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

[chimp3]

God does not exist! There is no reason to believe any such being exists.

[Pat Mustard]

Dear atheist colleagues here, please go to the debate between Russell and Copleston.

Dear mariosep colleague: Ni!

[Mariosep]

Dear Chimp, you can do better, please!





http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/atheistforums.org

Learning To Use Stone Tools
*****
Religious Views: 42 Skidoo!
Posts: 981
Threads: 40
Joined: 20th June 2016
Reputation: 9
#581
______________________

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


God does not exist! There is no reason to believe any such being exists.

[chimp3]

Mariosep: You are an idiot !

[Astreja]

It is not yet too late to redeem your serious manners of posting in a forum that is read by peoples all over the internet; but his forum is losing readership with the march of time, owing to I submit the awful quality of your posts.

This isn't a popularity contest.  Even if only one person in the universe disbelieved in your god, they could still be correct and everyone else could be wrong.

We have every right to be as fucking flippant as we wish to be, especially when dealing with your nonsense.

[Mariosep]

Dear atheist colleagues here, please accept my thanks for your presence and contribution here in my thread.

Now, I have to say this about your posts, though: they are not doing you any credit to your self-respect, self-esteem, and thus ultimately any self-worth.

You see, dear atheist colleagues here, you can hide your identity in the internet, but you cannot hide from yourselves.

Please submit posts that are to your self-worth as a thinker and writer who dwells on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, delivered with all civility of tongue.

[Primordial Bisque]

Dear atheist colleagues here, please accept my thanks for your presence and contribution here in my thread.

Now, I have to say this about your posts, though: they are not doing you any credit to your self-respect, self-esteem, and thus ultimately any self-worth.

You see, dear atheist colleagues here, you can hide your identity in the internet, but you cannot hide from yourselves.

Please submit posts that are to your self-worth as a thinker and writer who dwells on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, delivered with all civility of tongue.

The most accurate concept would be that "god" is an impossibility.

A first cause requires an ex ante facto empty state of the universe; of total existence. If you unravel all "causes" to the point before so-called creation, the only "god" you are left with is a single instance; atemporal, unmoving, and unchanging. It would not be able to process any actions or thoughts. It wouldn't be able to "cause" anything. The mere fact that we exist is a testament to it's non-existence.

Regarding definitions of god, or concept of god - there are none that have any meaning. Calling it the creator, act of pure being, first cause, love, wrath, or whatever means absolutely nothing unless it can be given physical properties. That's the one thing that no one is able to do, and with good reason. It doesn't have any. "God" was never anything more than a poorly conceived explanation. An explanation that becomes increasingly obscure as time marches on, and with every argument that is made in it's defense.

Oh, I almost forgot: Go fuck yourself, you pretentiously arrogant piece of shit.

[pocaracas]

Now, I have to say this about your posts, though: they are not doing you any credit to your self-respect, self-esteem, and thus ultimately any self-worth.

You seem to be mistaken...

My self-respect is at an all time high.
My self-esteem is at about normal level.
My self-worth is as high as it has ever been.

You see, dear atheist colleagues here, you can hide your identity in the internet, but you cannot hide from yourselves.

Nor can you... BUHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Please submit posts that are to your self-worth as a thinker and writer who dwells on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, delivered with all civility of tongue.

Truths - all that is in accordance with reality.
Facts - same as above.
Logic - a valid reasoning from premises to conclusions.
history of ideas - there you go again. Why should I trust certain thoughts that were uttered in ancient times and that have since been superseded by better ideas?

Here's my civil tongue:

[Astreja]

Dear atheist colleagues here, please accept my thanks for your presence and contribution here in my thread.

Now, I have to say this about your posts, though: they are not doing you any credit to your self-respect, self-esteem, and thus ultimately any self-worth.

You, sirrah, do not get to tell us what our "self-respect, self-esteem, and thus ultimately any self-worth" should be based upon.  Those are for us and us alone to evaluate.

You've lost, Mariosep.  We aren't playing your silly little game the way you want us to play it.  You clearly have no evidence that is up to our standards, and you can barely struggle through a post without committing a logical fallacy.

