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

[Astreja]

If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then from where do you get your morals?

Subjective morality, of course.  Seems to be working much better than the pseudo-objective morality of the Biblical god, as none of us have drowned any planets so far today.

[Tonus]

Yeah, I find it a bit odd that the concept of reasoning out a moral code is so inferior to having one dictated to us by an omnipotent being who is also a narcissist with a mean temper.

[Cyberman]

In summary, then - I know, ninety pages too late - the general consensus on the answer to the question "what do you think of my proof for God existing?" is "sorely lacking, on every level".

[Mariosep]

Dear Astreja, good that you have shown up, thanks.

No need to bring in no atheist has downed a planet, that is a rhetorical device in aid of eschewing a productive exchange on what is causation in regard to babies, in connection of which I believe you told me once that you are a mama, and what is evidence, and of course I have presented the information on my concept of God, namely:

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”


Please atheists here, and no need to use the words magic, magical, in your messages against God existing, just as with your foul language, that is not going to save you from the fact that you are always running away from the issue itself, on God exists or not.

Now, dear readers here, let us await with bated breath for more abusive utterances from our atheists here, in place of reasoned and calm discussion of causation, evidence, and how babies are the evidence of ultimately the existence of an entity corresponding to the concept of God, namely, first and foremost God is the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

To atheists here, let you just talk sense instead of raving mad with foul language, on babies are the evidence of causation from papa and mama, and thus by inference from our reason and intelligence, the evidence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Edward John is no longer around; if I may, he could not take anymore of atheists' foul language and personal attacks against their debate opponents.


Take notice, dear readers, when you read atheists’ posts coming after this post from yours truly, will they be into reasoned and calm exchange or throwing in more foul language and personal attacks against their opponents, which are all indication of their tactics to escape from the issue itself of God exists or not.

Sad that they do this with impunity, because their self-identity as atheists entitles them to engage in foul language and attacks on the person of their opponents; that atheist identity is the tolerance that mankind is supposed to absorb to bear with them because they are atheists, but mankind in the US will exercise also their right to take them for the most despicable minority in the US.


Okay, atheists here, what will it be, reasoned and calm discussion on causation, evidence, and babies from papa and mama, and the issue God exists or not, or you will continue with your entitlement as atheists to seek refuge in foul language and attacks on the person of your opponents, and end there?


Get ready, dear readers, atheists here will not take up causation, evidence, and of course all in connection with babies coming to existence and life from papa and mama of the world, as to get linked to the issue God exists or not; but you will have to bear again with their raving mad foul language and attacks on the person of their opponents.

[Jesster]

[Mariosep]

See, dear readers here, so far one atheist has sent a post after my last post here on how atheists go into raving mad foul language and personal attacks against their debate opponents, instead of reasoned and calm exchange on causation, evidence, and the concept of God in re God exists or not; nope, no atheist has sent a post except one and she did not go into raving mad foul language and personal attacks.

She just sent over a graphic of a person demanding,
"Stop using foul language at me."

Thanks, Jester.

Now, I am challenging Stimbo to engage us two on causation of babies as evidence of God existing in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Well, dear readers, let us all sit back and await with bated breath what is going to happen, now that I have issued a formal challenge to Stimbo, for us two to engage in the causation of babies by their papas and mamas, as evidence to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

This is really, thanks to the founders and owners and operators of Atheistforums.org, that I am having a thrilling and delightful adventure in the examination of atheists' way of dealing with the issue, God exists or not - which is no way they will go into it at all, but they will always in effect find a way and a means to eschew, although dear readers you have to read carefully to notice it, to eschew together altogether from the issue itself of God exists or not.


Later.

Mariosep Online
#904
RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
1 hour ago


Dear Astreja, good that you have shown up, thanks.

No need to bring in no atheist has downed a planet, that is a rhetorical device in aid of eschewing a productive exchange on what is causation in regard to babies, in connection of which I believe you told me once that you are a mama,

---

and what is evidence, and of course I have presented the information on my concept of God, namely:

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”


Please atheists here, and no need to use the words magic, magical, in your messages against God existing, just as with your foul language, that is not going to save you from the fact that you are always running away from the issue itself, on God exists or not.

Now, dear readers here, let us await with bated breath for more abusive utterances from our atheists here, in place of reasoned and calm discussion of causation, evidence, and how babies are the evidence of ultimately the existence of an entity corresponding to the concept of God, namely, first and foremost God is the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

To atheists here, let you just talk sense instead of raving mad with foul language, on babies are the evidence of causation from papa and mama, and thus by inference from our reason and intelligence, the evidence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Edward John is no longer around; if I may, he could not take anymore of atheists' foul language and personal attacks against their debate opponents.


Take notice, dear readers, when you read atheists’ posts coming after this post from yours truly, will they be into reasoned and calm exchange or throwing in more foul language and personal attacks against their opponents, which are all indication of their tactics to escape from the issue itself of God exists or not.

Sad that they do this with impunity, because their self-identity as atheists entitles them to engage in foul language and attacks on the person of their opponents; that atheist identity is the tolerance that mankind is supposed to absorb to bear with them because they are atheists, but mankind in the US will exercise also their right to take them for the most despicable minority in the US.


