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

[pocaracas]

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?

Answer these questions and then I can answer yours.

What is a god made of? Where did it come from? What are its origins? What can it do? How can it do it? What environment does it inhabit?

You know, of course, that the answers to those questions then require another question: "how do you know those things?"

[pocaracas]

People. I read 13 pages. This is a waste of fucking time. Why has even one rational person replied to this thread? Really...

Well... you know... first page he seemed like the usual lost sheep...
Now we know better.

[Mariosep]

Primordial 319 says: "Mariosep, forget about God for a moment. I think you need to work on your proof that a reply button exists."


Thanks for the tip, and I will use the reply function when I need to quote the whole post; otherwise when I am just replying to a few lines from a poster, please forgive me, it is more convenient and saving of time and trouble for all, when I just reproduce the text I am going to react to.

================

Lostlocked 321 says or asks me:

Mariosep Wrote:
.... there is only one God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

You keep repeating that one particular phrase.
What's up with that?


So that you will keep in your mind my concept of God which concept is in my mind, and I invite everyone who knows what is proof by evidence, to join me to search for all phenomena of causation, like sexual reproduction of babies by their parents, in most particular the causation that brought to existence the universe, it is the one stop shop evidence of the existence of a first and last cause, corresponding to the concept of God in my mind, namely, God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
[ Red flag here for you dear atheist colleagues, you must be ready at this point of my expatiation with another party's line to retort to me. ]

Dear atheist colleagues, I am into proving by evidence of the existence of God in concept as first and foremost the creator or maker if you will, and operator, or manager if you will, of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

You see, when you have ever done any proving by evidence of the existence of something in objective reality, then and only then you will comprehend my proof for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost etc; otherwise you can only say but without understanding that my proof is not proof - because you have never done any proving at all.

Forgive me, for you atheists read all kinds of slogans and clichés from your popularizers of atheists' categorical pronouncements against religion, and going beyond religion against God, but give me one instance from them of their proving something to exist in objective reality.
[ Red flag here for you dear atheist colleagues, you must be ready at this point of my expatiation with another party's line to retort to me. ]


Now, I expect you will bring up two atheists' established party's lines, to in effect dispense your master ideologues and also you yourselves from doing any explanation at all, for their categorical pronouncements which are empty slogans and clichés.

________________

Google: slogan, cliché

slogan
noun: slogan; plural noun: slogans

a short and striking or memorable phrase used in advertising.
a motto associated with a political party or movement or other group.
synonyms: catchphrase, jingle, byword, motto; informaltag line, buzzword, mantra
"familiar advertising slogans"
...

cliche
noun: cliché; plural noun: clichés; noun: cliche; plural noun: cliches

1. a phrase or opinion that is overused and betrays a lack of original thought.
"the old cliché “one man's meat is another man's poison.”"
synonyms: platitude, hackneyed phrase, commonplace, banality, old saying, maxim, truism, stock phrase, trite phrase; old chestnut
"a good speechwriter will steer clear of clichés"

...

_________________


Bring them on, the two party's line excuses from having to explain something at all as to show yourselves to understand what it is to prove something to exist.

=====================

Mathilda 327 says:

" Mariosep Wrote:
Do you ever take notice that I keep mentioning the phrase first and foremost, in my concept of God, namely, God in concept is FIRST AND FOREMOST the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?


From Mathilda
You are making an unfounded assumption that there needs to be a first cause. A first cause has no explanatory power. How did the first cause come about? And if it is eternal then why cannot the universe be eternal? As I explained earlier, what is the first cause of a snow flake?

__________________

"...there needs to be a first cause," that is already an over-used party's line; go and read some more but from serious thinkers about first cause.

And I hope you will come to another party's line, as you read further on cause, and bring it up here to confront me with it.


======================


Please forgive me, but you are dear atheist colleagues here, repeating again and again what I might call party's line slogans and clichés.

But your master ideologues never explain fully and thoroughly their categorical pronouncements, which strike you to be so smart.

First, you should always ask yourselves, like what do I know about cause?

