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

[brewer]

[edit]

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.

[edit]

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.

[edit]

Another house-cleaning chore from my part for my landscape view here, please abstain dear atheist colleagues here from the sh** and fu** words, because I beg of you, it is not doing credit to, as you are atheists, to this Atheistforums.org.

You atheist colleagues keep on and on saying that you don't see my proof to be any proof, but I ask you to show me an example of how if ever you prove something to exist in objective reality, and I am not getting any at all; please at least see that I have presented a proof, you also present an example of a proof of something existing, step by step, before you even repeat again and again that I don't have proof for God existing - here goes: in concept first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Our presence here in this Atheistforums website and that it is working properly is also evidence for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost etc.

[edit]

How can any human person know what is proof by evidence when it comes to God existing - here goes: in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, when he does not master the phenomenon of causation which is one of the 

[edit]

When you think on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas from your purest reasoning faculty and intelligence, it will be like Eureka from Archimedes: [b]God exists!!! In concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning!!!

It's getting worse for you. Repeated the "God concept" thing 8 times and threw in the "truths" thing once, all in one post. But I noticed that you used "ect." twice. Are you loosing steam? Not nearly as motivated as before? Maybe you are lacking in divine inspiration. Or maybe being inspired by God is not enough. Try contacting Tony Robbins or Caitlyn Jenner. They should be able to give you that additional motivation that you appear to be loosing. Caitlyn should be right up your alley. 

People that repeat things over and over are usually found to have a psychiatric disorder. Would you like to comment on this? 

Fuck, Shit, Cunt, God, Fuck, Shit, Cunt, God, Fuck, Shit, Cunt, God, Fuck, Shit, Cunt, God, Fuck, Shit, Cunt, God, Fuck, Shit, Cunt, God, Fuck, Shit, Cunt, God.

Now that's some fine ass repetition!

[LostLocke]

Our presence here in this Atheistforums website and that it is working properly is also evidence for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost etc.

...of a functioning server run by humans, first and foremost.
You can't just jump from A to B without a bridge in between.

[Astreja]

Astreja says (#289), but first, thanks Astreja, for coming over, we are both new here; there, that is my greeting to you, and I want to tell you I love all women because women are the mothers of mankind.

I am, however, not your mother and I do not love you or even like you at this point in the conversation.

Forgive me, Astreja, but you seem to be repeating what we might call the party's standard reaction to my information on the 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.

That's because your so-called "information" is nonsense.  You cannot define a god into existence.  Either it exists in real terms that can be objectively measured, or it does not.

You tell me that there are many God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., owing to there being so many different religions, etc., so? So, dear Astreja...

Do not use "dear" when addressing people -- In My culture it is extremely rude to do so, as it implies an unwarranted familiarity and also condescension.  You may address Me as Astreja, or as Ms. Odinsdóttir if you wish to be more formal.

...start with at least one or you will never get to know seriously at all what is the information on the concept of God, etc., and miss to relate with people who do know for certain that God exists.

Okay, let's start with Me as the god for the purpose of this analysis.  I am in charge of the Northern Hemisphere spring equinox, punctuation, chocolate, and Random Equipment Malfunctions.  I'm not interested in starting with your alleged god, as I've never seen any good evidence for its existence, but I am reasonably certain in a pragmatic, non-solipsistic way that I exist.  Your move.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

You didn't answer the question.

Instead you went out of your way to mangle up all the responses you get from everyone and merge them into the same text.

What is so hard about hitting reply and posting your response underneath?

[I_am_not_mafia]

Addressing Mathilda: it seems that you are quite active here recently, so I will reproduce my OP, and you tell me just one thing only per post what is wrong with my proof for God existing.

Please do not insist that you have already said what is or are wrong with my proof, for it is possible that you could have better things to say now on what is or are wrong with my proof for God exists, but just limit it to one thing wrong per post.

I propose that you focus on causation, because you just bring up first cause and asking me what about the cause of the first cause.

How can any human person know what is proof by evidence when it comes to God existing - here goes: in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, when he does not master the phenomenon of causation which is one of the components of existence.

Tell you what, dear atheist colleague, Mathilda, think about this statement from yours truly:

"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

When you think on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas from your purest reasoning faculty and intelligence, it will be like Eureka from Archimedes: God exists!!! In concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning!!!



ANNEX

This is my proof for God existing.

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 infer to the existence of a first and ultimate cause.

5. We find that the first and ultimate cause of all instances of causation in reality corresponds to our information on the concept of God, namely, the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

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?

Already answered on page 1 and you ignored it.

Your entire argument relies on the equivocation of the word 'cause'. The example I use is to ask what causes a hammer to exist? when a handle and head are put together? Or when a tree is cut down and carved to create a handle and the Earth is mined for ore to melt down and make the head? Or when a seed is planted and the atoms that make the metal are created in the nucleus of a sun?

There is no cause. There are just atoms being rearranged into different states due to the flow of energy. Causation is a concept that we humans use to describe something in simple terms. You're using this concept out of scope.

And why is it that theists always talk in terms of 'proofs' ?

[AceBoogie]

What do you think of my proof for unicorns...?

I personally believe in unicorns...

also... insert pseudo-intellectual nonsense...

therefore unicorns.

See? Now agree with me so I feel validated.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Mariosep. Please answer these questions:

1) Why does there need to be a first cause? What is the first cause of a snowflake?

2) What is a god? 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?

[Pat Mustard]

So, I've been away a couple of days...


Can anyone please let me know if Marisep has ever responded to any of the refutations of his original argument?

Or is he still trying to prove his nose exists?

Too lazy to read over a couple of dozen pages.

No on both counts. He's down to copy pastaing his own posts and thanking people for showing him how to use quote functons while refusing to do so.

[Mister Agenda]

You atheist colleagues keep on and on saying that you don't see my proof to be any proof, but I ask you to show me an example of how if ever you prove something to exist in objective reality, and I am not getting any at all; please at least see that I have presented a proof, you also present an example of a proof of something existing, step by step, before you even repeat again and again that I don't have proof for God existing - here goes: in concept first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

You don't use logical proof to prove something exists, you demonstrate its existence by experiment or observation. I don't have to formally establish a premise, reasoning, and conclusion to prove cats are real; all I have to do is show you one. I can't think of ANY examples where a thing with objective existence outside of the human imagination was proven to be real in objective reality by logic. If you can find such a thing, maybe you can use that method to prove God exists.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

So the premise in all this that is argued is "If we have true (objective accurate) existence, then absolute accurate sight that judges who we are in truth is required which can only be God".

If you can accept that much, we can then discuss whether we do have true (objective accurate) existence.

I tried to carve that down to just the premise I asked for. Even then, it's too much.

The premise would be: We have true (objective accurate) existence.

That's the sort of assertion that sounds like it really ought to be a conclusion. Do you mean by it that objective reality really exists? If so, I can work with that and we can proceed to PM if you can resist the temptation to wall of text what should be a single sentence.