There is only one mistake in all proofs for God existence. The existence of anything or anybody (no matter what or who) can't be proven, but it must be shown. A proof of existence of anything or anybody is not a logical problem, but it's a physical problem. Don't prove, just show!

Pocaracas (#271) says: "Hello Mariosep. I'm an atheist and I too have a concept of what it is that supports god belief..."


From my part it is not a belief except with religions, it is for me founded on evidence and the process arrived at is thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

See the PO, click on page 1, it will come up; my proof is based on evidence, step by step, with thinkibg on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

---

Eugeny says (#281):

"There is only one mistake in all proofs for God existence. The existence of anything or anybody (no matter what or who) can't be proven, but it must be shown. A proof of existence of anything or anybody is not a logical problem, but it's a physical problem. Don't prove, just show!"


That is a pretty much categorical statement, but have you thought over your statement, to see whether it is grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas?

There is or was an atheist of considerable readership among atheists who told mankind, what is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof - something to that effect.


Dear atheist colleagues here, I am now into replying to anyone in the latest page of this thread as it comes forth, because there are so many of you and I am as I have said, not a battalion; besides you can see my proof by clicking on page 1.

And in summary, my proof is founded on evidence, namely, the countless events of causation in the reality of existence, which begs mankind to think as to infer to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

The way I would argue as an atheist is to deny causation exists at all.

---

Asmodee (#273) says:

"So, here is my concept of God. God is a ducky who first and foremost is the cutest ducky ever. And he has no butthole because buttholes are gross and duckys are not. Discuss."


Well, I will appeal to this Atheistforums.org and reply to you that your way of reacting to the thread, as you are an atheist, it does not bestow any credit to Atheistforums.org.

---

Whateverist says (#277):

"I actually entertained the notion it might be an apologist-bot."


My impression with atheists, please forgive me, but the fact speaks for itself, atheists do not reason on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, they do what I see to be 'to impassonate'; that word is from my composition of a new term, by adding a prefix and a suffix to the word, passion.

If you are tired of my alleged by you repeating as though you are dealing with a bot, then try reasoning as to come to a good comment on the evidence for the existence of God, considering the the countless events of causation, but mind you, God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

(October 28, 2016 at 4:42 am)Mariosep Wrote: Here, I will give you the link:
http://www.dlc.fi/%7Eetkirja/dictionary.htm

That page is a steaming pile of bullshit. Very little, if anything, in it relates to atheism.

(October 28, 2016 at 6:16 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(October 28, 2016 at 5:48 am)Mariosep Wrote: Dear Mathilda, I don't change any font or font size, what I do is to copy and paste what I have written in the quick reply edit box at the end of a page, into Ms Word, to correct spelling, then return it to the Atheistforums edit box, next have a preview, if everything is all right in the preview, I click on the post link.

That would be why then. MS Word is adding a load of formatting instructions to it which are then be copied when you paste it back into the quick reply box.

You could paste into notepad and then copy and paste back into the web browser to remove the formatting instructions.

Or, just hit the fucking "reply" button under the post as has already been pointed out to him.

The truly sad part is that this site doesn't function much differently than those running vBulletin. It's just a handy excuse...

Mariosep: Repeating yourself over and over and over only makes a point or a poof to you.

Go ahead, say it again. OK, again. Now, one more time but with feeling. Wait, I almost got it that time, say it again. 

Repeating yourself this many times is irritating and gives reason to question your intelligence. 

OK, now say it again.

(October 28, 2016 at 6:05 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Qwraith asks:

"Hypothetically speaking, Mariosep;

If other universes are a reality and some being from a universe other than our own was the entity responsible for creating our universe, would you consider that being to be god?"

My answer, Yes; because then it satisfies my definition of God, namely, in concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe i.e. ours, and man and everything with a beginning.


Incidentally, dear readers when this message does not come out okay, let me know, for I am now not using MS Word to spellcheck.

I just do everything in the Quick Reply edit box and no more previewing.


Back to existence of God or non-existence of God.
However, when I learn that this entity from another universe created our universe, etc., and there are other universes, then my reason and intelligence will be keen to think on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, as to come to God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of all the universes whatsoever and everything whatsoever that depends on a first and ultimate cause for its existence, and I will call that entity, God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of all universes and man and everything depending on the first and ultimate cause of everything with a beginning.

Why? Because my reason and intelligence inclines me to think as to come to that conclusion.

Suppose every universe is independent in its own existence without whatsoever dependency upon anything at all, and every universe cannot howsoever be extinguished at all: then my conclusion as a dependent entity with reason and intelligence will be: Wow, now I can ask the God of this or that universe whether things are better in their universes, for me to apply to join them - unless of course I cannot do that, namely, migration at all - then that's just too bad for me.

