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

[brewer]

Dear atheist colleagues here, thanks for your presence and contribution to my thread.

I am still waiting for Simon Moon to show up.

You see, he seems to be systematic in his comments on my proof for God existing, and complains that I do not attend to his refutation.

Now that I am into full time one on one with him, he only posted one message about his idea of me affirming the consequent is from a textbook of his.

After that post which I reacted to, telling him to think for himself and not depend on a textbook, etc., he has not shown up anymore to date.

But I will check again whether I am correct that to date he has not shown up in this thread of mine, to react to my message to him to think for himself instead of depending on a textbook.

Be back after checking again.

Don't like being ignored?

Don't like being ignored?

Don't like being ignored?

Don't like being ignored?

Don't like being ignored?

In concept of course.

[AceBoogie]

Dear atheist colleagues here, thanks for your presence and contribution to my thread.

I am still waiting for Simon Moon to show up.

You see, he seems to be systematic in his comments on my proof for God existing, and complains that I do not attend to his refutation.

Now that I am into full time one on one with him, he only posted one message about his idea of me affirming the consequent is from a textbook of his.

After that post which I reacted to, telling him to think for himself and not depend on a textbook, etc., he has not shown up anymore to date.

But I will check again whether I am correct that to date he has not shown up in this thread of mine, to react to my message to him to think for himself instead of depending on a textbook.

Be back after checking again.

Don't like being ignored?

Don't like being ignored?

Don't like being ignored?

Don't like being ignored?

Don't like being ignored?

In concept of course.

No one is affirming, nor denying of course, that sir Mario is, in fact or in theory, fond of being ignored. One cannot be sure because one is not discussing anything in fact, but rather in theory! For if we were to discuss certain subjects in fact, we would be susceptible to being incorrect, in FACT, not in theory! How dreadful!

[Astreja]

Dear atheist colleagues here, thanks for your presence and contribution to my thread.

I am still waiting for Simon Moon to show up.

You see, he seems to be systematic in his comments on my proof for God existing, and complains that I do not attend to his refutation.

Now that I am into full time one on one with him...

Did Simon Moon actually agree to a one-on-one debate, or is this just some more crap you've made up?

Regardless, this is a public thread and the rest of us shall continue to eviscerate your posts anyway.

[Mariosep]

Dear atheist colleagues here, thanks for your presence and contribution to my thread.

I am still waiting for Simon Moon to show up.

You see, he seems to be systematic in his comments on my proof for God existing, and complains that I do not attend to his refutation.

Now that I am into full time one on one with him, he only posted one message about his idea of me affirming the consequent is from a textbook of his.

After that post which I reacted to, telling him to think for himself and not depend on a textbook, etc., he has not shown up anymore to date.

But I will check again whether I am correct that to date he has not shown up in this thread of mine, to react to my message to him to think for himself instead of depending on a textbook.

Be back after checking again.

No, Simon Moon has not shown up since his last post here, and I told him to do his very own thinking instead of depending on a textbook.

No one else has given comments on my proof for God existing like him, too bad he has not shown up, I guess he is still reading his textbook on how to detect more fallacies in my proof for God existing.

No fallacies, dear Simon when you show up next, it is all in your mind.

You see, dear Simon, it is the most logical thing that when we debate or exchange thoughts on an issue, like for example the existence of God, we first work as to concur on the concept of God; otherwise it is insane at least from the party that insists on not working as to mutually with the other party first come to a bilateral concurred on concept of God, or more correctly, information on the concept of God.

The party refusing to work as to concur bilaterally on the information of the concept of God, is definitely into insane talking or writing, as he is not connected to the other party for refusing to at least propose from his part his information of the concept of the object being debated on.

In any other venue outside a net forum, the audience will just boo him off the stage, because he man is insane, or stubbornly into nonsense.


Now, dear atheist colleagues here, I will think on the feasibility of bringing in the debate over BBC in 1948, between [Lord] Russell and Fr. Copleston, SJ, on the existence of God, we will you atheists and I theist work together to understand how these two very learned and very intelligent persons debate on God's existence.

[Angrboda]

Mariosep:
Why don't you skip the affirming the consequent complaint and deal with Simon Moon's other complaints about your proof.

See his original post, here: https://atheistforums.org/thread-45866-p...pid1432039

[Mariosep]

Dear Jörmungandr:


If is not at all reasonable and much less intelligent to be debating on something, over which there is no concurred on information on the concept or definition of the object being debated on, in regard to its existence outside of our mind in objective reality of existence.

