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

[Mariosep]

Dear Simon Moon:

I have given the proof of God existing nth times already, starting from the postulation of the concept of God, to the evidence in objective reality outside of our mind, in all instances of causation, like conception and birth of babies by their papas and mamas, thus to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence, namely: an entity in existence corresponding to the posited concept scil. first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, which I call God.

[Numbering of lines added by Mariosep]

1. And yes, I agree that it is a concept, and nothing more.

2. As soon as you are able to actually provide demonstrable and falsifiable evidence,

3. and valid and sound logic to support it, let us know.

I did not say as you put it in No. 1 “a concept, and nothing more,” what I say for nth times already is that: the concept will guide us to search for the entity in objective reality of existence corresponding to the concept: so, please take care to not put words in my mouth that it [the word God] is a concept only and nothing more.

On Nos. 2 and 3, I am very concise and clear, we will go into the objective reality of existence and search for evidence in all instances of causation: no need to bring in falsifiable and valid and sound logic.

Babies are good enough as instances of the the effects of causation, and wherefore evidence of the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning - think about that.


No need to bring in highfalutin terms.

[pocaracas]

73 pages... close mindedness or simple inability to communicate?

Anyway... I think I know what Mario is going on about... he thinks that god is like the thing that is responsible for all and any causation. God is the glue that keeps the Universe in place from one instant to the next. God is the glue that keeps all points of space-time bound together, instead of becoming disjointed.... whatever that may mean in such a context.

Is that it, mario?

Time goes by and space doesn't fall apart - hence, such a glue exists, hence god, which is the glue, exists.
Space goes on without a hiccup, so the glue is in place and god is the glue.

Why call it god?
Why not call it "space-time-glue"?

Remember when I told you to be careful with words? When I answered your 5th point, I said "- Get ready to load up the concept of God with iron-age tales!!"... remember that?
That is the problem of starting with a simple concept such as "space-time-glue" and calling it "god". The word "god" has a lot of baggage. "space-time-glue" is a brand new word, so we can operate with that.
Do note that I haven't proven that such a thing as "space-time-glue" exists. I merely postulated and noted that it is consistent with the observed universe... up to a point: if I forget that space-time is expanding... but one can always postulate further that the glue is flexible and unrelenting.
To properly show that such a glue exists, we now need to look for it. Provide a model under which is works, search for instances where such a model can fail - like black holes. And either refine the model or reject it altogether.
A few words scribbled down as bullet points are not proof. The argument of "we look around and see it happening everywhere" can't ever be valid, as we can't possibly look at everything in the Universe... all it takes is one instance where the model fails.

Good luck winning the Nobel Prize and the James Randi Foundation million dollar prize.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I have given the proof of God existing nth times already

No you haven't. Not once.

[Tonus]

I did not say as you put it in No. 1 “a concept, and nothing more,” what I say for nth times already is that: the concept will guide us to search for the entity in objective reality of existence corresponding to the concept: so, please take care to not put words in my mouth that it [the word God] is a concept only and nothing more.

Do you realize that what you are saying is that you reached your conclusion first and are using that conclusion to help you sift through the "evidence"? Because that's one reason why your approach is flawed. If your approach was valid and there really was a god, then your approach would lead everyone to the same god.

Why doesn't your approach lead every person who follows it to the same god? And do keep in mind that for any of the gods that you do not believe in, someone can use that same explanation to invalidate yours.

[Asmodee]

Dear Simon Moon:

I have given the proof of God existing nth times already, starting from the postulation of the concept of God, to the evidence in objective reality outside of our mind, in all instances of causation, like conception and birth of babies by their papas and mamas, thus to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence, namely: an entity in existence corresponding to the posited concept scil. first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, which I call God.

[Numbering of lines added by Mariosep]

1. And yes, I agree that it is a concept, and nothing more.

2. As soon as you are able to actually provide demonstrable and falsifiable evidence,

3. and valid and sound logic to support it, let us know.

I did not say as you put it in No. 1 “a concept, and nothing more,” what I say for nth times already is that: the concept will guide us to search for the entity in objective reality of existence corresponding to the concept: so, please take care to not put words in my mouth that it [the word God] is a concept only and nothing more.

On Nos. 2 and 3, I am very concise and clear, we will go into the objective reality of existence and search for evidence in all instances of causation: no need to bring in falsifiable and valid and sound logic.

Babies are good enough as instances of the the effects of causation, and wherefore evidence of the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning - think about that.


No need to bring in highfalutin terms.

I hate these logical arguments given as "proofs".  A logical argument can never "prove" any deity exists.  Without exception the logic is flawed.  One of the problems with this argument is that your first premise and your conclusion are exactly the same, "God is real and created everything".  If the conclusion and premise are the same thing, first, OF COURSE the conclusion is going to seem correct because it is also the premise and, second, it is not a sound argument.