Or why do I always bring in gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., when we are now in 2016 and all the past gods of primitive ancient peoples even of today's remote tribal gods don't have any mention in the press at all; I should be concentrating on the one most ambitious God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

You dear atheist colleagues here must have been shortchanged by your master ideologues of atheism.

Next time you want to bring up something to retort to my proof of God existing, please check up on whether you are or are not being shortchanged by your master ideologues.

Don't just depend on their having made it to the most read listing.

[Primordial Bisque]

Primordial 319 says: "Mariosep, forget about God for a moment. I think you need to work on your proof that a reply button exists."


Thanks for the tip, and I will use the reply function when I need to quote the whole post; otherwise when I am just replying to a few lines from a poster, please forgive me, it is more convenient and saving of time and trouble for all, when I just reproduce the text I am going to react to.

Fine, then learn how to use the Quote function. Putting a little time and effort into your posts goes a long way.

And, as usual, you avoid all direct questioning regarding this god of yours.

What is a god made of? Where did it come from? What are its origins? What can it do? How can it do it? What environment does it inhabit?

Mariosep, the answers and supporting data to these questions are important for you, as the believer, to know; otherwise, you're left with nothing but an idea based on terrible logic, with no real evidence. Go on, give those questions a shot. I dare you.

[Whateverist]

.... there is only one God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

You keep repeating that one particular phrase.
What's up with that?

Well there you go.  Surely she wouldn't keep repeating it unless ..

---

.. he has completely lost his mind.

---

[Whateverist]

Mathilda 327 says:

"    Mariosep Wrote:
   Do you ever take notice that I keep mentioning the phrase first and foremost, in my concept of God, namely, God in concept is FIRST AND FOREMOST the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?


From Mathilda
You are making an unfounded assumption that there needs to be a first cause. A first cause has no explanatory power. How did the first cause come about? And if it is eternal then why cannot the universe be eternal? As I explained earlier, what is the first cause of a snow flake?

__________________

"...there needs to be a first cause," that is already an over-used party's line; go and read some more but from serious thinkers about first cause.

And I hope you will come to another party's line, as you read further on cause, and bring it up here to confront me with it.

Looks like our problem is not taking our opinions from serious thinkers.  Shame on us.  Come on guys, we're better than this.  It isn't like she is insisting we think for ourselves.  She only asks that we cut and past our answers from serious thinkers, you know, the ones she uses herself.  Then, if we can point out to her that she has misunderstood her own sources, I'm sure she will agree with us.
So she hasn't been ignoring what we say, she's just waiting for us to confront her properly using authorities that she herself takes seriously.  Nothing out of the ordinary here.[/sarcasm]

[Ravenshire]

Primordial 319 says: "Mariosep, forget about God for a moment. I think you need to work on your proof that a reply button exists."


Thanks for the tip, and I will use the reply function when I need to quote the whole post; otherwise when I am just replying to a few lines from a poster, please forgive me, it is more convenient and saving of time and trouble for all, when I just reproduce the text I am going to react to.

You have been asked repeatedly to use the "Reply" and "Quote" features to make your posts readable. You've even ignored this request from at least one member of the forum staff. I've come to the conclusion that you simply do not care enough about your message or your audience to show even a bit of basic consideration. Please show us that basic consideration or kindly go fuck yourself.

[pocaracas]

Primordial 319 says: "Mariosep, forget about God for a moment. I think you need to work on your proof that a reply button exists."


Thanks for the tip, and I will use the reply function when I need to quote the whole post; otherwise when I am just replying to a few lines from a poster, please forgive me, it is more convenient and saving of time and trouble for all, when I just reproduce the text I am going to react to.

You have been asked repeatedly to use the "Reply" and "Quote" features to make your posts readable. You've even ignored this request from at least one member of the forum staff. I've come to the conclusion that you simply do not care enough about your message or your audience to show even a bit of basic consideration. Please show us that basic consideration or kindly go fuck yourself.

I've reported him as promised... it's out of our hands, now.

[Excited Penguin]

Mariosep, just wrap the bit of text you want to reply to in quote tags, that's all.

[brewer]

Mariosep, just wrap the bit of text you want to reply to in quote tags, that's all.

Is that all you have to do? I think I might give that a try. 

Mario's doppelganger.