Okay, atheists here, what will it be, reasoned and calm discussion on causation, evidence, and babies from papa and mama, and the issue God exists or not, or you will continue with your entitlement as atheists to seek refuge in foul language and attacks on the person of your opponents, and end there?


Get ready, dear readers, atheists here will not take up causation, evidence, and of course all in connection with babies coming to existence and life from papa and mama of the world, as to get linked to the issue God exists or not;

---

but you will have to bear again with their raving mad foul language and attacks on the person of their opponents.

Jesster Offline
Your friendly neighborhood heathen
#905

RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
1 hour ago

[Image: h66zf.jpg]

___________________
3 kudos given by: Tonus, Stimbo, pocaracas

[Whateverist]

Yep my personal ban of MerryOldSod seems to be holding. Very good. What a cunt, hey?

[Primordial Bisque]

No need to bring in no atheist has downed a planet, that is a rhetorical device in aid of eschewing a productive exchange on what is causation in regard to babies, in connection of which I believe you told me once that you are a mama, and what is evidence, and of course I have presented the information on my concept of God, namely:

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”

Your concept is severley lacking in definition; to the point where it has absolutely no identity. It is built solely on relational attributes, like operator and creator. This 'god' you are trying to promote here is essentialy nothingness which has the power to create and control via 'cause'.

'Cause' is yet another concept, which is used to simplify natural processes to a single term. It is not a mystical force that permeates the universe, and it doesn't require supernatural intervention.

You're outlining a vague and unneccessary god-concept, which supposedly creates and operates everything via another concept that is not contingent upon it. You will need to refine your entire argument, otherwise it will always fall flat when put through logical tests. Not that it matters, since it lacks any physical evidence.

Please atheists here, and no need to use the words magic, magical, in your messages against God existing, just as with your foul language, that is not going to save you from the fact that you are always running away from the issue itself, on God exists or not.

Now, dear readers here, let us await with bated breath for more abusive utterances from our atheists here, in place of reasoned and calm discussion of causation, evidence, and how babies are the evidence of ultimately the existence of an entity corresponding to the concept of God, namely, first and foremost God is the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

To atheists here, let you just talk sense instead of raving mad with foul language, on babies are the evidence of causation from papa and mama, and thus by inference from our reason and intelligence, the evidence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Stop crying.

Edward John is no longer around; if I may, he could not take anymore of atheists' foul language and personal attacks against their debate opponents.

I believe he was banned for being a troll; but it doesn't surprise me that you would jump to a conclusion without any evidence.

Take notice, dear readers, when you read atheists’ posts coming after this post from yours truly, will they be into reasoned and calm exchange or throwing in more foul language and personal attacks against their opponents, which are all indication of their tactics to escape from the issue itself of God exists or not.

Sad that they do this with impunity, because their self-identity as atheists entitles them to engage in foul language and attacks on the person of their opponents; that atheist identity is the tolerance that mankind is supposed to absorb to bear with them because they are atheists, but mankind in the US will exercise also their right to take them for the most despicable minority in the US.


Okay, atheists here, what will it be, reasoned and calm discussion on causation, evidence, and babies from papa and mama, and the issue God exists or not, or you will continue with your entitlement as atheists to seek refuge in foul language and attacks on the person of your opponents, and end there?


Get ready, dear readers, atheists here will not take up causation, evidence, and of course all in connection with babies coming to existence and life from papa and mama of the world, as to get linked to the issue God exists or not; but you will have to bear again with their raving mad foul language and attacks on the person of their opponents.

More crying, only it's from atop your holy horse this time. Get over yourself.

[Simon Moon]

Please atheists here, and no need to use the words magic, magical, in your messages against God existing, just as with your foul language, that is not going to save you from the fact that you are always running away from the issue itself, on God exists or not.

Oh please!

We've spent pages and pages demonstrating why your 'proof' fails, and you have not responded to a single one.

The foul language is a response in frustration to your intellectual dishonesty.    

Now, dear readers here, let us await with bated breath for more abusive utterances from our atheists here, in place of reasoned and calm discussion of causation, evidence, and how babies are the evidence of ultimately the existence of an entity corresponding to the concept of God, namely, first and foremost God is the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Look back at any of my posts. No foul language from me.

To atheists here, let you just talk sense instead of raving mad with foul language, on babies are the evidence of causation from papa and mama, and thus by inference from our reason and intelligence, the evidence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Babies are an example of creatio ex material. The existence of babies can  not be used to infer creatio ex nihilo.

This is just one of several reasons why your 'proof' fails.

Take notice, dear readers, when you read atheists’ posts coming after this post from yours truly, will they be into reasoned and calm exchange or throwing in more foul language and personal attacks against their opponents, which are all indication of their tactics to escape from the issue itself of God exists or not.

As with all my responses to you, no abuse or foul language.

You have not presented a case for the existence of a god that meets its burden of proof, so, I have no justification to believe one does exist. That is how basic critical thinking works.

