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

[Arkilogue]

definitely true to a degree but its a personal opinion over all.  To limit error and personal opinion we need to add more people describing what we see.

By our perspectives combined, we are Captain Circumstance!

[Asmodee]

Asmodee, you are keen to exchange thoughts with me grounding ourselves on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas?

That is my impression that atheists here do not care to exchange thoughts with me at all, they just want to say something from their own whatever motive, but exchange is to my observation, impossible; for they don't continue after their first or second reaction to my efforts to develop a link with them, as to continue until we get into a concurrence on whatever we are into, in our exchange.

Dear Asmodee, see if this is not also the case at present with my reaction to your post reproduced below.

I fear you will already at this point go away.

It seems to me, that atheists here really resist any serious attempts to get them to interact with me, and then they will accuse me of trying to proselytize them when I exert further to connect with them.

You see, dear atheist readers of this post, I am here just to enjoy my hobby of knowing what atheists are into and what I am into: from my part I am curious, what about you atheists here, are you also curious to know what I am here into?

Okay, you ask me, and I will tell you, namely, that I am curious to know what you are into here in this forum and in this thread started by me.

And yes, I know God exists, and I am very curious to know how atheists come to know or whatever it is with them about denying God existing.

At this point theists here will say that they don't understand my English.

So, there, I again fail from my own fault to get linked up with an atheist here, just to satisfy my curiosity: what is driving them to post messages but to not pursue an interaction as to come to concurrence on whatever the issue is, that is taken up with them.

Now, I also notice that they will try to drive me to get annoyed terribly, and then I wind up getting banned forever,  owing to being unkind with my language.

Anyway, I have not read all the new messages this morning, I just get started from the last new post here and move to my last post prior to the present session, so I will go now to see whether Jesster, the lady poster here, she with the adage, your friendly neighborhood heathen, whether she has taken up with my invitation for us to pursue whatever it is with her to take up with me, aside from saying that I am trying to digress from whatever it was I was digressing from.

Summing up: I will just most cordially invite any atheist here at all, to let us we two, for I cannot be answering every post that is addressed to me, I am only one person, not a battalion, but there are atheists here who many of them take to react to me and then disappear, forever(?).

If you want to chat, I'm okay with that.  The way you talk is a little "foreign" to me and it is, at times, difficult for me to determine what you are saying.  That is NOT a dig about your English being "poor".  Far from it, your English is quite excellent, but the way you string words together is different than I am used to.  So yes, I do find it a little difficult to understand your point pretty much all the time.  I still don't know what you want here.

So why don't we keep it simple?  Tell me to which god you are referring?  Where is this god defined?  Is it just a definition you came up with yourself?

For the record, I do not "deny God exists".  To state that someone "denies the existence" of something is an aggressive statement which asserts that the thing is real and this person is irrationally denying it.  For instance, when we talk about "climate change deniers" or "holocaust deniers" we are not talking about people whose opinions we respect with a different view.  We are talking about irrational people who are denying that which we know to be true.  So when you say that we "deny the existence of God" you are making an aggressive statement, asserting that your opinion is absolutely correct and that we are irrational for disagreeing.  Perhaps that is not your intention, but that is how that statement is used.

That being said, there are no gods that I know of.  Is it possible there are gods I do not know?  Everything we have ever observed in the universe has followed the laws of the universe.  A god, by its nature, would be beyond these observable laws of the universe.  If it were not it wouldn't be a god by any definition I have ever heard.  Given that we have never seen a single thing which did not obey the physical laws of the universe, there has never been a single observation to suggest it is possible that some god exists.  So is it possible?  Sure.  I don't know everything about the universe.  Is the chance good enough to consider that possibility?  Not even close.  No data to suggest something is true means that thing is not worth considering as any consideration would be mere wild speculation.

What you think you "know" about your particular deity is really nothing more than what you just made up and decided is true.  That is why there are no logical arguments with any merit, because there are only "logical arguments".  If there is no real evidence to suggest I should consider something then there is no reason to consider it.

[LadyForCamus]

No, at this point in time, 05:10 a.m. October 26, 2016, Wednesday (eight hours in advance of Greenwich), no atheist has come up yet to tell me that he wants to interact with me, but I will continue to monitor here, until of course when I have to go to my daily chores at home, and also eventually take leave of this forum to get busy with making a living, at least until I find time to check in to see whether any atheists at all have taken up to link with me on any issue we will agree to exchange thoughts on - even in the course of making a living or having a life, outside of internet forums.

