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

[Ben Davis]

Hi Mariosep, you should definitely create an Intro thread so we can get to know you a bit. We have no problem with people joining who want to get involved in good conversations, atheist or otherwise

I've not read all 10 pages so sorry if I repeat anything that others have already posted but I had to pick up on your first response.

First, I identify the kind of God I am proving to exist, by presenting my information on God, namely, that first and foremost He is the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Then you're assuming your conclusion. You're starting with an anticipated result and then looking for evidence to confirm that. That's a backwards process. Instead, you should make observations, gather evidence about them and analyse it in order to create hypotheses as to the mechanisms involved. From there, you make predictions based on your hypothetical models then create experiments to test those hypotheses, see what stands up and what falls down. Often that means trashing hypotheses and gathering new evidence. Once you've gone through that iterative process a few times, you can draw up your preliminary model as a prospective theory and submit for peer review. That could result in your models being completely trashed and you starting from scratch. Assuming you finally get through peer review, you still haven't established a cause, only validated your observations and provided a set of demonstrated mechanisms that explain the observations. To establish causality, you have to have demonstrably valid models and progress your thinking from there.

On that consideration, God is the cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

On that consideration, you're nowhere near to establishing demonstrable observations regarding any supernatural event, let alone those which could be associated with any gods, let alone one specific god. Further, without demonstrable observations, you haven't the information to establish a proper definition of any causes, certainly not enough to start assigning any causality to anything that might meet your current views of what a god is. Without definitions, even your method fails because you can't possibly know what you're looking for.

So, we go forth into the realm of reality of existence to search for all instances of causation, and infer therefrom that all instances of causation are evidence for the existence of an entity corresponding to the concept of God, namely, first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

'Instances of causation' is a meaningless term. At this point in your process, you have nothing on which to understand what is being caused.

So, we have evidence for God existing in the reality of existence, corresponding to the concept of God, namely: first and foremost the creator (cause) and operator (cause) of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Where? Nothing you've proposed will do that. You have no listed observations, no verified evidence, no testable hypotheses, no experimental models, no falsifiable theory and nothing on which to build an understanding of causality.