2. The what and how to prove the existence of something.

From Astreja
#1 is a problem because god-concepts vary widely from one religion to another, and even from one believer to another within the same religion. This really should be taken care of before proceeding to #2, because it will have an impact on how to proceed in the search.

Regarding "what and how," I'm someone who is generally not impressed by hypothetical evidence such as is found in apologetics, and prefer actual physical evidence to anything else. In the case of trying to prove the existence of a god, since the claim itself is so extraordinary and so out of keeping with what I know of the world, physical evidence is the only thing good enough to support belief in a god's existence.


Forgive me, Astreja, but you seem to be repeating what we might call the party's standard reaction to my information on the concept of God, namely, in concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

You tell me that there are many God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., owing to there being so many different religions, etc., so?

So, dear Astreja, start with at least one or you will never get to know seriously at all what is the information on the concept of God, etc., and miss to relate with people who do know for certain that God exists.

As regards your reaction to my idea on what it is to prove something to exist in objective reality, I see that you also speak the party's standard heart and mind, but that is not the issue, let me explain:

Evidence is never hypothetical unless it is all a mental exercise all in your mind, what scientists call a thought experiment.

They have a thought experiment with thought evidence, but you know what?

Do you know that they are going into objective reality, to look for objective concrete evidence to validate their mental exercise and their thought experiment?

Now, I say that God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning; yes, that is all in the mind.

But you are not paying attention to the rest of my explanation of what it is tor prove something existing in objective realty outside of thinking in our mind.

I continue all the time repeatedly as to wear out the temper of our dear fellow humans here who are atheists, I continue with telling atheists here that we will go forth into objective reality to search for all instances of causation, which all are concrete evidence of the existence of an entity in objective reality corresponding to the concept of God, namely, in concept, first and foremost the creator, understand that as cause, and the operator, understand as cause, of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Now, let you and me, let us recall that our parents caused us to come into existence and life, by their love-making.

That is one instance of causation, and God is the first and ultimate cause of all intermediary causes; think about that, with your reason and intelligence grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

The party's line response to this search for evidence in all instances of causation in the world, you tell me because I have already seen that line everywhere with atheists.

You tell me, and I will explain to you that it is not anything founded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

It is not founded on reason and intelligence.


Please stay with me.

[Angrboda]

Please God, make it stop!

[Whateverist]

Please stay with me.

Before anyone could stay with you they'd need first to get with you and I frankly doubt anyone has any more clue where you're coming from than I do.

[Primordial Bisque]

Evidence is never hypothetical unless it is all a mental exercise all in your mind, what scientists call a thought experiment.

They have a thought experiment with thought evidence, but you know what?

Do you know that they are going into objective reality, to look for objective concrete evidence to validate their mental exercise and their thought experiment?

Now, I say that God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning; yes, that is all in the mind.

So, god is in your mind? Good, now we're getting somewhere.

But you are not paying attention to the rest of my explanation of what it is tor prove something existing in objective realty outside of thinking in our mind.

I continue all the time repeatedly as to wear out the temper of our dear fellow humans here who are atheists, I continue with telling atheists here that we will go forth into objective reality to search for all instances of causation, which all are concrete evidence of the existence of an entity in objective reality corresponding to the concept of God, namely, in concept, first and foremost the creator, understand that as cause, and the operator, understand as cause, of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Hmmm...what if ancient civilizations created the idea of God, or any deity, in order to explain the natural world because they lacked the tools and/or expertise to do it correctly, and accurately?

Now, let you and me, let us recall that our parents caused us to come into existence and life, by their love-making.

That is one instance of causation, and God is the first and ultimate cause of all intermediary causes; think about that, with your reason and intelligence grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

Again; this concept of a god was an afterthought. Not only our planet, but the entire universe had existed for billions of years before human beings were around. In an age where we did not have the tools to properly measure it, we crafted fables to explain it. It may have worked at one point, but it has become irrelevant.

The party's line response to this search for evidence in all instances of causation in the world, you tell me because I have already seen that line everywhere with atheists.

You tell me, and I will explain to you that it is not anything founded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

It is not founded on reason and intelligence.

I do not believe God, or any deity, exists. I do not believe one has ever existed; and I do not believe one ever will. Why? Because, aside from what is described in literature, one has never appeared. Anywhere. It is nowhere to be found.

Please stay with me.

See Whateverist's post (#298). His words carry the weight of wisdom.

[robvalue]

What is it that makes theists such as this so uncomfortable with people disagreeing with them?