Oh, and I reject your "thanks."  Only a complete and utter asshole would thank someone and then insult their posts in the next breath.

[Mariosep]

Dear atheist colleagues here, below is a very good model, according to which all parties whether theists or atheists in a debate or exchange of thoughts on an opposing issue should conduct themselves, as to evince reason, intelligence, logic, learning, and civility of tongue.


Here is an expanded re-writing by yours truly on the preliminary exchange between Russell and Copleston, in their debate on the existence of God.

A Debate on the Existence of God

Bertrand Russell [hereafter R:] and F.C. Copleston [hereafter C:]


C: As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term "God."

R: (Refrain) That seems to me to be a very good plan.

C: I presume that we mean a supreme personal Being -- distinct from the world and Creator of the world. Would you agree -- provisionally at least -- to accept this statement as the meaning of the term "God"?

R: Yes, I accept this definition.

C: Well, my position is the affirmative position that such a Being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically.

R: (Refrain) That seems to me to be a very good plan.

C: Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?

R: No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic.

C: Would you agree with me that the problem of God is a problem of great importance?

R: (Refrain) That seems to me to be a very good plan.

C: For example, would you agree that if God does not exist, human beings and human history can have no other purpose than the purpose they choose to give themselves, which -- in practice -- is likely to mean the purpose which those impose who have the power to impose it?

R: Roughly speaking, yes, though I should have to place some limitation on your last clause.

C: Would you agree that if there is no God -- no absolute Being -- there can be no absolute values? I mean, would you agree that if there is no absolute good that the relativity of values results?

R: No, I think these questions are logically distinct. Take, for instance, G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica, where he maintains that there is a distinction of good and evil, that both of these are definite concepts. But he does not bring in the idea of God to support that contention.

C: Well, suppose we leave the question of good till later, till we come to the moral argument, and I give first a metaphysical argument. I'd like to put the main weight on the metaphysical argument based on Leibniz's argument from "Contingency" and then later we might discuss the moral argument. Suppose I give a brief statement on the metaphysical argument and that then we go on to discuss it?

R: That seems to me to be a very good plan.

Original text:

A Debate on the Existence of God

Bertrand Russell [hereafter R:] and F.C. Copleston [hereafter C:]

C: As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term "God." I presume that we mean a supreme personal Being -- distinct from the world and Creator of the world. Would you agree -- provisionally at least -- to accept this statement as the meaning of the term "God"?

R: Yes, I accept this definition.

C: Well, my position is the affirmative position that such a Being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically. Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?

R: No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic.

C: Would you agree with me that the problem of God is a problem of great importance? For example, would you agree that if God does not exist, human beings and human history can have no other purpose than the purpose they choose to give themselves, which -- in practice -- is likely to mean the purpose which those impose who have the power to impose it?

R: Roughly speaking, yes, though I should have to place some limitation on your last clause.

C: Would you agree that if there is no God -- no absolute Being -- there can be no absolute values? I mean, would you agree that if there is no absolute good that the relativity of values results?

R: No, I think these questions are logically distinct. Take, for instance, G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica, where he maintains that there is a distinction of good and evil, that both of these are definite concepts. But he does not bring in the idea of God to support that contention.

C: Well, suppose we leave the question of good till later, till we come to the moral argument, and I give first a metaphysical argument. I'd like to put the main weight on the metaphysical argument based on Leibniz's argument from "Contingency" and then later we might discuss the moral argument. Suppose I give a brief statement on the metaphysical argument and that then we go on to discuss it?

R: That seems to me to be a very good plan.

Dear Primordial, you started all right though the formulation of your concept of God is not as succinct as it should be; but woe, you ended up very badly, with a big further loss to your self-worth, even though you aimed to hurt me.

Oh, I almost forgot: Go fuck yourself, you pretentiously arrogant piece of shit.

I have to go now, but please think about that, viz., your self-worth, it diminishes as more and more fu** and sh** exude from your mouth.