On my step 1, formulation of the concept of God, Simon asserts that I am already affirming the consequent, that is patently wrong from his part.

The right thing if he be into truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, is to from his part propose his information on the concept of God, and then we will work together as to in effect join up on the issue.

That is elementary.

But as I already mentioned it nth times and again say it, I observe that atheists in refuting God exists, do not really dwell on the issue at all, but engage in evasions all the time, for example with Simon, he executed an evasion by accusing me of affirming the consequent.

Whether from ignorance or from bad faith, that is already escaping from the issue in effect, because we have not yet joined up on the issue, for not having an agreed on concept of God, or more correctly, the information on the concept of God.


Be patient, dear atheist colleagues here, I will bring up the debate between Russell and Copleston, then you will learn how it is to debate or exchange ideas in a reasonable and intelligent manner, and of course in all civility of tongue.


Later.

[Astreja]

Not expecting Mariosep to deal with the other complaints. He`s just going to keep typing out the same pig-crap posts, pretending to be our intellectual superior rather than a textbook case of OCD.

He has no physical evidence for his god, otherwise he would have presented it by now. All he has is a ridiculous pseudo-proof rife with bad logic, and he seems to lack the strength to just let go of it and peacefully enjoy his faith in private.

[pocaracas]

The right thing if he be into truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, is to from his part propose his information on the concept of God, and then we will work together as to in effect join up on the issue.

That is elementary.

How about... NO!...?

I keep telling you this. That's not how you get to truth, facts and logic... couldn't care less for your history of ideas... history of ideas, seriously?! Why history? History is riddled with problems.... but you don't care.

Anyway... that's not how to do things.
Your step one is not valid. By affirming the consequent, or whatnot, I don't care... it's not a valid search for truth.

Were you interested in validity, and honesty, you'd start with observations.
What do we observe? We observe that everything we make has a beginning, like a table is only in existence when it's finished. It's made out of wood from trees and nails from iron extracted from the ground. Everything in nature has a beginning: trees crop up from seeds, that crop up from past trees, that came from other seeds, other trees, seeds, trees, etc, etc, etcc... old plants, old seeds, old old old life, old proto-life, old chemistry, old old Earth, proto-Earth, proto-solar-system, proto-sun.... old old galaxy, old old Universe... only protons, only quarks and gluons... big bang.

There's a very broad overview of all known causality, ever.
As I mentioned before, there's one thing all these causal events have in common: they all build up from simpler elements to produce complex things.
We cannot say anything beyond the big bang. The information just isn't available.
As such, if we want to be honest about it, we can only say: "I don't know".

However, mankind likes to speculate. Could it be this, or could it be that?
Could be a cosmic magician, or our Universe could just be some sort of high-school project for some being in a super-universe operating in a higher dimensionality than our own, or it could be the result of a spatial ripple, or quantum foam, or, or, or.... or.... or.... the possibilities are endless.
We just don't know. We don't even know enough to make an educated guess.

However, religions have insidiously convinced people that they have the one and true answer. NO! No they don't!
Stop pretending that they do. They don't. You don't have the answer.

Sure, you may call that great unknown "god", but what do you gain by that?
You gain all the baggage that's associated with the gods of religions, and that can only result in dishonesty... to say the least.
So, NO! Stop calling it "god". Call it something else... "ferhut" or something else new, with no baggage attached. I prefer to just say "I don't know".
Be honest!

[Whateverist]

I think he means to make a short cut to the conclusion without offering anything coherent as an argument. It is more efficient that way I'll bet. Damned clever theists always innovating and improving the very definition of what counts as a valid argument. Why fight it? I'll bet we're all back in church within a months time. Oh why oh why did we ever let him post here? *much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth*

[Whateverist]

Dear atheist colleagues here, thanks for your presence and contribution to my thread.

I am still waiting for Simon Moon to show up.

You see, he seems to be systematic in his comments on my proof for God existing, and complains that I do not attend to his refutation.

Now that I am into full time one on one with him, he only posted one message about his idea of me affirming the consequent is from a textbook of his.

After that post which I reacted to, telling him to think for himself and not depend on a textbook, etc., he has not shown up anymore to date.

But I will check again whether I am correct that to date he has not shown up in this thread of mine, to react to my message to him to think for himself instead of depending on a textbook.

Be back after checking again.

No, Simon Moon has not shown up since his last ass whooping when post here, and I told him to do his very own thinking instead of depending on a textbook.

Fixed that for you dumbass colleague, my bolded.  Isn't that really what you meant to say?