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

[Mariosep]

Dear atheist colleagues, thanks a lot for your presence and contribution to my thread, imagine how this thread will look like if you atheists do not come over and much less post your feelings and thoughts here.


Now, I have found a way that will enable us me a theist and you atheists to get to each other's heart and mind, so that we will get linked in heart and in mind, to know each other intimately in an intellectual sense, of course, in regard to the issue God exists or not.

Let us do this exercise:

We will ask each other a question, I am only one person and you are many, so I will try my best to answer everyone of you, your question.

Just keep your question to not more than 30 words, so that you will deliver a very focused clear message, because you have to express your thought in just 30 words or less.

I will also ask you each one of you, but addressed to everyone of you, a question, in not more than 30 words.

Of course all questions must be on the issue God exists or not, and when you have not answered my question I will not entertain your next question if you have asked an earlier question which I have answered to.

Here I go, as I am the proponent of this exercise, so I feel bound to ask the first question.

Here goes, my question to you all atheists here:

What is your information of the concept of God, gods, etc., just choose one?

operator Online
Member
***
Religious Views: Satanist
Posts: 133
Threads: 6
Joined: 18th October 2014
Reputation: 2
#618
RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
7 hours ago
LOL

Every time someone tears apart his argument he just dances around it all and changes the subject.

This thread is going nowhere and I'm checking out.

[chimp3]

Here goes, my question to you all atheists here:

What is your information of the concept of God, gods, etc., just choose one?

Your question does not make sense.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I've been away from this thread for a while as Mariosep was just repeating himself. So I skipped to the last page and what do I see? Mariosep creating a post 265 words long (not including some pointless profile appended at the bottom) to basically ask us to respond in only 30 words or less. And a question that makes no sense at all.

What is your information of the concept of God? What does that even mean?

[Pat Mustard]

The only awful posts here are YOURS.  Go away.  No one likes you.  And, you smell.  

Just do what I'm doing, shout Ni! at him until he builds us a <dramatic pause> shrubbery.

[Pat Mustard]

Thanks everyone for your presence and contribution.


Now, finally, Simon, you have shown up.

Thanks, but no thanks.

You have already demonstrated that you are unable to be intellectually honest, so unless you can come up with actual evidence for your god, I may be done with this thread.

Okay, what about your being born from your parents, that is causation by your parents of your existence and life, is that not evidence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?

Thanks dear Simon for showing up, please stay with me.

Ni!

[I_am_not_mafia]

ni! ni! ni!

(like that?)

[pocaracas]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crX4E-dul4Y

[Pat Mustard]

<snip for great justice>

Why are you quoting creatard sites citing discredited theories and lies?

The first site starts with the long discredited goldilocks argument, and the other five "proofs" are "we don't understand X therefore goddidit". No argument there.
The second starts with a lie about Russians finding hell, continues with Eben Alexander's lying book diverts to Pascal's wager and Francis Collins' idiocy regarding yhwh.
The wiki article doesn't say what you think it says.
I'm not watching an idiot prancing in youtube.
The next three links are broken.
The next link is from a funditard christian website, and simply publishes a one-sided account of a debate the site owner once had.
And the last site is a rapture site pushing the blatant and long discredited lie that Michio Kaku proved god exists.

Also Ni!

[Primordial Bisque]

What is your information of the concept of God, gods, etc., just choose one?

It depends on the claim being made; for there are many. In this case, the claim is for the single creator god concept. That's what we're talking about here, right?

We've been dismantling it for 63 pages and dropping the shattered pieces at your feet. Why do you keep asking us? Every time you try to clean the slate, it yields the same results.

[Asmodee]

What is your information of the concept of God, gods, etc., just choose one?

It is really frustrating that you simply cannot understand that this is not how it works.  I DO NOT have a concept of God, gods, etc.  I don't believe fairies exist, so why would I assign properties to them?  What purpose would that serve?  If properties were assigned it would make it more possible to test for those properties.  So, as a person who does not believe in fairies, the properties I would assign are meaningless because they would be things that I know would produce no positive results.  It is the person who BELIEVES in the fairies who needs to assign the properties to be tested for to prove that thing exists.

Let us look at your, frankly, pathetic "definition" for God:
"God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."
The only properties assigned there are "creator" and "operator".

Let's look at operator first.  Google "operator definition".  I am sure you are not saying that God is part of a mathematical expression.  Therefore I must conclude that God is "a person" as EVERY other definition of the word includes "a person".  But a little later on you include "man" in your definition.  So God is a person who created and operates people.  That makes no damned sense.  You've used a wrong word there.

So now the only property we have left which we haven't shown to be flawed is "creator".  There are countless "creators" in mythology.  The big bang is technically a "creator".  Membrane theory is a "cause" for the big bang.  "Creator" is such a generic term that it tells us nothing about the nature of your God concept.

So, essentially, your argument is even DUMBER than it first appears because once you break it down it's easy to see that your argument is simply this:

1) God is the creator
2) Things exist
3) Therefor God exists

THAT IS STUPID!