RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
October 28, 2016 at 7:32 pm
(This post was last modified: October 28, 2016 at 8:04 pm by Mariosep.)
Pocaracas (#271) says: "Hello Mariosep. I'm an atheist and I too have a concept of what it is that supports god belief..."
From my part it is not a belief except with religions, it is for me founded on evidence and the process arrived at is thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.
See the PO, click on page 1, it will come up; my proof is based on evidence, step by step, with thinkibg on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.
Eugeny says (#281):
"There is only one mistake in all proofs for God existence. The existence of anything or anybody (no matter what or who) can't be proven, but it must be shown. A proof of existence of anything or anybody is not a logical problem, but it's a physical problem. Don't prove, just show!"
That is a pretty much categorical statement, but have you thought over your statement, to see whether it is grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas?
There is or was an atheist of considerable readership among atheists who told mankind, what is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof - something to that effect.
Dear atheist colleagues here, I am now into replying to anyone in the latest page of this thread as it comes forth, because there are so many of you and I am as I have said, not a battalion; besides you can see my proof by clicking on page 1.
And in summary, my proof is founded on evidence, namely, the countless events of causation in the reality of existence, which begs mankind to think as to infer 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.
The way I would argue as an atheist is to deny causation exists at all.
Asmodee (#273) says:
"So, here is my concept of God. God is a ducky who first and foremost is the cutest ducky ever. And he has no butthole because buttholes are gross and duckys are not. Discuss."
Well, I will appeal to this Atheistforums.org and reply to you that your way of reacting to the thread, as you are an atheist, it does not bestow any credit to Atheistforums.org.
Whateverist says (#277):
"I actually entertained the notion it might be an apologist-bot."
My impression with atheists, please forgive me, but the fact speaks for itself, atheists do not reason on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, they do what I see to be 'to impassonate'; that word is from my composition of a new term, by adding a prefix and a suffix to the word, passion.
If you are tired of my alleged by you repeating as though you are dealing with a bot, then try reasoning as to come to a good comment on the evidence for the existence of God, considering the the countless events of causation, but mind you, God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
From my part it is not a belief except with religions, it is for me founded on evidence and the process arrived at is thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.
See the PO, click on page 1, it will come up; my proof is based on evidence, step by step, with thinkibg on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.
Eugeny says (#281):
"There is only one mistake in all proofs for God existence. The existence of anything or anybody (no matter what or who) can't be proven, but it must be shown. A proof of existence of anything or anybody is not a logical problem, but it's a physical problem. Don't prove, just show!"
That is a pretty much categorical statement, but have you thought over your statement, to see whether it is grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas?
There is or was an atheist of considerable readership among atheists who told mankind, what is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof - something to that effect.
Dear atheist colleagues here, I am now into replying to anyone in the latest page of this thread as it comes forth, because there are so many of you and I am as I have said, not a battalion; besides you can see my proof by clicking on page 1.
And in summary, my proof is founded on evidence, namely, the countless events of causation in the reality of existence, which begs mankind to think as to infer 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.
The way I would argue as an atheist is to deny causation exists at all.
Asmodee (#273) says:
"So, here is my concept of God. God is a ducky who first and foremost is the cutest ducky ever. And he has no butthole because buttholes are gross and duckys are not. Discuss."
Well, I will appeal to this Atheistforums.org and reply to you that your way of reacting to the thread, as you are an atheist, it does not bestow any credit to Atheistforums.org.
Whateverist says (#277):
"I actually entertained the notion it might be an apologist-bot."
My impression with atheists, please forgive me, but the fact speaks for itself, atheists do not reason on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, they do what I see to be 'to impassonate'; that word is from my composition of a new term, by adding a prefix and a suffix to the word, passion.
If you are tired of my alleged by you repeating as though you are dealing with a bot, then try reasoning as to come to a good comment on the evidence for the existence of God, considering the the countless events of causation, but mind you, God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
