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

[Rosie_Rivets]

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.

My concept of god is that he is merely a figment of the human imagination, on par with other fanciful non-entities such as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. 

Shall we work from there?

[Primordial Bisque]

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.

No, it isn't wrong. You are affirming the consequent. Your first premise is the same as your conclusion. Including the word 'exists' in the conclusion does not make any difference. You are going off an assumption that your god already exists just by stating it's function. It's not that difficult to understand.

But it doesn't matter because you keep using the word 'concept'. You already know the truth: that there are no physical properties. Your concept of god lacks the necessary attributes, and is meaningless. You've lost. You've been losing since your first post.

[Astreja]

My concept of god is that he is merely a figment of the human imagination, on par with other fanciful non-entities such as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. 

Shall we work from there?

Sounds good to Me.  Okay, Mariosep, we're going to go with the Rosie_Rivets god-concept instead of yours, as we seem to have consensus here for the "gods are imaginary" hypothesis, and no consensus for your hypothesis.

[Pat Mustard]

I wouldn't even give this one a learner's permit toward becoming an atheist.  We have standards.

Let's not be too hasty here, mario might have access to lots of babies. My supplies are rapidly diminishing.

[Pat Mustard]

To put it simply, no one.

Says who? You? Are you the ultimate authority in defining supreme intelligence?

I did.

Oh my. All HAIL APENOTKILLAPE!

Huggy's an idiot. Better not to follow him down the rabbit hole.

[Pat Mustard]

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.

Ni!

[AceBoogie]

Mario, please stop with this convoluted nonsense. Simply SAY WHAT YOU MEAN and quit arguing semantics. You want everyone to get lost in your world of language and quite honestly no one here is buying into it. So say what you mean or go away.

[Mariosep]

Thanks everyone for your presence and contribution to this my thread.

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.

So, here is an excerpt from the debate between Russell and Copleston, I will just reproduce the beginning up to a line from Russell where he agrees that it is a good plan proposed by Copleston on how they would be conducting themselves in the debate.

http://reasonbroadcast.blogspot.com/2012...trand.html

See the third debate of three, the one between Russell and Copleston.

A Debate on the Existence of God by Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston (1948)

The Famous 1948 BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God
by Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston

BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of UK/BBC copyright.

This debate was a Third Programmme broadcast of the British Broadcasting Corporation in 1948.

Reprinted in several sources, the following is from Bertrand Russell on God and Religion edited by Al Seckel. Note: [ brackets means missing audio ].

A Debate on the Existence of God

Bertrand Russell [hereafter R:] and F.C. Copleston [hereafter C:]

C: As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term "God." I presume that we mean a supreme personal Being -- distinct from the world and Creator of the world. Would you agree -- provisionally at least -- to accept this statement as the meaning of the term "God"?

R: Yes, I accept this definition.

C: Well, my position is the affirmative position that such a Being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically. Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?

R: No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic.

C: Would you agree with me that the problem of God is a problem of great importance? For example, would you agree that if God does not exist, human beings and human history can have no other purpose than the purpose they choose to give themselves, which -- in practice -- is likely to mean the purpose which those impose who have the power to impose it?

R: Roughly speaking, yes, though I should have to place some limitation on your last clause.

C: Would you agree that if there is no God -- no absolute Being -- there can be no absolute values? I mean, would you agree that if there is no absolute good that the relativity of values results?

R: No, I think these questions are logically distinct. Take, for instance, G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica, where he maintains that there is a distinction of good and evil, that both of these are definite concepts. But he does not bring in the idea of God to support that contention.

C: Well, suppose we leave the question of good till later, till we come to the moral argument, and I give first a metaphysical argument. I'd like to put the main weight on the metaphysical argument based on Leibniz's argument from "Contingency" and then later we might discuss the moral argument. Suppose I give a brief statement on the metaphysical argument and that then we go on to discuss it?

R: That seems to me to be a very good plan.

[brewer]

My concept of god is that he is merely a figment of the human imagination, on par with other fanciful non-entities such as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. 

Shall we work from there?

Sounds good to Me.  Okay, Mariosep, we're going to go with the Rosie_Rivets god-concept instead of yours, as we seem to have consensus here for the "gods are imaginary" hypothesis, and no consensus for your hypothesis.

Hey, this was my concept in post #164/page 17. I want some cred or I may threaten to rage quit!

Um, this thread only. In concept only with history of ideas. 

Actually I been trying to quit for awhile but keep experiencing the godfather effect.

[Rosie_Rivets]

Sounds good to Me.  Okay, Mariosep, we're going to go with the Rosie_Rivets god-concept instead of yours, as we seem to have consensus here for the "gods are imaginary" hypothesis, and no consensus for your hypothesis.

Hey, this was my concept in post #164/page 17. I want some cred or I may threaten to rage quit!

Um, this thread only. In concept only with history of ideas. 

Actually I been trying to quit for awhile but keep experiencing the godfather effect.

Well, it looks like Mariosep isn't going to start from that premise, anyway. We either accept his concept or nothing at all, it seems.