Very short version of the long argument.

[Cyberman]

MK, let me ask you - are any of these arguments the basis of what convinced you to be a theist? Because if not, why are we talking about them?

[Edwardo Piet]

If we know to some degree something about the highest possible goodness there is a connection to it.

Do you mean a connection between the knower and the known?

If so, so what? You next have to prove that we do know something about the highest possible goodness.

If there is a connection to it, it exists.

See above.

We do know something about the highest possible goodness.

You need to actually make an argument for this. See above.

Therefore there is a connection it.
Therefore it exists.

Seeing a theme yet? You merely assume we know such a thing and give no argument for it whatsoever.

The disputable premise might be we know something about it but even atheists argue that God who allows suffering without benign purpose cannot be ultimate good. And they argue by some knowledge of the ultimate good to assert it cannot exist. At the end, no true knowledge of a transcendent goodness beyond our limits can be know without a connection! And if there is a connection than just as we exist on one hand what we are connected to exists as well!

I believe some things are ultimately good, but merely labelling that "God" hasn't proved anything.

Let's say we assumed the premise that you've given no argument for is true. You have still only made an argument for ultimate goodness and you haven't made any argument for God. If you are merely going to label ultimate goodness with the word "God" then what you've got there is ultimate goodness that you like to use the word "God" for. Which is a form of weak pantheism at best.

To actually prove that such ultimate goodness was God, you'd have to also prove that such ultimate goodness 1. Has a mind. 2. Created the universe. 3. Is omniscient. 4. Is omnipotent. 5. Is omnipresent. 6. Has other qualities God supposedly has.

If you wish to see elaboration to each premise, see the long but worth it thread.

If you wish to see a rebuttal of those premises: see my responses where I point out how you failed to be relevant to the argument you claimed to be making.

[Cyberman]

So it's our fault you're talking bollocks, is it?

It is your fault, exactly. It is bollocks to you because you cannot handle the truth and the path it calls to.

No, it's bollocks because you refuse to support any of your assertions. Yet we're the ones to blame for your being such a lousy teacher? Take a good long look at yourself in a mirror and ask yourself why your approach isn't working.

[Mystic]

MK, let me ask you - are any of these arguments the basis of what convinced you to be a theist? Because if not, why are we talking about them?

They are, if you recall, the thread about human value and evolution, I questioned the very basis of what makes us human, the very foundations were shaken, and that shaking lead me to an identity crisis, but in that crisis,  all these truths became apparent to me.

---

It is your fault, exactly. It is bollocks to you because you cannot handle the truth and the path it calls to.

No, it's bollocks because you refuse to support any of your assertions. Yet we're the ones to blame for your being such a lousy teacher? Take a good long look at yourself in a mirror and ask yourself why your approach isn't working.

I elaborate on them, people say too long. I make it short, and people want elaboration. There is no pleasing you guys. I support them in length and people are like o man he has to write so much. I make it short and people are like, where is the elaboration to support. 

Really...like really...come on dude. I do both. Long supports and short. Short is to show the argument is very simple. Long to show all the premises are supported.

[Cyberman]

Long or short doesn't matter in the least. The important factor is clarity. State your arguments, as clearly as possible, then support them with something substantial. Above all, don't berate your audience for the failures in your presentation.

[Mystic]

Long or short doesn't matter in the least. The important factor is clarity. State your arguments, as clearly as possible, then support them with something substantial. Above all, don't berate your audience for the failures in your presentation.

You maybe right, I need to learn to clarify better. I will try to learn that through talking to professors on how to better my presentation of arguments that are sound.

[Cyberman]

Just say it to us the way you would be able to understand it if it was said to you.

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh by the way MK... your argument is "bollocks" in the sense of shite of course. Not "bollocks" in the sense of the dog's . . . or the mutt's nuts, cats pajamas, bee's knees, turtle's fertiles, etc.

Or in other words... your argument is "Balls in the sense of balls". Note the following red text:

Stephen enters a bookshop. Hugh is the assistant. Stephen stares at Hugh for a long time.

