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

[Asmodee]

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?

I hate these logical arguments given as "proofs".  A logical argument can never "prove" any deity exists.  Without exception the logic is flawed.  One of the problems with this argument is that your first premise and your conclusion are exactly the same, "God is real and created everything".  If the conclusion and premise are the same thing, first, OF COURSE the conclusion is going to seem correct because it is also the premise and, second, it is not a sound argument.

[Minimalist]

A logical argument can never "prove" any deity exists.

Especially when it starts with a piece of shit premise like:

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

Hint:  You need evidence to support your premise, dumbass.

[LadyForCamus]

I don't think you've seen this one before. It's uniquely confused. Most of these fly-by-night apologists haven't a clue about how the meaning of  the terms they are using have changed since antiquity and the Middle Ages when the demonstrations were first formulated.

But I still find it boring having the same circular arguments over and over. You know, when I was at university, medieval history and it's writings have been part of the curriculum. I can't really remember which one of the scholars the sheet was about I was handed to translate, but it had a picture and a caption reading "hochgelahrt man", which literally translated into "hichly learned man". This was about some guy from the 13th century, a clergyman, and I remember musing, what could you have known to be deserving of the title? Virtually nothing going by our standards, was the answer I came up with. Well, he probably knew his philosophers and the writings of his time, better than me, that's for sure. But that's also about all he knew. He knew nothing about the world and it's workings.

I get that YOU find it boring, abaris. But please remember that not everyone is as experienced and savvy with logical argumentation, (specifically arguments for the existence of God) as you and others are. We have new members, and who knows how many lurkers who may have never even considered this line of thinking before, and seeing veteran members deconstructing unsound/invalid arguments can be a great learning tool.

I learned a lot here just by watching folks like Simon Moon, Mister Agenda, Rob, and Esquilax in action with theists. (Not leaving anyone out on purpose; those are just a few that come to mind right away) I think it's a tedious yet invaluable service to the "newbs", and we should appreciate them taking the time to painstakingly go through the same take-downs over and over, for the benefit of others. I suppose if you've grown intellectually tired of it you could just not read or participate in the thread.

[abaris]

I suppose if you've grown intellectually tired of it you could just not read or participate in the thread.

Which I have, pointing out it's the same circular arguments we had a million times before.

[chimp3]

Thanks everyone for your presence and participation.
 
If I may, let us first get connected with the concept of God, for if we don't have the same concept of God, then we will be acting irrationally talking about whether He exists or not, when we are not having the same thing in our minds - that is talking past each other's head, which is an irrational behavior by us all.
 
And also if I may, let us just concentrate on one God, even though there are thinkers who propose that there be many gods, etc.
 
Please therefore everyone here, I suggest that you choose one god to work on, and propose your concept of the god you are presenting to prove the existence or non-existence of this god.
 
 
You see, we have got to work on one god at a time, and we have got to work as to concur on the concept of god we are talking about to prove that he exists at all or not, in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.
 
 
Here is my concept of God, of course you can use the word god instead of God, for your one god that you choose to work on, as to come to his existence or non-existence.
 
Here is again my concept of God, and please bear in mind that it is the information of the concept of God from me, it is not any proof at all by proposing the concept of God; for without any information about something at all, i.e. the concept, we would be acting irrationally talking about its existence or non-existence, as we will be as I said talking past each other’s head, on different things.
 
Here is again, please bear with me, my information on the concept of God.
 

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

 
 
So, dear colleagues here, please present your information on the concept of the god, just choose one of the many Gods, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., that you know about; for in this way we will be connected in regard to what we are talking about, as to prove that it exists or it does not exist.

Colleagues? That's a crack up! 

No gods exist. All fairy tales.

And French's is mostly tumeric and vinegar.

[Mariosep]

Dear colleagues here, thanks for your presence and participation.

Now, I see that in effect there are posters here who do not care to just pick out one god, so that we can be connected as to prove that he exists or does not.

There is therefore no point in exchanging thoughts with them, and good for them that they are also not keen on proving anything at all, just into denying gods exist but without any ado about how they get to their conclusion.

Anyway, for colleagues here who do care to share their thoughts on how they get to their position that god at least the one they care to talk about, just pick one, any one at all - for we cannot be into no god in particular, that is not logically feasible but a waste of time and labor.

Please bear with me, for I am after colleagues here who do want to think on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, and share with me what is their reasoning by which they have come to the conclusion that god exists or better from their part, that god does not exist.

