Show me your proof

[Tex]

You might not like it, but it doesn't make it "not nice". However, if you'd like, you may ignore my posts.

Not liking something is the very definition of "not nice". What I'm objecting to is being told to "work on" something other than what I want to talk about simply because you didn't want me to talk about it.

No, I don't like paying taxes, but the government isn't mean in demanding I pay taxes. You're wrong. Telling you that your wrong is something you probably dislike, but it isn't mean either. Maybe you just need thicker skin. I'm regularly told on this site that I'm a lesser being than yall because we have different thoughts.

As for ignoring your posts: first, as a moderator I'm not allowed to do that - I'm cursed with having to sift through all the crap - and second, why are you apparently so opposed to discussion? Are you only here to proselytise?

I want refinement of the statistics proof. I brought up that "God is Existence" as a refutation to "Your God uses magic" by Pocaracas. It is not nor has ever been my desire to discuss this here (although I've discussed it with FallentoReason before on a different thread).

We know of a hot pockets' existence by our senses. We know of existence by commonality. I can draw a bunch of different looking triangles on a white board, and you will find that common to them all is "triangle". Similarly, common to everything is "existence". This is the epistemology on the premise "stuff exists" for the necessary being proof.

Fine, so you've demonstrated that "stuff" which we can agree exists, exists. Congratulations; you've constructed what Daniel Dennett termed a "deepity". I'd still like to know how you get from there to a god of any description, because from what I've seen you haven't even come close to showing that. Merely asserting that it must exist simply because other things do is just silly. Or if not, I want my Martian Cheese Bicycle.

This isn't what I wish to discuss, but fine. And yes, "stuff exists" is a deepity. I'm not trying to prove that. That is simply the only thing needed to prove God.

Since stuff exists, we know that all stuff is similar so far as "they exist". All stuff includes this similarity "existence". Existence is not the stuff, but is recognized within the stuff. Existence then is it's own thing, separate from the other stuff that is. Existence also acts like an entity, causing the stuff to "exist" in the first place. This is what I call God.

This is not intended to be a shifting of the burden of proof.

Whether you intended it or not is irrelevant; it is what it is and I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

You sees it wrong.

These are intended to be rhetorical questions that are only answerable through a deity.

In other words, Magician's Choice. Or if you prefer, "You can have any colour you like, so long as it's black". You intended to define your deity of choice into existence via semantics and rhetoric and we're meant to be impressed by that? You do realise, don't you, that many of us here are so long in the tooth that we can eat six linguistic contortionists before breakfast?

No. Not the Magician's Choice. It's much more like "A color blind person may have any color he like, so long as it is a shade of grey". You deny the color blindness. I say Existence itself exists and you don't. It's really that simple. With the arguments I've seen refuting me, its that "things just simply exist", but that is literally "unreasonable".

However, I don't want to talk about the proof by necessary being. I want to talk statistics.

I'm trying to coin the term "dolphinetics", to describe the actions of (usually) theists when they leap, dolphin-like, from one argument as soon as it becomes uncomfortable and then dive headlong into relatively safer waters.

Go read the last 5 pages of the forum. I brought up a proof that I made up and wanted evaluation from yall. I don't even know if it is valid. You all have seen the necessary being proof and probably write it off because of this or that. You're wrong (it's also my favorite proof!), but I know its valid already. I want to test the proof I ORIGINALLY BROUGHT UP. Perhaps you guys are jumping into friendly waters and not I?