Sad that they do this with impunity, because their self-identity as atheists entitles them to engage in foul language and attacks on the person of their opponents; that atheist identity is the tolerance that mankind is supposed to absorb to bear with them because they are atheists, but mankind in the US will exercise also their right to take them for the most despicable minority in the US.

Did you ever stop to think, that maybe the abuse and foul language aimed at you, is because you constantly fail to respond to any of the refutations of your 'proof'?

Okay, atheists here, what will it be, reasoned and calm discussion on causation, evidence, and babies from papa and mama, and the issue God exists or not, or you will continue with your entitlement as atheists to seek refuge in foul language and attacks on the person of your opponents, and end there?

Here is my reasoned response to your claim that babies are evidence for the existence of a god. It will be the same response I, and others have given you. It will be given in the same calm demeanor that I always use.

You can not infer that a god created the universe ex nihilo, from observing babies being caused, ex material, from parents.

I know you hate logical fallacies, but you are guilty of the fallacy of composition. No matter how you want to ignore said fallacy, it invalidates your 'proof'.

Get ready, dear readers, atheists here will not take up causation, evidence, and of course all in connection with babies coming to existence and life from papa and mama of the world, as to get linked to the issue God exists or not; but you will have to bear again with their raving mad foul language and attacks on the person of their opponents.

I've been taking it up for uncounted responses to you, that you always ignore.

The causation of babies being born, and all other causation we observe in the universe, is a rearrangement of existing matter and energy (creatio ex material). Your contention that a god caused the universe to come into existence, is creatio ex nihilo.

Along with the fallacy of composition, your 'proof' also commits the fallacy of equivocation, because it uses the same phrase with 2 different meanings.

Of course I have zero confidence that you will actually respond to any of the above. So, I am not sure why I reentered this thread.

EDIT: Let me add, the reason why I decided to leave the thread in the first place, was due to the frustration of having you NEVER actually respond to the refutations of your 'proof'. This is also why I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty.

[Mariosep]

Dear Simon Moon, we have to postpone your desire to resume our exchange, because I have just challenged Stimbo to a one and on exchange – see ANNEX, text in bold.

Now, in the menatime, you can review your textbooks for your information on the kinds of causes.

And also please Simon, no need to react to several points I make in my posts, you just take to the point I want you to react to, like for the present that you say your papa and mama did not cause your existence and life, but the material cause of molecules by they re-arranging themselves; still you do not mention about other causes I am sure you can find in your textbooks.

And also in that connection I want us you and me to work on the what is the proper sense of the word cause; because you say molecules caused your coming to existence and life, not your papa and mama - please see whether you are talking the proper sense of cause or in what other senses you are using the word cause.

But please wait, when Stimbo does not accept my challenge, then we can resume our exchange.

At this point in time I see that Stimbo has not yet responded to my challenge for us she and I to engage in a one on one exchange; but it is still too early, because she is very busy with moderating posts.


ANNEX

Mariosep Online
#906
RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
4 hours ago
__________________


See, dear readers here, so far one atheist has sent a post after my last post here on how atheists go into raving mad foul language and personal attacks against their debate opponents, instead of reasoned and calm exchange on causation, evidence, and the concept of God in re God exists or not; nope, no atheist has sent a post except one and she did not go into raving mad foul language and personal attacks.

She just sent over a graphic of a person demanding,
"Stop using foul language at me."

Thanks, Jester.

Now, I am challenging Stimbo to engage us two on causation of babies as evidence of God existing in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Well, dear readers, let us all sit back and await with bated breath what is going to happen, now that I have issued a formal challenge to Stimbo, for us two to engage in the causation of babies by their papas and mamas, as evidence to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

This is really, thanks to the founders and owners and operators of Atheistforums.org, that I am having a thrilling and delightful adventure in the examination of atheists' way of dealing with the issue, God exists or not - which is no way they will go into it at all, but they will always in effect find a way and a means to eschew, although dear readers you have to read carefully to notice it, to eschew together altogether from the issue itself of God exists or not.


Later.

---

Dear atheist colleagues here, please let us wait for Stimbo to show up.


In the meantime, I will just bring up again my observation how what are called internet atheists are raving mad with foul language and personal attacks against their debate opponents in the web - which is not called for, at all.

The way I see it, it must be because, dear atheist colleagues here, if I may, you are possessed by a strong drive of defiance, and it is only in the anonymity afforded by the internet that you can throw up your defiance with foul language and personal attacks against your debate opponents.

What is the ground of your defiance?

And also if I may, you are into an inner conflict, because as atheists you put yourselves in a situation in which you have what I call a negative thesis.

And without your knowing it, it a negative thesis is an abnormal epistemological position.

See if you can ever get to have a project for a masteral thesis or even up to a doctoral dissertation, proposing to do a negative research, like there is no purpose in life, or in our context, there is no God.

I think the school will tell you, you have got to choose a positive thesis or research, it is absurd epistemologically, to do research on a negative idea.

I could be wrong though, but I am just talking from my own observations on how people talk meaningfully at all: always in the positive or affirmative direction, not in the negative or having no point to propound - unless you are issuing a prohibition to people under you, to not do something, which is into not doing, not into not knowing.

This is quite some subtle insight, though.