Hugh: Can I help you?

Stephen:
(Holding up a book)
Did you write this?

Hugh:
(Examining book)
Jane Eyre. No, that was Charlotte Bronte as a matter of fact.

Stephen: Right. Well I'd like to speak to her then please.

Hugh: I'm afraid she's no longer with us.

Stephen: Oh? Indeed? I can hardly say I'm surprised. Where can I get in touch with her?

Hugh: No, no. I mean "no longer with us" in the sense of "dead".

Stephen: Dead?

Hugh: Quite dead.

Stephen: When did she die exactly?

Hugh: Um ... 1855 I believe I'm right in saying.

Stephen: Let me see, 18:55 . . . that's five minutes to seven, isn't it?

Hugh: I'm sorry. I mean "1855" in the sense of the year "1855". Was there some problem?

Stephen: Well you'll have to do I suppose, since you sold me the book. I want my money back.

Hugh: Do you mind me asking why?

Stephen: I'll tell you why. Because this book is balls, that's why. It is complete balls.

Hugh: I'm afraid I really can't agree with you there.

Stephen: Oh can't you? Well listen to this then ...
(riffles through book and selects a passage)
"I mounted into the window-seat: gathering up my feet, I sat cross-legged, like a Turk." I mean???? It's just balls.

Hugh: Balls in what sense?

Stephen: Balls in the sense of balls. I mean "window-seat"? What window-seat? This is on the first page. Window seat. Where is this window seat, hm? What's it doing? And what Turk? I've never seen a Turk mount a window-seat. Simply balls. Nothing but balls.

Hugh: Well I think you're supposed to imagine it.

Stephen: Oh? All right, then, all right then: what about this ... um ... chapter thirty-eight ... "Reader, I married him." Now if that isn't balls, kindly fax me an explanation of what is. "Reader"? What reader? Or are you supposed to imagine this reader as well?

Hugh: No, that's you. It's addressed to you, the reader of the book.

Stephen: Oh BALLLLLSSSS! How could she know me? You just told me the stupid tart died at five to seven.

Hugh: Well not you specifically. I mean whoever is reading it at the time. Jane Eyre is telling you that she married Mr Rochester.

Stephen: Jane Eyre is a made-up character! She didn't exist!

Hugh: No but she writes the story. She is the "I" of the story.

Stephen: MAKE YOUR FRIGGING MIND UP! You just told me Charlotte Bronte wrote the story.

Hugh: She did ... but ...

Stephen: Well you're clearly as confused as I am. It's just BALLS and you know it. Complete balls. I want my money back. I want to read a book that doesn't go on about window-seats you've never even heard of or have some mad bitch who's supposed to be dead calling you "reader" all the time.

Hugh: What about this ... proving very popular.

Hugh hands Stephen a book.

Stephen: What's this?

Hugh: "The Invalid" by Myra Penworthy Fennerweave.

Stephen: Any good?

Hugh: Excellent.

Stephen starts to read

Stephen: "Talbot entered the room in a feverish haste, bearing his precious cargo before him like a votive offering. Elizabeth lay back on her bed, her face pale and pinched. "Richard is that you?" she moaned plaintively." Oh this is just complete BALLS! Balls, balls, balls.

Hugh: It's not actually. It's true. It actually happened.

Stephen Oh double balls and bollocks!

[Alex K]

We can know something about an abstract idea or concept without an actual instance of it having to exist. Perfect circles for example.

That is true. Nothing to do with my argument, however, since I never said: "we cannot know anything about anything without it actually existing".

But yes you do, isn't that precisely the first part of your very argument?!? "We know something about X -> X exists"

[Edwardo Piet]

Well, I don't have any problem with that part of his argument. You can't know something that isn't there.

The problem I have is he doesn't actually prove there is any ultimate goodness to be known, or furthermore, even if there is any ultimate goodness (as I personally believe there is, although he failed to argue for it) how that has anything to do with "God". Goodness makes God redundant AFAIC.