(April 2, 2016 at 12:50 pm)smfortune Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 9:59 am)JuliaL Wrote:

The greatest

God refers to the greatest possible, not the greatest in experience or existence. God is the greatest possible is definitionally true.

The bestest ever?

(April 2, 2016 at 12:50 pm)smfortune Wrote: God refers to the greatest possible, not the greatest in experience or existence. God is the greatest possible is definitionally true.

No argument with you on that definition, arbitrary though it may be.
But a possible greatness does not show a necessary, existing greatness.
Nothing currently not in existence is currently possible
though it could exist in the future
or be implied by the present in a deterministic/block universe.
But we don't know if we're in one of those, do we?

(April 1, 2016 at 5:03 pm)smfortune Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 5:02 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ... and if it's true, what caused the Causer?

Note (iii) of the proof dealt with this: (iii) God is "first cause" by definition and therefore not needed to be caused; however, God still does not necessarily violate the premise that all things are caused because the premise allows for self-causation, which can be applied to God: God causes God to exist.

If things can be self-caused, then your god isn't necessary, and your "proof" is self-refuting.

There's nothing worse than ad hoc logic. Wouldn't you be better off counting daisies or something?

(April 2, 2016 at 12:53 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 12:50 pm)smfortune Wrote: God refers to the greatest possible, not the greatest in experience or existence. God is the greatest possible is definitionally true.

The bestest ever?

Possibly even the bestestest, but Theologians are still waiting for results from the Large Spirit Collider before they say anything more definite.

(April 2, 2016 at 12:26 pm)smfortune Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 10:59 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I have to wonder if the OP, having been stopped by a policeman for a blatant traffic violation but let off with a stern warning, would respond by insulting the policeman.

Intelligent, that.

Ummm, the police have real authority. You're kind of getting off on mall cop authority. Why are you making this an issue anyway?

"Getting off on mall cop authority". LOL, if you say so, scrub.

Why am I making an issue of this? Because telling you you've stepped over a line and giving you an opportunity to sort your own shit out saves us a bunch of paperwork, that's why.

To be clear - there's a reason we don't let new members link to outside content. Copypasting that same content isn't an acceptable workaround. There is no acceptable workaround. You get to wait your 30 days and 30 posts just like everyone else, snowflake.

I'll leave you to your unevidenced, unsound wankfest now.

Did somebody say wankfest?

(March 31, 2016 at 11:39 pm)smfortune Wrote: PROOF >>>

There are no uncaused things. : From Cosmological Arguments

The Universe is a thing.

The Universe is caused (be it internally [self-caused] or externally).

∀x[Tx → Cx], Tu: Cu
1. ∀x[Tx → Cx]                 P (Premise)
2. Tu                                  P
Proof:
3. Tu → Cu                        1 UI (Universal Instantiation)
4. Cu                                  2, 3 MP (Modus Ponens)

You forgot to name what God does this supposedly proves? Hercules? Hanuman? Xenu?

But this is actually based on a very old joke dating back to the year 1773 when a Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler called French encyclopedist Denis Diderot to a duel of arguments for existence of God. Denis Diderot was against and Leonhard Euler was for. This was all happening in Russian court and when Diderot accepted the challenge Euler said, "Sir, [something like] (a+b.) * n=x, therefore God exists. Refute that!" Diderot, who knew no mathematics, had no answer, retired in confusion and asked permission to return to France. Euler's argument was, of course, nonsense. It was nothing but a practical joke. To this day, there is no mathematical proof of God's existence that anyone of importance accepts.

And this is also called the judo argument because judo is the art of using the opponent's own strength against him because God's existence is a matter that lies fundamentally beyond the ability of man to observe, measure, and reason out; and must be based on revelation and faith alone. This, in fact, is the attitude of almost all the Believers in our Western culture. They wave the Bible (or some equivalent authority) and that ends the argument.
There's no point in arguing with that, of course. You cannot very well reason with someone whose basic line of argument is that reason doesn't count. So when believers resort to arguments in favor of the existence of God that are based on scientific findings then we call them "judo arguments."

And of course, OP ignores the replies he has no answer to so he doesn't hurt his precious belief in god.

*cough* cognitive dissonance *cough*

Nice argument OP. So which god out of the 100s of thousands claimed worldwide is this supposed to be evidence for? Oh that's right, yours. How convenient.

(April 1, 2016 at 11:37 pm)Mudhammam Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 11:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: @Mud.  

The conclusion of an argument cannot be trusted unless it's propositions are sound. Nor can it be trusted unless it's form is shown to be applicable to the subject.   A requirement of evidence is inescapable.

But isn't that itself a conclusion that is not supportable by evidence?

Hey bud, those are the rules of the system.  We can take them or leave them...but we don't get to take them when we want their authority, and leave them when we don't meet their requirements. There's simply no such thing as "appealing to argumentation" that doesn't include a requirement of evidence...if, as I took the statement, you meant logic or reason by "argumentation". If people don;t wan't to, or can't meet the requirements laid out by the system they can appeal to whatever they like. That's not my call to make.

As a system, it appears to work pretty well at what it claims to do. That's enough evidence for me, personally.