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

[Expired]

You can't debate, argue or philosophise a creature into existence, no matter how repetitive you are.

Oh yes they can.

[Astreja]

You may have noticed, Mariosep, that Mr. Russell did not become a believer as a result of that debate.

The consensus here is clearly that your proposed deity is imaginary. You can't make it real just by farting out silly "proofs."

[brewer]

You can't debate, argue or philosophise a creature into existence, no matter how repetitive you are.

Oh yes they can.

Oh no they can't, infinity + 1. Winner!

[Whateverist]

Dear atheist colleagues here, please go to the debate between Russell and Copleston.

Dear dumbass preacher, please go to hell.  Thanks.

[TheoneandonlytrueGod]

This is my proof for God existing.

1.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?

"God exists in concept"

only not in reality.

[Mariosep]

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


Dear Simon Moon, when you show up please go to this post (see ANNEX 2 below) from yours truly, it will enlighten you on what it is to join the issue.


Dear atheist colleagues here, please read up on the same post, otherwise you are not into the issue at all, for refusing to join up on the issue, God exists or not, by presenting your serious non-flippant information on the concept of God that you are denying to exist.

As I have already said nth times, dear atheist colleagues, you are into evasions of the issue itself, God exists or not.

Please read up on the post, and think about it, that Bertrand Russell, a famous logician, philosopher, mathematician, winner of the Nobel prize, concurred with Fr. Copleston, SJ, on how they would conduct themselves in their debate on the existence of God:

(Bolding from Mariosep)

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.

ANNEX 1

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 2

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.

[Silver]

Dear Mariosep,

God does not exist.

Sincerely,
Faith's Nightmare and Misanthrope

[pocaracas]

Well... at least he now knows how to properly use the quote function!

[Rosie_Rivets]

God doesn't exist.

There.

[Mariosep]

Maelstrom, you say:

"Dear Mariosep,

God does not exist.

Sincerely,
Faith's Nightmare and Misanthrope"


That is what I mean with you, dear atheist colleagues here, you are into all manners of flippancy and may I, unruly behavior, unbecoming to any posters who really sincerely honestly care to expound on his denial of God existing, with first presenting his information on the concept of God which they are denying to exist.

Otherwise, you are into evasions, and usually with flippancy or unruly utterances.

My I just submit that you are doing a great discredit to this forum, Atheistforums.org.

It is not yet too late to redeem your serious manners of posting in a forum that is read by peoples all over the internet; but his forum is losing readership with the march of time, owing to I submit the awful quality of your posts.