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

[Mariosep]

Thanks everyone for your presence and contribution to this my thread.

Now, please just interact with Simon Moon and give him your thoughts on how to show me that I am wrong with my proof for God existing.

Because I am only one person and not a battalion, and you are many, so it is most convenient in regard to time-saving and labor cost-cutting for me to just interact with Simon Moon, besides he is good at fallacies, and I am good at observing causation in the objective reality of existence where babies are caused by their papas and mamas.


As I am waiting for Simon Moon to show up again, I will just say something for readers here who do not send posts to this thread of mine.

If you atheist posters react to my thoughts addressed to readers who do not send messages to this thread of mine, thank you!

Dear readers here, please think about this thought from yours truly:

“The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.”

You see, when you think on that thought from yours truly, you will come to the knowledge that existence is composed of things existing from other things, and things existing from, by, through, in, of themselves or itself; and that thing that exists from, by, through, in, of itself, that is the entity that corresponds to 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.


Dear Simon Moon, when you show up, please tell me why you do not want to come to the objective reality of existence, so that we will talk about how babies are caused by their papas and mamas, and that wherefore babies are evidence of God existing, to wit: in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Hope to see you soon.

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

Dear Simon Moon:

I have given the proof of God existing nth times already, starting from the postulation of the concept of God, to the evidence in objective reality outside of our mind, in all instances of causation, like conception and birth of babies by their papas and mamas, thus to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence, namely: an entity in existence corresponding to the posited concept scil. first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, which I call God.

[Numbering of lines added by Mariosep]

1. And yes, I agree that it is a concept, and nothing more.

2. As soon as you are able to actually provide demonstrable and falsifiable evidence,

3. and valid and sound logic to support it, let us know.

I did not say as you put it in No. 1 “a concept, and nothing more,” what I say for nth times already is that: the concept will guide us to search for the entity in objective reality of existence corresponding to the concept: so, please take care to not put words in my mouth that it [the word God] is a concept only and nothing more.

On Nos. 2 and 3, I am very concise and clear, we will go into the objective reality of existence and search for evidence in all instances of causation: no need to bring in falsifiable and valid and sound logic.

Babies are good enough as instances of the the effects of causation, and wherefore evidence of the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning - think about that.


No need to bring in highfalutin terms.