So, dear atheist colleagues here, what is your comment to my proof for God, in the OP - just click on page 1 to see my proof, starting with my concept of God, namely, in concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

I guess 29 pages of replies that point out the flaws in your logic, answer your questions regarding what would be acceptable evidence, and general ridicule isn't enough for you?

(October 28, 2016 at 6:47 pm)Eugeny_Anatolievich Wrote: There is only one mistake in all proofs for God existence. The existence of anything or anybody (no matter what or who) can't be proven, but it must be shown. A proof of existence of anything or anybody is not a logical problem, but it's a physical problem. Don't prove, just show!

Think about it Cheeriosop.  E_A makes a good point.  What really does any of your argumentation amount to?

Thanks everyone in particular atheist colleagues here, for your presence and participation.


I will now resume my exchange with Mathilda.

If memory serves, we were talking about the information of the concept of God, and you ask me what is a god, and also we were talking about what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

I will no longer continue with Asmodee because he is not a serious and productive respondent.

So, dear Mathilda, is there something you know about the God that monotheists accept to exist in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind?

I refer to information, because I fear that you might insist that you don't need to have any knowledge of God because you don't believe in God, etc.

But with information, it will not compromise you at all, that people will take you to be already in any way committed to the existence of the object, you have information on in regard to its concept or definition.


So Mathilda, and dear atheist colleagues here, I am not into entrapping you into any tricky situation at all, then declare that you have already committed to this or that position.

You can always insist that that is a wrong impression from me, if indeed I am insisting at all that you have already committed yourself to that position whatever.


I have not gone to see what replies atheists have made to my long sporadic posting in an earlier hour here, sporadic because there were no respondents while I was into delivering one after another of my thoughts.


Can we Mathilda, and also dear atheists here, have a serious and productive exchange, i.e. without bringing in endless matters without any decisive importance to the resolution of the issue of this thread, or going into flippancies?


Okay, I will now bring up the Finnish Dictionary of Atheism, and no, you don't have to adhere to it, but just that there are atheists who know of the information of the concept of God similar to the information of the concept of God I have proffered here repeatedly.

See next post for my quote from that dictionary.


As regards how to prove the existence of something to exist in objective reality, if memory serves, I was into expounding on when we have a concept in our mind of something, then we can go forth in objective existence to search for evidence of that something that corresponds to the concept in our mind - and that is also a way to prove the existence of something.


So we have two items here:

1. The information on the concept of God.
2. The what and how to prove the existence of something.

(October 28, 2016 at 10:27 pm)Mariosep Wrote: As regards how to prove the existence of something to exist in objective reality, if memory serves, I was into expounding on when we have a concept in our mind of something, then we can go forth in objective existence to search for evidence of that something that corresponds to the concept in our mind - and that is also a way to prove the existence of something.


So we have two items here:

1. The information on the concept of God.
2. The what and how to prove the existence of something.

#1 is a problem because god-concepts vary widely from one religion to another, and even from one believer to another within the same religion.  This really should be taken care of before proceeding to #2, because it will have an impact on how to proceed in the search.

Regarding "what and how," I'm someone who is generally not impressed by hypothetical evidence such as is found in apologetics, and prefer actual physical evidence to anything else.  In the case of trying to prove the existence of a god, since the claim itself is so extraordinary and so out of keeping with what I know of the world, physical evidence is the only thing good enough to support belief in a god's existence.

Here is the definition of god in the Dictionary of Atheism produced by atheists in Finland.

Please give attention to the last text at the end of the entry on God, as follows:

"Some deities are asserted to be the directors of time and fate itself, to be the givers of human law and morality, to be the ultimate judges of human worth and behaviour, and to be the designers and creators of the Earth or the universe."


I just add the entry on Godless for more enlightenment on what is God from atheists in Finland, and that being Godless is not being into a bad word.

________________

http://www.dlc.fi/%7Eetkirja/dictionary....ocId382589
God: A deity or a god, is a postulated supernatural entity, usually, but not always, of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by humans. They assume a variety of forms, but are frequently depicted as having human or animal form.

Sometimes it is considered blasphemous to imagine the deity as having any concrete form. They are usually immortal. They are commonly assumed to have personalities and to possess consciousness, intellects, desires, and emotions much like humans.

Such natural phenomena as lightning, floods, storms, other "acts of God”, and miracles are attributed to them, and they may be thought to be the authorities or controllers of every aspect of human life (such as birth or the afterlife).

Some deities are asserted to be the directors of time and fate itself, to be the givers of human law and morality, to be the ultimate judges of human worth and behaviour, and to be the designers and creators of the Earth or the universe.

Godless: An atheist. Godless is a very good word and I hope that people begin to use it. Godless is not a negative word. Spotless is not negative. Faultless is not negative. Flawless is not negative. Blameless is not negative etc.
_______________________


Thanks for your presence and participation, dear atheist colleagues here.