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

[Jesster]

I told you to move on. Answer Irrational's post as he has requested and stop drooling over me. I might post something if you ever get to a solid point, but don't think this line of conversation you are trying with me is going to work towards that. It's not so far.

The only thing I will say is that I never said "God does not exist" and that is also not the default atheist position. I only don't accept the assertion that he does exist. It's your job to prove it, which is what you came to this thread to do. Now get on with it and stop dodging the ball. Do something more than make bald assertions.

And please don't tell me you dislike certain language. It only makes me yell FUCK louder. I like "cuss language".

Now in case you want to keep poking at me on this while ignoring others, I am not going to respond until you do something useful here (oh I might chime in if you're particularly useless somewhere else... maybe). Either do that or answer someone else instead of ignoring them.

[LadyForCamus]

Dear Jesster, you say: "We have nothing to prove in this topic."

May I just submit that you have to demonstrate that you think on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, of course not in support of the claim God exists, but in support of your reasoning that God does not exist - that is not any burden at all, but it is what you owe yourself for having the use of reason and intelligence: for I submit that being an atheist is no exemption from thinking at all as to be without any rational grounding for taking up the identity of an atheist.

That is the positive part incumbent upon all atheist persons, namely, the keen concentration to examine any claim made by people with an idea to prove, in the present context that God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, exists in objective reality outside and independent of our mind.

Bold mine:

This has been accomplished right here in your own thread (and with ease) in response to your "argument". If you can't put forth a valid and sound argument supported by overwhelmingly convincing evidence, then our rejection of your claim is perfectly rational, and intelligently arrived at.

So again, do you bring any actual evidence to back up your assertion? Do you at least have, at minimum, a logical argument that doesn't assume its conclusion?

We're waiting.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, dear Jesster, what point do you want us to go together on, so that we will be one on one, and resolve the issue God exists or not [...]

lol, what sort of fool thinks that the issue of the (non)existence of gods(s) is decided in one-on-one debate?

Forgive my scorn, but you're not the best or the first believer to come down the pike, and you have no business resolving the issue of your god's existence so far as I can see. Looks to me like you don't even know what you worship.

[chimp3]

That is the positive part incumbent upon all atheist persons, namely, the keen concentration to examine any claim made by people with an idea to prove, in the present context that God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, exists in objective reality outside and independent of our mind.

Then also important, negatively to abstain from all kinds of distracting utterances, like all instances of flippancy, unwelcome remarks bordering on what might be called cuss language, and you know what I mean.

I am still waiting for your response to my counterclaim that it is possible for there to be more than one creator (by your logic). Of, course I don't fucking believe that myself but it would seem the universe is governed by a committee or warring overlords more so than by a competent designer. My evidence for this :



Candiru fish.

[comet]

I only do observations that support a belief,  not what I want it to be belief. It may have been born.  If a person needs it to be dumb, or smart, they might want to ask why that is.  

We are smart, well sort of, and we have nothing the universe doesn't have more of.  That's is more rational than saying we have something more than the universe has.

Ask, "why was it born?"

Does the universe have introspection?

Its not that I ask "why was it born?", its more of asking what are some reasonable explanations as to how it got here.  Given that everything is connected to everything else the question of the universe being life or non life leans heavily on the side of 'life". The interactions that we see around us are better described as "alive" than any other notion I know.  "evolution" is an example.    So "born" fits, for now.

"introspection", that is an information processing question.  Does the universe have more, less, or equal information processing capabilities when compared to humans?  Having less than or equal to humans just does not match observation. 

So theist are 1/2 correct IMO.  They have the omni trait completely wrong, among other, but why people today follow best guesses from 2000 years ago in this matter is beyond me.  It does give me a data point tho as to what we are.  Just a smart ape with some cleaver programming. just a protein with another layer of complexity.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Air tight, my friend!  Air.  Tight.  

I think it goes more like this:

1: The Bible its the truth.

2: ?????

3: We need a first cause.

4: ?????

5: Therefore the Bible its the truth.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Every argument for the existence of God can be very subtly altered to provide an even stronger argument against the existence of God I find.

For example, altering the OP's argument as little as possible we get:

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 find that they are all cases of rearrangement of existing matter via the flow of energy, we infer that there cannot exist a first and ultimate cause.

5. Conclusion: God does not exist except solely as an imagined concept.

See. Far better. You can back it up with evidence too, reproducible, and it's also falsifiable therefore within the scope of science. All you need to do is find an instance of causation that does not involve the rearrangement of existing matter via an energy flow.

Good luck with that though.

[Ben Davis]

Hi Mariosep, you should definitely create an Intro thread so we can get to know you a bit. We have no problem with people joining who want to get involved in good conversations, atheist or otherwise

I've not read all 10 pages so sorry if I repeat anything that others have already posted but I had to pick up on your first response.

First, I identify the kind of God I am proving to exist, by presenting my information on God, namely, that first and foremost He is the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Then you're assuming your conclusion. You're starting with an anticipated result and then looking for evidence to confirm that. That's a backwards process. Instead, you should make observations, gather evidence about them and analyse it in order to create hypotheses as to the mechanisms involved. From there, you make predictions based on your hypothetical models then create experiments to test those hypotheses, see what stands up and what falls down. Often that means trashing hypotheses and gathering new evidence. Once you've gone through that iterative process a few times, you can draw up your preliminary model as a prospective theory and submit for peer review. That could result in your models being completely trashed and you starting from scratch. Assuming you finally get through peer review, you still haven't established a cause, only validated your observations and provided a set of demonstrated mechanisms that explain the observations. To establish causality, you have to have demonstrably valid models and progress your thinking from there.

On that consideration, God is the cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

On that consideration, you're nowhere near to establishing demonstrable observations regarding any supernatural event, let alone those which could be associated with any gods, let alone one specific god. Further, without demonstrable observations, you haven't the information to establish a proper definition of any causes, certainly not enough to start assigning any causality to anything that might meet your current views of what a god is. Without definitions, even your method fails because you can't possibly know what you're looking for.

So, we go forth into the realm of reality of existence to search for all instances of causation, and infer therefrom that all instances of causation are evidence for the existence of an entity corresponding to the concept of God, namely, first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

'Instances of causation' is a meaningless term. At this point in your process, you have nothing on which to understand what is being caused.

So, we have evidence for God existing in the reality of existence, corresponding to the concept of God, namely: first and foremost the creator (cause) and operator (cause) of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Where? Nothing you've proposed will do that. You have no listed observations, no verified evidence, no testable hypotheses, no experimental models, no falsifiable theory and nothing on which to build an understanding of causality.

[robvalue]

Simple question, one I rarely get a satisfactory answer to:

Why should I care about any sort of God?

Any sensible definition doesn't preclude a computer programmer in a parent dimension, by the way. I don't understand the compulsion to worship it or to "talk" to it with no idea whether or not the messages are being received by it. The idea that it plans to manifest us in this parent reality after death is absurd, quite honestly. It's much more reasonable to assume it has no idea we are here at all, let alone self-aware.

I don't deny that the concept of God exists, as a concept. It's when you try and move it into reality that you will always fail. It's unfalsifiable at best; incoherent at worst.

[Pat Mustard]

There are many stronger (100% conclusive) arguments for God.

Which ones?

I am the eggman, they are the eggmen
I am the walrus, coo coo ca joo

Edit: god exists, QED