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

[Mystic]

I've elaborated before on these. People understand and know exactly how they prove God. Playing ignorant will do you no good. I'm tired of playing games.

[Pat Mustard]

I've elaborated before on these. People understand and know exactly how they prove God. Playing ignorant will do you no good. I'm tired of playing games.

Yes we do understand. There is no way in which your statements prove god's existence because they are deepities lacking in a single shred of evidence.

They may impress unlettered goat herders, but bring them to an educated audience versed in the principles of the scientific method and you've got nothing.

[LastPoet]

I've elaborated before on these. People understand and know exactly how they prove God. Playing ignorant will do you no good. I'm tired of playing games.

Bullshit! No you have not. You just present a bunch of assertions not even connected by logic, and you have the nerve to say we are playing games? You are the one playing a fantasy on your mind about gods and magic. You have to look in your imagination, when there is a natural world, that is much more interesting than wasting one's time with delusions.

Play the ignorant by asking for evidence? So far you just made bold assertions. You have to make sure your arguments are valid for everyone or is not your god an absolute truth. I am sure your bullshit will be better accepted amongst your correligionaries. You just have a tough crowd here, I guess.

If you're tired pray to your god to give you irrefutable repeatedly tested for all to see evidence.

[RozKek]

I've elaborated before on these. People understand and know exactly how they prove God. Playing ignorant will do you no good. I'm tired of playing games.

I'm surprised we even came up with counter arguments when your arguments barely made sense. We were pretty much trying to define your assertions the whole thread because they made no sense and you didn't help out at all, you merely repeated yourself. We can't really go somewhere when you're saying we either exist or objectively exist or w/e the hell you said lol.

[LadyForCamus]

None of those things are "proofs", MK.  They are just things you declare without evidence to be true, because you really want them to be true.  

You basically have to deny EVERYTHING you know about yourself to deny ANY Of these proofs.

No...I think you need to learn what the word "proof" means. Especially if you are referencing logical proofs specifically.

[robvalue]

Right. There are no proofs about reality. Proofs apply only to abstract systems.

[Asmodee]

Mariosep, I surmise that English is not your first language, and that is okay, but it would really help the conversation if you didn't try so hard to "sound smart", using big words and stringing different concepts together.  I'm sure you're very intelligent, but your posts are a little confusing because of your attempt to sound smart.

You seem to be asking us to disprove some god which you have defined in your head but you only define as "not the God of the Bible".  But "disprove this" is not how logic works.  You could, for instance, never give me absolute proof that fairies don't exist, or gnomes, or trolls.  You can't go out and gather evidence that something doesn't exist because something that doesn't exist is not there to leave behind evidence.  Instead you have to ask for evidence that something does exist.  You can't prove non-existence.  So there is no proof, logical or otherwise, that there are no gods, which is exactly what one would expect whether any give god(s) existed or did not exist.


Your initial post asked for our opinion on your logical "proof" of some undefined god.  The only thing you have defined about that god is that it is not the God of the Bible, yet you are quick to point out that we are wrong in any definition we give for that god.  You seem to want an intelligent conversation, yet everything you say leads away from intelligent conversation, whether it be speaking beyond your language skills, telling us that we are arguing against the wrong god when you offer no definition of which god you're talking about or, strangely, proclaiming that circular logic is natural and acceptable, which it is very much not.  Circular logic is no logic at all.

Anyway, many of us have answered your original post and told you what we found wrong with your argument.  Whether you accept our critiques or not, we have answered you.  Strangely, though, you keep changing what the conversation is supposed to be about to the point where none of us really understand what it is you actually want any more.  If you could define both the deity in question and what you expect of us in clear language you do not attempt to dress up with too much pleasantry or sophistication perhaps we can give you an answer to whatever the question is you actually want an answer to.  At this point I don't think any of us really know what the question is.

[Mister Agenda]

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.
 
[ul]
God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.[/ul]
 
 
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.

That is an adequate working definition. Have you ever heard the saying 'brevity is the soul of wit'?

[Mister Agenda]

Okay, thanks a lot for your participation, everyone here.
Are we now into causation, but I was thinking that we will talk about circular reasoning?
Anyway, so causation it is going to be.
You think that there is no causation at all, it is all what, correlation?
Causation is one kind of correlation, do you agree?

Are you going to engage ANY of the criticisms of your argument that people here took the trouble to craft?

[Mister Agenda]

Let all who want to talk about the universe that is all there is, period, come together including myself, to resolve the issue, is the universe all there is and in what sense of existence?

I have to wait for some time to post this message, otherwise it will get merged into an earlier one.


And no, I am not into changing the subject of the conversation, you bring up anything at all, and I will entertain you, is that changing the subject of the thread here; what about you bring in Trump and Clinton, that will be changing the subject of the thread here.

---

That was my purpose earlier, to get folks to start with what should come first logically, namely, the information on the concept of God, but folks are so eager to get ahead, that is why I am now addressing  anything and everything that has a connection with the issue God exists or not; for otherwise someone will sooner than later complain that I am not answering their questions or comments or whatever they write in their posts.

How about addressing replies that point out that your argument begs the question and that few of your conclusions actually follow from their premises?

You would know what we write in our posts if you were reading them.