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

[brewer]

The shroud is just that, a shroud. Not evidence of god or verification the story of his son.

jesus was a popular name. All that proves is that they wrote about a guy(s). None state that he was a god(s). At best, a superstition or a sorcerer. What do you think of either of these words today? Probably not god.

[Mariosep]

Let us all dear colleagues here, both theists and atheists, keep first to the existence of God, per information on the concept, namely, in concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

What does it profit atheists in disproving or theists in proving Jesus Christ to be a historical figure, if there is no God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?

That is the issue to first take up, and this is the thread from yours truly on that issue; otherwise all your talking oh atheists and oh theists - I am one among theists, but different because I know that first we have to talk about God existing or not, that is the reasonable and intelligent thing to do, first.

So, are you dear colleagues going to be reasonable and intelligent, or unreasonable and un-intelligent, meaning in popular language, crazy and stupid?

Paging Astreja, please take action on my post reproduced below.

Mariosep Online
Member
***
Religious Views: Liberal protestant
Posts: 111
Threads: 2
Joined: 24th October 2016
Reputation: 1
Warning Level: 0%
#829 One hour ago
RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
1 hour ago
_____________________


Well, please everyone, do you at all know that in every interaction among people with reason and intelligence, there is the parameter accepted and enforced by and among themselves, that there should be already in place concurrence on premises.

So, I am a theist and at present I propose that we all bring up babies to investigate what causes babies.

Once we concur on what causes babies, then we can go forth to resolve the issue God exists or not, of course we have to concur also and most importantly in regard to concepts, what is the information of the concept of God that is known to everyone - mind you, not that you accept the information to be true, but that you atheists know of the information: so no need to fear that with knowing the information you are already compromising yourselves with implicitly affirming the existence of God, in concept per my information: in concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Okay, paging Astreja, what do you say about my two items above, enumerated below:

1. Will you concur with me that we must both you an atheist and I a theist accept that babies are caused to come to existence by their papas and mamas.

2. Will you concur with me that as you read what follows, you know of the information I am proffering to you, namely that my information of the concept of God is the following:

"In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

Please, do not evade answering the two items above.

That is what I notice with atheists, they don't really attend to the issue God exists or not, they just keep on and on taking to evasion from the issue, though it takes great and keen examination to see into this tactics of atheists, namely: no connection at all to the issue, but all evasion from the issue, namely, God exists or not.

[Astreja]

Okay, paging Astreja, what do you say about my two items above, enumerated below:

1. Will you concur with me that we must both you an atheist and I a theist accept that babies are caused to come to existence by their papas and mamas.

No, I do not concur.  Not all "babies" are human and some species are capable of parthenogenesis.  Some offspring are single-celled organisms capable of asexual reproduction.  Finally, I believe that at some undetermined point in the history of Earth, abiogenesis had to take place in order for the first life forms to emerge from organic molecules.  An organism resulting from parthenogenesis has only a mother but no father, and cells that reproduce via binary fission or that result from abiogenesis have no "mother" or "father" in the usual sense of the words.

2. Will you concur with me that as you read what follows, you know of the information I am proffering to you, namely that my information of the concept of God is the following:

No, I do not concur.  You have only an assertion, not "information," and you have no actual physical data that supports your assertion.  Furthermore, your assertion is badly formed, riddled with logical fallacies, and collapsed under its own weight on page 1 of this thread.

I see no reason whatsoever to believe in your god, or for that matter any other proposed creator-gods.  I believe that the universe, and any preceding universes, are composed of matter and energy and nothing else.

[Minimalist]

Proof 2: Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120) was considered the greatest historian of ancient Rome.

Much later xtian forgery.  Successful at fooling shitheads like you.

[Aristocatt]

If I understand your argument correctly:

It sounds like you are implicitly personifying what you might call the laws of nature.
Then you search for said laws of nature.
Suppose that you have found evidence of said laws of nature.
Then say "aha, he does exist."

The problem is that there is no reason to personify causality, it's a non-sequitur.

Edit: I take issue with a lot of points you made, but this seems like a good starting point.

Why are you using words like creator/operator?

[brewer]

I wish Eddy Baby would stay in his own thread. This is getting confusing.

[Astreja]

I wish Eddy Baby would stay in his own thread. This is getting confusing.

Just think of it as doubles whack-a-mole.

[Pat Mustard]

I wish Eddy Baby would stay in his own thread. This is getting confusing.

I wish mariosep would fuck off and take his sock with him.

[Primordial Bisque]

I wish Eddy Baby would stay in his own thread. This is getting confusing.

I wish mariosep would fuck off and take his sock with him.

And now he wants to discuss how babies are made with our lovely Atheist women! What a creep.

[Tonus]

Well, please everyone, do you at all know that in every interaction among people with reason and intelligence, there is the parameter accepted and enforced by and among themselves, that there should be already in place concurrence on premises.

So, I am a theist and at present I propose that we all bring up babies to investigate what causes babies.

The whole idea is that theistic arguments in favor of god should get more sophisticated, not less. "God exists because babies are fucked into existence" is not terribly sophisticated. On the other hand, it's understandable that someone who finds that argument compelling would profess a belief in god.