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

[robvalue]

A closer analogy would be that you can't have something and nothing at the same time. But nothing could turn into something, theoretically.

[Mister Agenda]

Do you have anything that goes like: True Premise->Valid Reasoning->Sound Conclusion?

Yes I do. I stated these proofs in summary. I've gone through them in details arguing from the soundness of each premise and valid structure with true premises. If you are interested to go through them, shoot me a pm.  We can go through any of them.

You have time to go through them with me in detail in PM, but don't have time to repeat yourself in public? How about you just give me an example of the premise you are most confident is true? If you can show me one that bears scrutiny, I'll accommodate your odd request to go to PM where no one but us and the moderators can see our conversation.

[Mister Agenda]

That is very good, now I invite the experts in science to prove the existence of the nose in their faces, and redact the proof in writing, that means in clear precise concise words, step by step.


Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath the proof by experts in science with science the existence of the nose in their faces, and redact the process of proving in written language, with clear concise and precise words - step by step.

Pachomius from The Thinking Atheist forum, right? You have a very distinctive writing style.

[Mister Agenda]

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?

Now that I recognize you, I'm less inclined to engage, because I know it will never get any better than this. However, let's talk about your definition. It has the same problem with excess verbiage that conveys zero additional information as everything else you write.

Your definition boils down to: God is the creator and operator of the universe.

The universe includes man, so that's redundant. It adds nothing at all to talk about God as a concept, everyone knows you're talking about God as a concept. It's like defining nose by starting with 'Noses exist as a concept as first and foremost blah blah blah.

It sounds like you're saying God did not create nor does God control anything that doesn't have a beginning. I've no clue what you think that adds to the definition.

So, working with 'God is the creator and operator of the universe'. Nothing about how powerful and supernatural and wise and outside of time God is? If the cause of the universe was a mindless quantum fluctuation, would you worship it and call it God? If the cause of the universe was nerd with thick-lensed glasses and zits pressing 'run universe' on a simulation we're not equipped to distinguish from 'real' reality, would you worship him and call him God?

Your definition of God defines anything at all that may have started up the universe is God with a capital G. I don't think even you would agree that the initial hot, dense state of the universe is God. So I think your definition needs work. If you think it's fine, you've done the equivalent of naming your cat God and declaring that you've proved God exists because your cat exists, and your cat is God.

[Whateverist]

Yes I do. I stated these proofs in summary. I've gone through them in details arguing from the soundness of each premise and valid structure with true premises. If you are interested to go through them, shoot me a pm.  We can go through any of them.

You have time to go through them with me in detail in PM, but don't have time to repeat yourself in public? How about you just give me an example of the premise you are most confident is true? If you can show me one that bears scrutiny, I'll accommodate your odd request to go to PM where no one but us and the moderators can see our conversation.

Those really are exceedingly rare around here.  Please do share those publicly.  We could all use the light.

[Minimalist]

Dear colleagues here, please try to see that I am all the time trying to get us to agree on something at all,

Er, we agree.  It's you that is the problem.  Provide evidence for your god or fuck off.

There.  Simple, eh?

[Asmodee]

Dear Asmodee, please try to be serious, you have got to have in your mind a concept of God that or the information of the concept of God that corresponds to the information of the concept of God that I proffer, otherwise you are denying to no serious purpose but as a flippant remark, the existence of God in accordance with the information of the concept of God from me a theist, namely:

I am being serious. I seriously have no idea how you define the god for whom you are arguing existence.

You see, you say, "God", not "god". By using a capitol G in the front you are proclaiming the word "God" to be, not a title, but a proper name. You keep talking about a "concept of God". Where do you get this concept?

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

As you are to all appearances intent on flippancy, I will have to terminate my exchange with you - unless you return to the kind of serious mood that does credit to Atheistforums.org.

Okay, that is one aspect of the god you are talking about, but it is not a definition of the exact god to which you refer.

And don't threaten me with walking away from the conversation. You came to us, not the other way around. You either want to have the conversation or you don't. I'm trying to understand what the hell you're talking about. Nothing more.

Hey, let me relate a story to you. In American comedy movies we often have a scene where some American who only speaks English is trying to talk to someone who doesn't speak English. To get their point across they talk louder, slower and repeat themselves a lot. Funny thing, though, no matter how many times they repeat it a person who doesn't speak English still doesn't magically understand what they're saying. So why did I tell this story? To point out that no matter how many times you answer my questions by repeating what you've already said, I'm still not going to understand what you're talking about.

I am asking serious questions of you, not being flippant. But you are responding with the same things you've already said, word for word. If I understood it the first time I wouldn't be asking for an explanation. If I need an explanation then you can't say what you've already said.

May I just request that you present your information of the concept of God in a succinct statement, there is a Finnish Dictionary of Atheism* which might assist you to come to an information of the concept of God or god, which then we can exchange thoughts on as to ultimately concur that yes, God exists. or no, God does not exist.

Why do I need to define a god? I don't believe in any. You are the one claiming some god exists. I don't believe that. YOU define the nature of the god your talking about.

Perhaps this will help. I will give you a list of specific questions that I don't understand about what you are saying. You don't need to answer each and every one, it's just to give you an idea what I don't understand.

What god are you talking about? Is it a god you can name from some text or existing religion? Is it just a concept of god that you have? If it's just a concept that you have what makes you think it's real? Or are you talking about just a general concept, saying that some deity must have created everything? If that's the case you should not capitalize "God" because it insinuates a specific god rather than a general concept.

I really, truly do not understand what you're talking about, especially now that you've asked me to define God. Normally it's the one who is trying to present evidence that such a thing exists who does the defining. Maybe you should take things a little slower and define what it is you even want out of this conversation. Your "proof" that some vague concept of some specific "God" exists is nonsense. That was your original question and it has been answered. Now we chat back and forth with no real goal, no clear explanation of what it is you are arguing for and, really, no idea what you're even talking about. Take it slow, one concept at a time. Why are we having this conversation? What purpose do you hope to achieve? My purpose was originally to answer your original post. Now my purpose is morbid curiosity as I try to figure out what it is you're talking about. I honestly do not know.

[brewer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wi8Fv0AJA4

[LadyForCamus]

You have time to go through them with me in detail in PM, but don't have time to repeat yourself in public? How about you just give me an example of the premise you are most confident is true? If you can show me one that bears scrutiny, I'll accommodate your odd request to go to PM where no one but us and the moderators can see our conversation.

Those really are exceedingly rare around here.  Please do share those publicly.  We could all use the light.

Ooh! Let's have a formal debate between MK and MA! He wants one on one with no interference after all! That could be a lot of fun. For me to watch, lol. [emoji56]

[Arkilogue]

A closer analogy would be that you can't have something and nothing at the same time. But nothing could turn into something, theoretically.

Something can make a relative "nothing" space inside itself. How does nothing turn into something?