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

[Asmodee]

You see, dear readers here, atheists really do not care at all to get connected to the issue, God exists or not.

Absolutely false.  I spent about 2 years of my life honestly looking at this question.  This is a dishonest argument tactic where you pretend that we don't believe you, not because your argument is very bad, but because we are biased against you.  This is not true.

You see, there are different kinds of atheists.  I like to break them down into 2 general groups, but I'm sure there are likely more.  But the groups I'm concerned with for this conversation are the "thinkers" and the "just ares".

We'll start with the "just ares".  These are the people who "just are" atheist.  They haven't given it a lot of thought, they don't generally join atheist forums, they are not at all concerned about the argument over whether or not they are right.  They haven't given it much thought.  They just say, "I don't really believe, so I guess I'm an atheist".  These people "choose" to be atheists and are the most likely candidates to one day say, "I used to be an atheist..."

Then there are the "thinkers".  That's probably most of us here.  We did NOT "choose" to be atheists.  Atheism is not a choice we made.  I did not decide that I didn't want to follow God's rules, so I'm going to become an atheist.  I did not decide that I did not want to believe in God, so I would become an atheist.  In fact, I actually spent about two years of my life honestly looking into whether or not there was, specifically, a Christian God.  I did not decide there were no gods because I wanted to become an atheist.  I became an atheist because I come to the conclusion that there were no gods.  It's not a choice I made, it's a conclusion I reached.  There is no going back for me short of a miracle, and I do mean that in the very literal sense.  I would need to see a miracle of Biblical proportions to stop being an atheist.

So your claim that I don't want to even look into it is very uninformed, to say the least.  It is wrong.  I DID look into it.  I looked into it a LOT.  I read, I listened, I considered and I CONCLUDED that there were no gods.  You've come to be AFTER I came to that conclusion.  For me, the research is done, the results are in, I have my answer and the only way you are going to change that is with something new.  You're not going to trick me into believing with a clever "argument", which is very much what you are trying to do.  There is no argument that can "prove" anything.  Only proof can prove something.  You have no proof, so you try to pretend an argument is just as good.  It's not.  And THAT is the problem.  You have no proof.  It's not that I am refusing to consider.  It's not that I don't want it to be true.  It's that you have no proof, only pointless word-salad arguments which, even if air tight, would still not "prove" your beliefs.

But you can't accept the ACTUAL truth.  Your kind never can.  If I'm not convinced, in your mind, that's a problem with me, not with you or your arguments.  It always amazes me how people who think pride is a mortal sin are always too damned proud to admit that their argument sucks and instead blame anyone who doesn't agree with it.  You will NEVER convince ANYONE with these arguments who doesn't already believe.  That's a problem with the argument, not the people you're failing to convince.

[Tonus]

You're still here?

Go get laid or something.

You WANT him to breed? 

[Mariosep]

So, let us all now focus our attention on the four causes which I from stock knowledge know about:

Efficient cause
Final cause
Exemplary cause
(Material cause - mentioned by Simon Moon)


First, what is cause and what is effect?

Correct me though, because my stock knowledge could be wrong.

I will just - and be patient because I am going to say things again and you will be annoyed, but no need to be annoyed, just analyze my thoughts on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas – I will just repeat that cause is that which gives existence to a thing that did not have existence, and that thing having come to existence is called effect.

There, you now know what is cause and what is effect, they are like, if I may use my most favorite illustrations and examples, cause and effect are like papa and mama as cause and babies as effects.

Papas and mamas give existence to babies, that is everywhere in life, starting at home with us all who started life in a home with our papa and mama – yes, of course nowadays routinely in the maternity ward of the local hospital when mama had her acme of labor and delivered baby!

Let me read of your reactions to this post from yours truly, then I will know how to proceed next, so that you will continue on with me, both sides you and I now linked up, instead of each side going into his alien direction, like - this is supposed to be funny, your side is full of cu** and sh** and fu** (no more, dear colleagues in this direction from your side).

What I expect from us both sides, is to think on the four causes, namely:

Efficient cause
Final cause
Exemplary cause
Material cause (Simon Moon is an expert of material cause, in particular of molecules as material cause of his own coming to existence and life, not his papa and mama.)


Later.

[Jesster]

88 pages and he's still stuck on this shit? Fuck.

[Cato]

88 pages and he's still stuck on this shit? Fuck.

Also 88 pages with absolutely no evidence, just rationalizations that are convincing only to those that already believe for some other reason. Fuck indeed.

[Mariosep]

Babies are evidence of causation from an entity that corresponds to the concept of God, namely, in concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Now, you atheists and I a theist, we must work to concur on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, how does evidence hit its target, which target once hit, leads us to know the existence of the something previously we did not know exists.

Are you capable and patient to work with me to know what is evidence, or you prefer to do the easy but wasteful thing, of cussing all the time?

You see, dear atheists here, you have one very good objection against God existing, namely you don't see evidence of God existing.

Suppose you try to analyze what you mean by seeing evidence; what about seeing babies, are they not visible to your eyes? and then you ask yourselves this question: Babies come from their papa and mama, you and I were babies also once, we came from our papa and mama, do you deny that?

Next, we ask or tell ourselves that papa and mama cause us to come forth from mama's womb after nine months of gestation, you deny that?

All that process is the evidence when you think about it, evidence to the existence ultimately of an entity that corresponds to the concept of God, namely, God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Now, suppose as you atheists who are very keen on evidence, please present one atheist who has written an article for free reading in the internet, on evidence.

I am now waiting with bated breath to see you, oh atheist colleagues here, to give me the link to one atheist author of an internet article on evidence, for free reading by mankind who longs to see evidence of God existing.

That will be a most worthy contribution to useful knowledge, useful for resolving the existence or non-existence of God, more useful than you atheists cussing all the time.

Think about that, without cussing all the time, that is a most wasteful impediment to thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, to come to in our present context, what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, how does evidence hit its target, so that once the target is hit, we will know for sure the existence of the thing we did not know exist previously, because we did not have evidence.

Think!


Later.

[pocaracas]

I will just repeat that cause is that which gives existence to a thing that did not have existence, and that thing having come to existence is called effect.

Good, let's work with that.
Tell me, which part of the baby didn't EXIST before its papa and mama got together and made it?
Which atom, which molecule didn't exist?

Let me put it differently: a carpenter and a table.
A carpenter makes a table. Which part of the table didn't exist before the carpenter built it?
The boards?... the wood?... the nails? the carbon in the wood? the iron in the nails?... the protons and neutrons and electrons that make up those iron and carbon atoms? the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons?...

Which part of the baby or the table didn't EXIST before the baby and the table were made?

So, as I said WAY back in page one: you should be careful with how you use words.

What does "exist" mean to you?

[Pat Mustard]

88 pages and he's still stuck on this shit? Fuck.

22 for me!

[Asmodee]

...I will just repeat...

Yes.  Yes you will

[Martyin]

He is just trolling you guys for 88 pages already. Stop responding.