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

[Mariosep]

Dear everyone who wants to interact with me on the issue God exists or not, that includes Astreja, Simon, etc.


I want us to work as to concur on what it is to prove the existence of an entity in objective reality from the concept in our mind of that entity, for example, like Bigfoot.

No need to interact with you over your various points in your messages.

When we work as to concur on the concept, that does not mean at all: that you and I are affirming already the existence of the entity corresponding to the concept we have formulated in our mind.

Please try to understand that, namely, when and as we have formulated in our mind a concept, how do we prove that there exists or does not exist in objective reality the entity outside of the concept in our mind, but corresponding to the concept in our mind?

I said this already nth times, how can we at all communicate when we don't have the concurred on concept of the thing we are talking about, much less search for its existence as to correspond to the concept in our mind?

To formulate a concept in our mind does not mean that you will produce a ridiculous concept of that entity we will search for in objective reality, like that we have the concept of a flying spaghetti monster, or an orbiting teapot in space etc.

I will already be into endless repetition trying to make you atheist colleagues here to comprehend what I am trying to succeed in making you see my point, but if your mindset is definitely and persistently into taking to ridicules right away in the very first step of how to communicate as not to talk pass each other's head, then I will just make a commentary on the debate between Russell and Copleston, and you can join me in contributing to the commentary, then I just hope that in that environment you will not insist on dwelling on ridiculous analogies.

---

-.-

Here, please atheist colleagues, read the texts in bold below, and see whether you understand what Russell is agreeing to: it is definitely not into affirmirng the existence of God.

A Debate on the Existence of God

Bertrand Russell [hereafter R:] and F.C. Copleston [hereafter C:]

C: As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term "God." I presume that we mean a supreme personal Being -- distinct from the world and Creator of the world. Would you agree -- provisionally at least -- to accept this statement as the meaning of the term "God"?

R: Yes, I accept this definition.

C: Well, my position is the affirmative position that such a Being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically. Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?

R: No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic.

C: Would you agree with me that the problem of God is a problem of great importance? For example, would you agree that if God does not exist, human beings and human history can have no other purpose than the purpose they choose to give themselves, which -- in practice -- is likely to mean the purpose which those impose who have the power to impose it?

R: Roughly speaking, yes, though I should have to place some limitation on your last clause.

C: Would you agree that if there is no God -- no absolute Being -- there can be no absolute values? I mean, would you agree that if there is no absolute good that the relativity of values results?

R: No, I think these questions are logically distinct. Take, for instance, G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica, where he maintains that there is a distinction of good and evil, that both of these are definite concepts. But he does not bring in the idea of God to support that contention.

C: Well, suppose we leave the question of good till later, till we come to the moral argument, and I give first a metaphysical argument. I'd like to put the main weight on the metaphysical argument based on Leibniz's argument from "Contingency" and then later we might discuss the moral argument. Suppose I give a brief statement on the metaphysical argument and that then we go on to discuss it?

R: That seems to me to be a very good plan.