[AceBoogie]

Dear Simon Moon:

I have given the proof of God existing nth times already, starting from the postulation of the concept of God, to the evidence in objective reality outside of our mind, in all instances of causation, like conception and birth of babies by their papas and mamas, thus to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence, namely: an entity in existence corresponding to the posited concept scil. first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, which I call God.

Dude are you slow or what?

Where do you get the idea that just because you create a concept of god, then follow that up with 'proofs' that reaffirm your original concept, you're all of the sudden proving the existence of god, theoretically or otherwise? Are you honestly that dumb? Where does your original concept of god come from? Your first point is the first problem with your 'argument.' You don't explain how you reached the point where you created this concept of god. From where did you get this concept? From who? And just because your concept may have an origin does not make that concept valid. I can say that blue is, in concept, actually red, but that doesn't make it fucking so.

That's like me saying

1. Unicorns are the sole creators and operators of cupcakes and baked goods - because I said so

2. Look for instances of cupcakes and baked goods outside of our minds

3. Ooooh look, a cupcake

4. God exists because I said so, plus 70 pages of complete nonsensical, grammatically incorrect bullshit

Your mind is so incredibly dull and your grasp on the English language so tenuous, that if you're not trolling us all I honestly fucking feel bad for you. I have never met a thicker headed idiot in all my days. You're literally just spouting off grammatically incorrect nonsense for 70+ pages in a row, basically repeating the same shit over and over and over, despite dozens of people explaining to you in detail why your original post makes absolutely no sense. How much longer can this go on before you realize you're a moron and you need to rethink your 'argument,' if we can even call it that? You're trying WAY too hard to 'sound' like some sort of intellectual thinker, and quite honestly a little bit of pretentiousness never hurt anyone. But if you're going to be a pretentious prick your argument better be fucking sound, which it is not - at all.

The problem is I don't think you even know what the fuck you're talking about. You probably heard some christian scholar spout this nonsense off in a debate of some kind and thought you could recycle it here. Wish I could say it was a nice try, but it wasn't

[Primordial Bisque]

I have given the proof of God existing nth times already, starting from the postulation of the concept of God, to the evidence in objective reality outside of our mind, in all instances of causation, like conception and birth of babies by their papas and mamas, thus to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence, namely: an entity in existence corresponding to the posited concept scil. first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, which I call God.

No, you haven't proven anything. You presented a written proof that god is a concept. Your mistake was positing a god existed, in concept, as your opening premise without defining how you came to that conclusion.

The default position is: god does not exist. What methods were used for you to understand the concept you've posited in the first place? Did you read about it? Word of mouth? Born into a religious family?

[Mariosep]

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

Now, please just interact with Simon Moon and give him your thoughts on how to show me that I am wrong with my proof for God existing.

Because I am only one person and not a battalion, and you are many, so it is most convenient in regard to time-saving and labor cost-cutting for me to just interact with Simon Moon, besides he is good at fallacies, and I am good at observing causation in the objective reality of existence where babies are caused by their papas and mamas.


As I am waiting for Simon Moon to show up again, I will just say something for readers here who do not send posts to this thread of mine.

If you atheist posters react to my thoughts addressed to readers who do not send messages to this thread of mine, thank you!

Dear readers here, please think about this thought from yours truly:

“The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.”

You see, when you think on that thought from yours truly, you will come to the knowledge that existence is composed of things existing from other things, and things existing from, by, through, in, of themselves or itself; and that thing that exists from, by, through, in, of itself, that is the entity that corresponds to my concept of God, namely, God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.


Dear Simon Moon, when you show up, please tell me why you do not want to come to the objective reality of existence, so that we will talk about how babies are caused by their papas and mamas, and that wherefore babies are evidence of God existing, to wit: in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Hope to see you soon.

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

Dear Simon Moon:

I have given the proof of God existing nth times already, starting from the postulation of the concept of God, to the evidence in objective reality outside of our mind, in all instances of causation, like conception and birth of babies by their papas and mamas, thus to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence, namely: an entity in existence corresponding to the posited concept scil. first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, which I call God.

[Numbering of lines added by Mariosep]

1. And yes, I agree that it is a concept, and nothing more.

2. As soon as you are able to actually provide demonstrable and falsifiable evidence,

3. and valid and sound logic to support it, let us know.

I did not say as you put it in No. 1 “a concept, and nothing more,” what I say for nth times already is that: the concept will guide us to search for the entity in objective reality of existence corresponding to the concept: so, please take care to not put words in my mouth that it [the word God] is a concept only and nothing more.

On Nos. 2 and 3, I am very concise and clear, we will go into the objective reality of existence and search for evidence in all instances of causation: no need to bring in falsifiable and valid and sound logic.

Babies are good enough as instances of the the effects of causation, and wherefore evidence of the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning - think about that.


No need to bring in highfalutin terms.

[Plixin]

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."

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?

You make claims based on your own interpretation of your perceptions and that is not proof.

[brewer]

Wow, OK. That should put a stop to this thread.