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

[Simon Moon]

Please atheists here, and no need to use the words magic, magical, in your messages against God existing, just as with your foul language, that is not going to save you from the fact that you are always running away from the issue itself, on God exists or not.

Oh please!

We've spent pages and pages demonstrating why your 'proof' fails, and you have not responded to a single one.

The foul language is a response in frustration to your intellectual dishonesty.    

Now, dear readers here, let us await with bated breath for more abusive utterances from our atheists here, in place of reasoned and calm discussion of causation, evidence, and how babies are the evidence of ultimately the existence of an entity corresponding to the concept of God, namely, first and foremost God is the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Look back at any of my posts. No foul language from me.

To atheists here, let you just talk sense instead of raving mad with foul language, on babies are the evidence of causation from papa and mama, and thus by inference from our reason and intelligence, the evidence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Babies are an example of creatio ex material. The existence of babies can  not be used to infer creatio ex nihilo.

This is just one of several reasons why your 'proof' fails.

Take notice, dear readers, when you read atheists’ posts coming after this post from yours truly, will they be into reasoned and calm exchange or throwing in more foul language and personal attacks against their opponents, which are all indication of their tactics to escape from the issue itself of God exists or not.

As with all my responses to you, no abuse or foul language.

You have not presented a case for the existence of a god that meets its burden of proof, so, I have no justification to believe one does exist. That is how basic critical thinking works.

Sad that they do this with impunity, because their self-identity as atheists entitles them to engage in foul language and attacks on the person of their opponents; that atheist identity is the tolerance that mankind is supposed to absorb to bear with them because they are atheists, but mankind in the US will exercise also their right to take them for the most despicable minority in the US.

Did you ever stop to think, that maybe the abuse and foul language aimed at you, is because you constantly fail to respond to any of the refutations of your 'proof'?

Okay, atheists here, what will it be, reasoned and calm discussion on causation, evidence, and babies from papa and mama, and the issue God exists or not, or you will continue with your entitlement as atheists to seek refuge in foul language and attacks on the person of your opponents, and end there?

Here is my reasoned response to your claim that babies are evidence for the existence of a god. It will be the same response I, and others have given you. It will be given in the same calm demeanor that I always use.

You can not infer that a god created the universe ex nihilo, from observing babies being caused, ex material, from parents.

I know you hate logical fallacies, but you are guilty of the fallacy of composition. No matter how you want to ignore said fallacy, it invalidates your 'proof'.

Get ready, dear readers, atheists here will not take up causation, evidence, and of course all in connection with babies coming to existence and life from papa and mama of the world, as to get linked to the issue God exists or not; but you will have to bear again with their raving mad foul language and attacks on the person of their opponents.

I've been taking it up for uncounted responses to you, that you always ignore.

The causation of babies being born, and all other causation we observe in the universe, is a rearrangement of existing matter and energy (creatio ex material). Your contention that a god caused the universe to come into existence, is creatio ex nihilo.

Along with the fallacy of composition, your 'proof' also commits the fallacy of equivocation, because it uses the same phrase with 2 different meanings.

Of course I have zero confidence that you will actually respond to any of the above. So, I am not sure why I reentered this thread.

EDIT: Let me add, the reason why I decided to leave the thread in the first place, was due to the frustration of having you NEVER actually respond to the refutations of your 'proof'. This is also why I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty.