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

[Primordial Bisque]

So far at this point in time, dear atheist colleagues, I do not see any step by step efforts from your part to lead me to certainty, that God does not exist in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

Do you know why that is? It's because there are no steps to take. God does not exist in objective reality, and no one cares about a vague concept that you're slapping onto reality just to say "hey look, it's god!" There will never been any objective, observable evidence of god. It's a fable; old and irrelevant. You know it too, which is why you've been avoiding the tougher questions. I'm not buying your BS about not being able to get to everyone's responses. If you have the time to write 34 paragraphs of utter nonsense, you have time to read and answer a few questions.

You gave your "proof". It was refuted, and counter arguments were made. It's your turn to respond to us. That's how this works. Not by pretending to overlook it, and then moving to your next bullet point.

[Mariosep]

Dear atheist colleagues thanks for your participation and contribution.

I am only one person not a battalion, it is impossible for me to attend to you each and everyone; that why I always address you all as my atheist colleagues, let you everyone find in my posts what you each one finds in my posts to apply to your each one's expectation.

Earlier I was hoping to be able to exchange with only one poster at a time, that did not work out - because, yes others complained that I was not attending to them; besides the posters I thought I would be on an one on one protocol could not be present to me and I to him or her every instance, when I had posted a message directed to him or her, and the latter to me.


Please try to grasp my idea that when we talk we are using concepts in our mind and making up propositions in our mind, all of them are not any affirmation of the existence of the objects referred to in the concepts and propositions in our mind.

And that is the notice I am giving you all dear atheist colleagues, but it is obvious that you refuse to give your confirmation of concurrence to my idea.

To you it is when we think in our mind we already affirm, and that is a fallacy at least in my appreciation of how humans think and act.

So, let me just say in an expanded fashion:

There is no affirming of any consequent, because I am not making any affirmation of any consequent.

I am telling you already many times that you talk in your mind and I talk in my mind, mind to mind; and when we concur on concepts in our mind, then we go forth into the objective reality of existence outside our minds, to search for evidence of the entity corresponding to the concept of God or more correctly the information of the concept of God in our mind.

The fact is that you don't agree with me on the concept of God, just the concept, there is no affirmation at all at this stage of exchange between us and also with all my atheist colleagues.

That is my constant request to you all, to distinguish between the realm of concepts in our mind and the realm of objective existence outside our mind.

It is what scientists do, they make up concepts and make up propositions, all in their minds, then they go forth into the objective reality of existence outside of concepts and propositions in their minds, to look for evidence; and even wait for centuries for the evidence to appear, in particular when science has invented equipment and instrument by which observation to encounter evidence becomes possible.

Please keep in mind that I am only one person, not a battalion.

[pocaracas]

Well.... take the solar system as an example.
Did someone think about it, formulated it in his mind and only then went out to find the planets?
Or did people look up at the stars and saw that while most were fixed, a few were wandering (planet means wandering in greek, or so I've been told). These wandering around the Earth had really odd behaviors, compared to the moon and the sun, but they went around all the same.

First: Observation yields information about the world around.
Second: Formulate a rough description of the events observed. For the Solar System, everything was moving around our own land, the Earth.
Third: keep looking and see if the formulated description fits forever.
Fourth: If ONE instance of some event is found to be countering that description, reformulate the description to take into account the new observation.
Fifth: Repeat 3 - 4 indefinitely.

You can't start with a wild guess... you'll land in the world of fiction.

[Primordial Bisque]

Well.... take the solar system as an example.
Did someone think about it, formulated it in his mind and only then went out to find the planets?
Or did people look up at the stars and saw that while most were fixed, a few were wandering (planet means wandering in greek, or so I've been told). These wandering around the Earth had really odd behaviors, compared to the moon and the sun, but they went around all the same.

First: Observation yields information about the world around.
Second: Formulate a rough description of the events observed. For the Solar System, everything was moving around our own land, the Earth.
Third: keep looking and see if the formulated description fits forever.
Fourth: If ONE instance of some event is found to be countering that description, reformulate the description to take into account the new observation.
Fifth: Repeat 3 - 4 indefinitely.

You can't start with a wild guess... you'll land in the world of fiction.

That isn't how you use logic, facts, and the history of ideas outside of the concepts of our mind in objective reality inside the concepts of our mind. You first formulate a crazy idea, then wave a magic wand, and there it is - in objective reality inside the concepts of the outside of our mind.

[FatAndFaithless]

The methods of science really aren't that hard to understand, so it's always baffling when people just flatly assert "what scientists do" and get it completely wrong.

[Astreja]

Please try to grasp my idea that when we talk we are using concepts in our mind and making up propositions in our mind, all of them are not any affirmation of the existence of the objects referred to in the concepts and propositions in our mind.

Well then, maybe you should be talking to other believers at this point, and coming up with a god-concept that is consistent across all religions.

Furthermore, I have no use whatsoever for a concept that doesn't point to anything real, so go off and do some actual real-world research and come back when you have empirical evidence for this god-thing of yours rather than just a thought experiment.  Shoo.

[Mister Agenda]

Today I will invite you instead to lead me step by step: to come to the certainty God does not exist in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath for our atheist colleagues: to lead us step by step, to the certainty of God not existing in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

Believe in God until your brains fall out, I could not care less. In fact, if it was up to me, you would not be allowed to be an atheist until you've mastered writing briefly and directly (and honestly).

[Whateverist]

I wouldn't even give this one a learner's permit toward becoming an atheist. We have standards.

[Edwardo Piet]

The thread title should be changed to "I am a theist, what do you think of my "proof" for God existing?"

Use/mention errors irritate me

[downbeatplumb]

The methods of science really aren't that hard to understand, so it's always baffling when people just flatly assert "what scientists do" and get it completely wrong.

It seems to be a Christian thing to do, are they taught these falsehoods on purpose do you think?