(February 14, 2014 at 5:34 pm)max-greece Wrote:

Quote:Whereas, there is God, i.e. the Supreme Intelligence, i.e. the Absolute - perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, just and unchanging.

Well that's got us precisely nowhere. All we have is a statement.

Now prove it.

Start with the "there is a God" part and work from there. We can get to his supposed properties once you have established him.

Haven't you read through the second part?

(February 14, 2014 at 6:07 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(February 14, 2014 at 6:00 pm)jideoni charles Wrote: But an exposition is solid enough as a respectable base for argument.

You had an argument

Animal Control came by, netted it, and dragged it off to the pound.

(February 14, 2014 at 5:54 pm)Alex K Wrote: Ok so far we have: unchangeable laws of nature imply god. Sounds like a non sequitur, why would it imply God?

Where you don't deny there is a nuance of intelligence back of your actions, e.g. formulation of certain rules, then those superior natural laws must be backed and fronted, topped and downed by a commensurate superior intelligence too.

And it is this superior intelligence that naturally excites our adoration and veneration.

(February 14, 2014 at 6:29 pm)jideoni charles Wrote:

(February 14, 2014 at 5:54 pm)Alex K Wrote: Ok so far we have: unchangeable laws of nature imply god. Sounds like a non sequitur, why would it imply God?

Where you don't deny there is a nuance of intelligence back of your actions, e.g. formulation of certain rules, then those superior natural laws must be backed and fronted, topped and downed by a commensurate superior intelligence too

Say what? That is an English sentence in grammar at best. A nuance of intelligence back of my actions. What the hell?

Hey!

What gives?

I'm still an atheist.

I feel robbed.

What was the argument again?

(February 14, 2014 at 6:53 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(February 14, 2014 at 6:29 pm)jideoni charles Wrote: Where you don't deny there is a nuance of intelligence back of your actions, e.g. formulation of certain rules, then those superior natural laws must be backed and fronted, topped and downed by a commensurate superior intelligence too

Say what? That is an English sentence in grammar at best. A nuance of intelligence back of my actions. What the hell?

I mean a shade, a halo, a puff, a breath or something not totally deniable as having a light suggestion of intelligence.

In other words, intelligence per se, no matter its littleness or bigness.

Or like the positive presence of water as a component of blood, even if not discretely perceptible.

Every action you take must necessarily be the product of your intelligence or that of another.

I give up. If I want to read Dadaist prose I go to the original

(February 14, 2014 at 7:32 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: What was the argument again?

A variation on "everything old is new again" I suppose.

Not even word-salad; this is word PUKE.

The reason we've failed to refute your argument is that you haven't MADE one yet.

(February 14, 2014 at 3:09 pm)jideoni charles Wrote: Many arguments have been put up for proving the existence of God - especially the 'design-designer' argument.

On the other hand, at the base of the numerous arguments against the existence of God is the incompatibility of the omnipotence of God with His benevolence i.e. if there is God, the God must be all-powerful and good;

Has any one pointed out to you that atheism does not depend on any argument against the existence of gods? It is the theist that argues not just to make a positive claim, but to make a highly dubious one. Why would you think an analysis of arguments made against the possibility of the existence of god would undermine atheism?

I am very disappoint.