Okay, atheists and kindred personalities, let us effect a joiner, tell me what is your concept of God; not that I am into getting you to admit the existence of God, but just to see whether you can think on facts and logic.
You see -- if you don't then you are hopeless, to be logical you have got to know what is the concept of God a theist is advocating Which God he knows with certainty to exist.
We know the concept of God that you, the theist, is advocating.
We have known from the outset. We have asked you to present your argument for claiming that this God exists... The "proof" suggested in the thread title. You have offered nothing. We have waited. We do wait. We undoubtedly shall continue to wait.
So, as you can read and understand, this is the concept of God from yours truly:
In concept God is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.
We know this already, given you have penchant for just repeating it over and over again.
Get on with your actual argument.
Please?
So, as you deny God exists, then if you care to get into a joinder with me which is logical from your part, then you also take up the concept of God from me,...
Yes, we do, as we have already said we do for the purposes of this discussion. Why do you keep repeating it and not actually move on with your argument?
and you prove that there is no entity corresponding to that concept of God,...
No, we have no need to prove that there is no entity corresponding to that concept of God. It is solely for you to show that there is. If you can not, that is the end of the matter, irrespective of what we can show or not.
Now, if some atheists among us held the view that this concept of god does not exist, then the onus on them would be to prove it as you suggest.
But the majority of us here do not make such a claim, we merely claim that you can not prove it, that your concept of God can not be proven.
and I from my part will prove to you from facts and logic that there is certainly existing an entity in concept the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.
That is at least what you keep saying, yet in 200+ posts you have made reference to a few noses not falling off faces! a few babies being caused by their parents... And that is it. Nothing else. No logical argument that has not already shown to be fallacious, fallacies that you have failed to address.
That is the way of logic for you to be an atheist for, otherwise it is all dodging.
You mean admitting "I don't know" is dodging?
Do you think it better to have a wrong answer than to say "I don't know"?
Plus I am not sure you understand what atheism is: it is not the claim that God does not exist, it is merely lack of belief in the existence of gods.
Now, if you care to effect a joinder with me on facts instead of on logic, then you look up a fact that is the best rebuttal for the existence of God, in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.
There are no facts that rationally support either the existence of God or the non-existence of God.
You assume that God exists a priori, and if you find the world to be in the situation it would if that God existed then you claim that the facts of that situation support your concept of God. This is nothing but question begging on your part.
After all, if God does not exist and we exist then our existence is itself evidence that God does not need to exist, and it would prove your concept of God non-existent.
But it would also be a case of question-begging, and as equally invalid.
That is what I want you to learn, to think on facts and logic.
Your arrogant tone is not only unwarranted but laughable, given that it is you who has failed to "think on facts and logic" throughout the drivel that you post.
First, to be logical you must get to come to a joinder with your opponent in the exchange of thoughts.
Nonsense. To be logical one must merely reach valid conclusions from whatever propositions you begin with.
Secondly, if you want to concentrate on facts to effect a joinder, then choose a fact by which God is effectively rebutted in regard to His existence, owing to the actual reality of the existence of your fact, which invalidates altogether any concept of God by which man understands God to be the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.
One does not need to do that either... One must merely show why your position is not valid, not supportable, flawed. The other position is one of "I don't know... But you can't prove to me that you are correct".
But the way of atheists is to not effect any joinder at all, but to dodge and to engage in all kinds of flippancy.
Yet the most open people in this thread have been the atheists. They have shared their concept of God, they have taken time to examine your posts and provide counters to them, to show you where they think you have erred in your thinking.
And all you do is shove it back in their faces by resetting your position.
Bertrand Russell taught you flippancy of the kind by comparing God to ridiculous fictions like an orbiting teapot in space.
No, he offered an analogy to highlight a specific aspect of the theistic position, not with regard the nature of the God in which those theists believe.
Your blinkered vision is apparent once again.
This man is a model of flippancy when he goes against God, unlike Antony Flew who was an atheist but never of the flippant type; he followed where evidence leads; and finally the evidence became overwhelming, and he went public announcing that he has come to enough evidence to admit the existence of God in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.
Anthony Flew caved in to fallacious logic in the end, to personal incredulity.
He had no more evidence at the end than he did at the start of his life, where he could control the power his personal incredulity had over him. Yet toward the end he let it dominate his position. And as such he caved in to fallacious reasoning.
But he never converted to any theistic religion, because he could not accept that religion and God need to be linked together.
Irrelevant to the topic in hand.
Sad that atheists so many follow the flippancy of Russell and not the example of Antony Flew.
Ah, so anyone who disagrees with your position is guilty of flippancy?
You have accused Russell of such already: you accused him of such in his debate with Copleston. I called you out on that and have asked you to indicate where in that debate he became flippant.
Please do so or retract your accusation. He is not here to defend himself, and so I must ask you to defend your accusation.
Let you oh atheists today be different from Russell, think on facts and logic, and not to be engaged in flippancy of whatever sort, that only shows to intelligent and insightful fellow humans that you have nothing in your heart and mind except flippancy, and that is your worse defense of whatever claim you have to being rational in your self-identity as an atheist.
Verbosity, flippancy, pomposity... which word are you going to discover in the dictionary next time to accuse atheist of?
All I see here, all I read from you, Pachomius, are the rantings of an immature mind who has no intellect capable of actually defending the drivel that you spout. You want to sound intelligent, you write in a manner that tries to place you above the atheists, yet it is a lofty position built of an empty mind, constructed out of pixie dust, wishful thinking, and hopeless logic.
If you're going to continue posting your drivel, at least do so with respect. Your unintelligent content is one thing, but the manner in which you write is starting to irritate a number of people, and thus you do not help yourself.