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

[Mariosep]

Stimbo Offline
Administrator and Prophet-in-residence
*******
Religious Views: Noli simul flare sorbereque.
Posts: 19925
Threads: 205
Joined: 27th August 2010
Reputation: 137

Dear Stimbo, I like to assure you that I am an honest poster here, even though I am a theist. and all the posters who interact with me are atheists, and this is a forum founded and operated by atheists, whom I owe a debt of gratitude for being still around.

All I want to do in this thread is to find out how atheists think at all, and I am honestly having a hard time because I do not seem to effect linkage with atheists here, perhaps it is my peculiar English.

And I don't blame either atheists here because they also complain that they are not getting to me at all.

So, dear atheist colleagues here, please let us all be patient and not accuse each other of doing something that is basically dishonest, like claiming to have said this or that when it has been said, or whatever else.

I will just tell you, dear atheist colleagues here, I am only one poster here, I am not a battalion; so I have to decide what posters to reply to, and normally I choose to react to posters who to me seem to be receptive to my thoughts, and also they don't engage in personal insults on me, and they keep to the thread, which is my request to atheists to tell me what they think of my proof for the existence of God.

So, dear atheist colleague Stimbo, please also be patient with me, and I assure you that I am not into any dishonest way of interacting with posters here.

And I will have to be cautious as not to get derailed with having to answer to everything that posters here bring up, so that my time and labor are totally directed to this everything whatsoever but in effect away from the thread.

When I was here in my last session, I was into again inviting Mathilda to resume our interaction on an one on one protocol, in particular I requested that we both go into exchange on the subject of cause, for she said that a first cause brings up for her the question of the cause of the first cause, and I am going to address the same concern to her, now.


So, dear atheist colleagues here, let you and me just be patient with each other, and keep to the topic of the thread, and may I just ask that you not insult me.

And I assure you Stimbo and fellow colleagues here that I am trying my best to master the formatting codes here, and learning to perfect my skill with experimenting as I write and post my messages.

Now, I am going to submit this message without any further ado, let us see how it comes out.

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?

So, I've been away a couple of days...


Can anyone please let me know if Marisep has ever responded to any of the refutations of his original argument?

Or is he still trying to prove his nose exists?

Too lazy to read over a couple of dozen pages.

Impossible to tell. Whether he knows it or not (and I doubt he has the nous), he's using the classic Civil Service trick of burying his points, such as they are, in amongst a shit-ton of waste material. So when someone calls him on something, he can claim that he's already addressed it - we just failed to understand it.