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

[Simon Moon]

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."

This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one.

You are stating your conclusion, that a god exists, in  your first premise.

This fallacy follows the form:

1. If P, then Q
2. Q
3. Therefore P

Here is an example:

If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat.
I have a sore throat.
Therefore, I have the flu.

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.

This is the fallacy of composition. Strike 2.

Just because a part of something has a certain attribute, does not mean the entire thing does.

This fallacy follows the form:

A is part of B
A has property X
Therefore, B has property X.

An example is:

1. hydrogen is not wet
2. Oxygen is not wet
3. therefore water is not wet

4. From the countless instances of causation in reality, we infer to the existence of a first and ultimate cause.

This is the fallacy of equivocation. Strike 3.

The things we observe that you are referring to as 'countless instances of causation', are all instances of existing matter and energy, being acted on by natural forces. Ex material, as it were.

The universe according to you, is not previously existing matter and energy being acted on by your god. He is creating (causing the universe to come into existence) ex nihilo.  

You are equivocating the phrase 'countless instances of causation'. In one instance you are referring to creatio ex material. The next instance you are referring to creatio ex nihilo.

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.

This is a non sequitur. Strike 4.

This does not follow from the previous fallacious premises. Even if your previous premises were valid, it does not follow that the 'first cause' has to be a 'being'. All you are getting at is a first cause, which could be a materialistic first cause.

6. Conclusion: God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Does not follow from your syllogism. Every premise is flawed.

Your modus ponens is broken.

[Astreja]

You please write a proof of something to exist in objective reality, what about atoms in space?

Go fetch Me a sample of space and we'll take it to a lab and examine it under an electron microscope.

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."

Just a concept, and not demonstrated to be accurate.

2. Look for instances of causation in reality outside of concepts in our mind.

Red herring.  At this point, causation is not the issue -- the existence of your hypothetical god is the issue.

3. We find countless examples of causation in reality outside of concepts in our mind.

Continuation of previous red herring.

4. From the countless instances of causation in reality, we infer to the existence of a first and ultimate cause.

Unsupported assertion.  All you have here is a weak hypothesis, and have failed to demonstrate that "first" and "ultimate" have anything to do with this.

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.

No, we certainly do not "find" anything of the sort.  You are now clearly in logical fallacy territory with an unsupported assertion (identifying an hypothetical and undemonstrated "first and ultimate cause" with a hypothetical and undemonstrated entity) and petitio principii  (assuming the existence of the being you are trying to prove and using it as part of the argument).

6. Conclusion: God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Conclusion:  Argumentum ad stercoris.  40+ pages of discussion, and you're still no closer to producing actual evidence.  Your so-called "proof" is discarded as worthless.

[brewer]

Waiting for the echolalia. 1 mississippi, 2 one thousand, 3 hippopotamus, ...........

edit: and jumbled post.

[Mariosep]

Dear atheist colleague Simon Moon, please change the word affirming in the line from you:

"This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one."

Choose the correct appropriate word, otherwise you are not a critical reader much less a critical writer.

And you are betraying your limited grasp of thinking and writing on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

Suppose you make a write-up for the proof of the existence of atoms in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind, step by step.

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."

This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one.

You are stating your conclusion, that a god exists, in  your first premise.
[...]

[LadyForCamus]

Dear atheist colleague Simon Moon, please change the word affirming in the line from you:

"This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one."

Choose the correct appropriate word, otherwise you are not a critical reader much less a critical writer.

But that is the name of the fallacy...

Truthfully, factually, AND logically!

[emoji848]

[Primordial Bisque]

Dear atheist colleague Simon Moon, please change the word affirming in the line from you:

"This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one."

Choose the correct appropriate word, otherwise you are not a critical reader much less a critical writer.

And you are betraying your limited grasp of thinking and writing on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

Suppose you make a write-up for the proof of the existence of atoms in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind, step by step.

This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one.

You are stating your conclusion, that a god exists, in  your first premise.
[...]

Why don't you try looking it up before making yourself out to look like a horse's ass?

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html

[Mariosep]

Dear atheists colleagues, let you plan in your mind how you are going to prove the existence of atoms in objective reality outside of concepts in your mind, step by step.

When you have accomplished already in your mind the plan, then redact it in words, step by step.

Then you can follow your written down plan and go forth into objective reality to get everything and do every act needed to follow faithfully your plan: to arrive at the certainty of the existence of atoms in objective reality outside your plan as conceived in your mind and put down in writing, by which written plan you have guided yourself in arriving at the certainty of the existence of atoms in objective reality: outside of concepts in your mind and words in your written plan.

ANNEX

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.

[Astreja]

An, so now you've replaced "atoms in space" with just "atoms"?

Thank you! You've reduced the necessary steps from 2 to zero, as atoms have already been observed in the laboratory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9dn-Umr7VU

Now produce a comparable image of your god. (I feel it only fair to warn you at this point that if you pull out a drawing of your god, I may feel compelled to smack you on the nose with a hardcover book of Gustave Doré lithographs and scold "Bad theist! Bad theist!")

[I_am_not_mafia]

Dear atheist colleague Mathilda, please let us when you come over resume our exchange, and I propose we take up with cause, as when I was here last session, you said a first cause needs a cause also, to bring it to existence.

You haven't yet shown yourself capable of holding a conversation. Respond to what someone says and you might get some people willing to continue. At the moment You just ignore everything anybody says and repost your same flawed original post.

Mariosep. Please answer these questions:

1) Why does there need to be a first cause? What is the first cause of a snowflake?

2) What is a god? What is a god made of? Where did it come from? What are its origins? What can it do? How can it do it? What environment does it inhabit?

[LostLocke]

[quote='click page 1 to see the proof in OP Mariosep']


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...

Yadadada



I was going to do the, "For you kids, a record is...." thing, but then I remembered for some reason you youngins are bringing them back!