Um...a ton of people are trying to interact with you, mainly by discussing the faults in your argument. If you choose not to thoughtfully reply to those members, then you're the one who's refusing to interact. Probably because you can't demonstrate your claims to be true. This is a personal problem that you need to work out. We will be here if and when you're ready to straightforwardly examine your beliefs.

[Minimalist]

I don't think anyone has ever needed to watch Kissing Hank's Ass more than our newest chew toy.

https://youtu.be/fDp7pkEcJVQ

[Mariosep]

Asmodee says" "So why don't we keep it simple? Tell me to which god you are referring? Where is this god defined? Is it just a definition you came up with yourself?"


I have said this nth times here in this thread, "My concept of God is that in concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

[Minimalist]

[Mystic]

Do you have anything that goes like: True Premise->Valid Reasoning->Sound Conclusion?

Yes I do. I stated these proofs in summary. I've gone through them in details arguing from the soundness of each premise and valid structure with true premises. If you are interested to go through them, shoot me a pm.  We can go through any of them.

[TheMonster]

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?

The problem with this line of reasoning is that you have assumed that original cause was a human-like figure you call God. There is no proof of this. What you have laid out are claims connected by logic and they need hard proof for verification.

As we know it today, the big bang was the ultimate cause of everything. You can claim God (or Gods) set this into motion, but that is just another example of God of the gaps. 

Even if we are to accept your line of reasoning, it does not in any way show YHWH or the Bible to be true. It could have been Shiva who set the big bang into motion, can't it? This is a common problem almost all monotheists run into. You can never prove x was caused by your specific deity.

[LadyForCamus]

I've elaborated before on these. People understand and know exactly how they prove God. Playing ignorant will do you no good. I'm tired of playing games.

No you bloody haven't! You offered your "objective/eternal morality" argument in the past, and it failed miserably. Rhythm and Irrational deconstructed it point by point, describing each logical fallacy it commits.

You have an open thread right now posing another "argument" that, after receiving similar critical assessments, you declared you wouldn't be able to respond to for a week because you didn't have the time.

Now, here you are bombing us with more crappy prose and meaningless, bald assertions. And you have the nerve to say we are playing dumb with you?

You have demonstrated NOTHING during your time here. You simply declare over and over: 'Objective identity and objective morality exist because it's obvious to ME, therefore God exists.'

That statement is not evidence of anything. It's not even an argument. It's just your opinion. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, MK. But, you don't get to declare that you've "proved" something when you haven't even provided a single shred of evidence for it.

[Mariosep]

Dear TheMonster. please don't bring in my assumptions because if any at all they are in my mind, and you cannot presume to read what is in my mind.

Just tell me what is your information on the concept of God, so that we will get connected in regard to the God I know to exist and you claim to not exist, to discuss whether He exists or not in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

From me:
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."

When you have at all any information of the concept of God, then we can exchange thoughts, otherwise you can take my information, so that we can still exchange thoughts.

If you will not allow any information at all of the concept of God to be in your mind, I don't think it is possible at all for us two to talk on whether God exists or not.

---

Better, dear TheMonster, why not find out whether my assumption corresponds to reality in the objective world outside our mind, by we going together to search for evidence in the reality of existence outside our mind, of God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

The way you go about with assumption from my part and therefore you are not going to at least find out whether the assumption can be borne out or not, by us two searching for evidence in the objective reality of existence outside our mind, that is the way to eschew at all any effort from your part to act reasonably, by seeking refuge on the wrong plea of assumption from my part.

Your behavior is similar to your insisting that your friend has no money but only an assumption of having money, but you will not go with him to his home and get to see his money, or to the bank which will tell you he has money in the bank.

Can you at least see that that kind of a behavior is irrational?

---

In the meantime I am waiting for Asmodee, as he agrees to exchange thoughts with me on whether God exists or not, and I hope we can at least agree to act according to reason and intelligence, instead of throwing up all kinds of walls by which you will not see into reality.

Another wall against seeing reality is the continuous and insistent plea that for being the denier of a claim by the other side, you have no burden at all whatsoever to prove anything at all.

What about thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, or just thinking according to reason and intelligence?

Then there is this wall that it is impossible to prove a negative, therefore you don't have to prove anything when you deny something to not exist.

Have you ever thought that there is something very funny to say the least with that kind of a plea?