And also I want to tell colleagues here that I am concentrating on real thinking from all of us, without resorting to revelation or enlightenment, because revelation and enlightenment are not grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

So, if you colleagues here whether you be atheists or theists or whatever else, but just that you do care to do thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, please do think up what is the information you might have in regard to god, and we can talk further, on how to prove that he exists or not, on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

Please take notice that I am not into the god of the Bible, but god as man can and do know to exist from thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

If you be a thinker that insists that god cannot be proven to exist nor to not exist, then there is no point in taking time and trouble to write in this thread: UNLESS you also set forth your reasoning why god cannot be proven to exist nor to not exist.

And I do submit that if you do not either want to set forth your reasoning for your position that god cannot be proven to exist or to not exist, but you want to contribute writing things in this thread; well, I guess that is within your freedom of writing here, I can’t insist that you don’t.

So, there, we know what we are up to, everyone here.


Forgive me, but here is again my information on the concept of God, from my reasoning on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas:

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

[abaris]

There is therefore no point in exchanging thoughts with them, and good for them that they are also not keen on proving anything at all, just into denying gods exist but without any ado about how they get to their conclusion.

You have one god, fitting your denomination. Yet there are thousands of gods still worshipped. So, no, no argument can convince me that you're the one in the know and I am not. Outside of Jesus, the one Jesus you adore, is coming back to make a public appearance.

You know, hopefully, that there are quite a number of different Jesuses. Even among chrstians.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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?

I didn't think much of it when I read Aristotle, I liked it even less when I read Aquinas. You'll pardon me if I don't go into transports of theological delight over this oft repeated fatally flawed argument. 'Where is the fatal flaw?' I hear you asking? Step #1. If you want to prove that God is the creator of the universe, you can't use 'God created the universe' as a definitional premise. Boob.

Boru

[Mariosep]

Thanks for your presence and participation.


Dear colleagues here, what about you tell me what you want to get started on, first and foremost, and I will see whether it is the logical thing to do.

Here are some things we can get started on which I believe can be logical, otherwise we are not acting rationally:

1. Get to concur on the information on the concept of God, otherwise we are not acting logically because without the same information on the concept of God, we will be talking past our each one's head on different things; if you have objections to this way to get started, please present your objections.

2. Get to know what is existence, because otherwise we will be proving something to exist or not to exist, when we do not know what is existence at all; that is all very irrational. If you have objections against this way of getting started, please bring them forth.

3. Get to know what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside and independent of concepts in our mind; that is obvious, otherwise we are again talking about proof, but without knowing what it is we are talking about, because we don't know what it is to prove something to exist in objective reality outside and independent of concepts in our mind. If you have objections to this way of getting started, please present them in your posts.

4. Get to concur that we exist, because there are folks who claim that they don't exist, so they are illogical for posting in this forum at all, as they are contradicting their own conviction, namely, that they don't exist: for how can they not be existing when they are acting, only existing entities can act or be acted on. If you have objections against this way of getting started in my thread here, please present them.

Now, if you have your very own ways of getting started as to be relevant to this thread, please tell us in your posts.

[chimp3]

Thanks for your presence and participation.


Dear colleagues here, what about you tell me what you want to get started on, first and foremost, and I will see whether it is the logical thing to do.

Here are some things we can get started on which I believe can be logical, otherwise we are not acting rationally:

1. Get to concur on the information on the concept of God, otherwise we are not acting logically because without the same information on the concept of God, we will be talking past our each one's head on different things; if you have objections to this way to get started, please present your objections.

2. Get to know what is existence, because otherwise we will be proving something to exist or not to exist, when we do not know what is existence at all; that is all very irrational. If you have objections against this way of getting started, please bring them forth.

3. Get to know what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside and independent of concepts in our mind; that is obvious, otherwise we are again talking about proof, but without knowing what it is we are talking about, because we don't know what it is to prove something to exist in objective reality outside and independent of concepts in our mind. If you have objections to this way of getting started, please present them in your posts.

4. Get to concur that we exist, because there are folks who claim that they don't exist, so they are illogical for posting in this forum at all, as they are contradicting their own conviction, namely, that they don't exist: for how can they not be existing when they are acting, only existing entities can act or be acted on. If you have objections against this way of getting started in my thread here, please present them.

Now, if you have your very own ways of getting started as to be relevant to this thread, please tell us in your posts.

You begin thread asking what we think of your "proof" for your sky fairy. Many of us have already critiqued your argument. Rather than replying to the criticisms of your claims you demand we prove or disprove our gods? Get with the context of your own post and rep!y to the rebuttals.