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

[brewer]

My proof: I can't conceive of god therefore it does not exist.

Knew that lobotomy would eventually pay off.

[Mariosep]

Dear atheist colleague Simon Moon, let you and me exchange thoughts, because I stand to learn from your mastery of fallacies.

Now, you say: "This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one."

If I may, how did you come to the certainty that I am affirming the consequent, therefore strike one?

Please do not tell me that you already explained, please let us we two start from... as from a clear slate, okay?

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."

This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one.

You are stating your conclusion, that a god exists, in  your first premise.

This fallacy follows the form:

1. If P, then Q
2. Q
3. Therefore P

Here is an example:

If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat.
I have a sore throat.
Therefore, I have the flu.

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?

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."

This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one.

You are stating your conclusion, that a god exists, in  your first premise.

This fallacy follows the form:

1. If P, then Q
2. Q
3. Therefore P

Here is an example:

If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat.
I have a sore throat.
Therefore, I have the flu.

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.

This is the fallacy of composition. Strike 2.

Just because a part of something has a certain attribute, does not mean the entire thing does.

This fallacy follows the form:

A is part of B
A has property X
Therefore, B has property X.

An example is:

1. hydrogen is not wet
2. Oxygen is not wet
3. therefore water is not wet

4. From the countless instances of causation in reality, we infer to the existence of a first and ultimate cause.

This is the fallacy of equivocation. Strike 3.

The things we observe that you are referring to as 'countless instances of causation', are all instances of existing matter and energy, being acted on by natural forces. Ex material, as it were.

The universe according to you, is not previously existing matter and energy being acted on by your god. He is creating (causing the universe to come into existence) ex nihilo.  

You are equivocating the phrase 'countless instances of causation'. In one instance you are referring to creatio ex material. The next instance you are referring to creatio ex nihilo.

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.

This is a non sequitur. Strike 4.

This does not follow from the previous fallacious premises. Even if your previous premises were valid, it does not follow that the 'first cause' has to be a 'being'. All you are getting at is a first cause, which could be a materialistic first cause.

6. Conclusion: God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Does not follow from your syllogism. Every premise is flawed.

Your modus ponens is broken.

---

[downbeatplumb]

Not this AGAIN! endless repetition does not a sound argument make.

[Simon Moon]

Dear atheist colleague Simon Moon, let you and me exchange thoughts, because I stand to learn from your mastery of fallacies.

Now, you say: "This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one."

If I may, how did you come to the certainty that I am affirming the consequent, therefore strike one?

Please do not tell me that you already explained, please let us we two start from... as from a clear slate, okay?

This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one.

You are stating your conclusion, that a god exists, in  your first premise.

This fallacy follows the form:

1. If P, then Q
2. Q
3. Therefore P

Here is an example:

If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat.
I have a sore throat.
Therefore, I have the flu.

ANNEX

---

---

Your first premise contains the thing you are trying to prove.

It's a textbook example of affirming the consequent.

[Astreja]

Mariosep, give it up. You've lost. You have no evidence, your argument is riddled with logical fallacies, and now you want to start fresh?

No. Own this mess that you have made, and apologize for wasting our time.

[GrandizerII]

Mariosep, give it up.  You've lost.  You have no evidence, your argument is riddled with logical fallacies, and now you want to start fresh?

No.  Own this mess that you have made, and apologize for wasting our time.

He's probably not going to give up for a while. Best thing to do in such cases is not to put in too much effort while responding to people like him. All it does is cause unneeded frustration.

[abaris]

No.  Own this mess that you have made, and apologize for wasting our time.

He's only wasting the time of those who still fall for the bait of same old, same old and feel like discussing a circular argument ad nauseam.

[Primordial Bisque]

Mariosep, you need to shit or get off the pot. Seriously. You're making yourself look like an idiot.

[downbeatplumb]

You can make a logical argument for any position you want to take.
But just because they seem logical does not make them true.

Say I want to present an argument that unicorns are real.

So:

A unicorn is a horned creature.
There really are many creatures that have horns.
There are reports of the existence of unicorns as fact, they are even mentioned in texts that some people believe as fact i.e. The bible.
Therefore is it unreasonable to suppose that unicorns are now or were a real thing?

So you see anything you want to prove no matter how silly can be argued into existence.

To get real facts you need actual physical proof.

[Mariosep]

Dear atheist Simon Moon, you say:

Your first premise contains the thing you are trying to prove.

It's a textbook example of affirming the consequent.

Please, I ask you to tell me how YOU come to the certainty that I am affirming the consequent, please do not bring in a textbook, unless it is the Bible for you and me, which it is not for me howsoever, if it is for you.

Use your reason and intelligence instead to think on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, to determine how you from reasoning on intelligence and grounding yourself on truths, facts, logic, and not on a textbook as your Bible, but on the history of ideas with mankind, how you come to the certainty that I am affirming the consequent.

Point out the consequent of which you are certain that I am affirming, and what you mean by affirming and what consequent to be what, existing in my mind, or existing in objective reality of existence outside of my mind and your mind?

In brief, point out where in my proof for the existence of God am I affirming the existence of God outside my mind in objective reality of existence outside concepts in my mind, already in my step 1 of my proof:

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."

I propose or suggest that you just focus on the quote immediately above to decide how you ever come to certainty that I am affirming the consequent, no need to go far and wide - and please no more textbook which for you is your Bible.


ANNEX

---

Dear atheist colleague Simon Moon, let you and me exchange thoughts, because I stand to learn from your mastery of fallacies.

Now, you say: "This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one."

If I may, how did you come to the certainty that I am affirming the consequent, therefore strike one?

Please do not tell me that you already explained, please let us we two start from... as from a clear slate, okay?

Your first premise contains the thing you are trying to prove.

It's a textbook example of affirming the consequent.

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."

This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one.

You are stating your conclusion, that a god exists, in  your first premise.

This fallacy follows the form:

1. If P, then Q
2. Q
3. Therefore P

Here is an example:

If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat.
I have a sore throat.
Therefore, I have the flu.

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.

This is the fallacy of composition. Strike 2.

Just because a part of something has a certain attribute, does not mean the entire thing does.

This fallacy follows the form:

A is part of B
A has property X
Therefore, B has property X.

An example is:

1. hydrogen is not wet
2. Oxygen is not wet
3. therefore water is not wet

4. From the countless instances of causation in reality, we infer to the existence of a first and ultimate cause.

This is the fallacy of equivocation. Strike 3.

The things we observe that you are referring to as 'countless instances of causation', are all instances of existing matter and energy, being acted on by natural forces. Ex material, as it were.

The universe according to you, is not previously existing matter and energy being acted on by your god. He is creating (causing the universe to come into existence) ex nihilo.  

You are equivocating the phrase 'countless instances of causation'. In one instance you are referring to creatio ex material. The next instance you are referring to creatio ex nihilo.

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.

This is a non sequitur. Strike 4.

This does not follow from the previous fallacious premises. Even if your previous premises were valid, it does not follow that the 'first cause' has to be a 'being'. All you are getting at is a first cause, which could be a materialistic first cause.

6. Conclusion: God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Does not follow from your syllogism. Every premise is flawed.

Your modus ponens is broken.

Dear atheist colleague Simon Moon, let you and me exchange thoughts, because I stand to learn from your mastery of fallacies.

Now, you say: "This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one."

If I may, how did you come to the certainty that I am affirming the consequent, therefore strike one?

Please do not tell me that you already explained, please let us we two start from... as from a clear slate, okay?

Your first premise contains the thing you are trying to prove.

It's a textbook example of affirming the consequent.

---