Very short argument for God (another clear proof)

[vulcanlogician]

I tried expressing this formally. This is what I came up with. MK, feel free correct any errors I might have made.

1. Goodness in all possible worlds has one definition and reality.
2. We know it's possible goodness originates from God.
3. We don't know it's possible it originates from anything else.

Therefore, goodness is proven to be from God.

Let's just assume all the premises are true so we can examine the logic. I don't think this follows. Premise 2 and 3 do nothing to support the conclusion. Let's plug in some different variables.

2. We know it's possible the taffy originates from the local candy factory.
3. We don't know it's possible the taffy originates from anywhere else.
Therefore, the taffy is proven to be from the local candy factory. 

I think you have an argument from ignorance here. I could be wrong, but the fact remains this does not follow. Anyone care to figure out which fallacy?

I can easily show you went wrong and have a false analogy.

How about I give you a chance or Atheists a chance to correct you.

It may help you to reason to arrive at what reason calls. (hint: look at premise 1).

Even with premise 1, it does not follow. I intentionally left out premise 1 because it's really vague, and I just wanted to see what work premise 2 and 3 did ON THEIR OWN. Even if premise 1 is true-- truer than true, it does not change anything.

[Mystic]

I can easily show you went wrong and have a false analogy.

How about I give you a chance or Atheists a chance to correct you.

It may help you to reason to arrive at what reason calls. (hint: look at premise 1).

You mean:-
1. Taffy in all possible worlds has one definition and reality.

Ok... what does that have to do with the molestation-of-logic in 2 or 3?

If goodness is God's light and has a mystic reality linked to him, then it has to be that way. 

And goodness we see has one possibility in reality in all possible worlds.  We know this is possible, we don't know anything else is.

It cannot for example be created through an evil person nor can it be created through a factory.

And since we know it has to have one possibility, the mystic light nature that it stems from God's light whence God is the light of all light, is what makes sense.

[The Grand Nudger]

You mean:-
1. Taffy in all possible worlds has one definition and reality.

Ok... what does that have to do with the molestation-of-logic in 2 or 3?

Taffy for sure doesn't have on possible definition and reality.

.......................

For example, it can be created differently through different means.  It can be added a mint taste. It has various ways it can taste or be made.

Is the same true of morality? Is a matter that it can be this or that, and can be made from anything like even Aliens?

Yup.

Everything is created in truth, it's not chaotic chemicals that came out through mutations and other factors, that produces the value "it's good to love" nor is chemicals that make you inherit your actions nor are you actions at the end just physical but have spiritual intentions and they are linked to you.

It is, actually....but that's no sweat off morality's sack.  That's just what we're talking about.  If we were a different set of chemicals it would follow that our moral proclamations..if they were based on any objective thing..would be based on the reality of that.  If, say because of a different biology, it helped people and made them happy to be stabbed, and didn't hurt them...all other things being equal...then stabbing the shit out of people would be the height of virtue.

So, yeah..it's "chaotic chemicals"..though I think that's more than a little bit of hyperbole..but starting from that point, chaotic chemicals can consider the nature of what it's like to be chaotic chemicals and reach conclusions about it.

[Mystic]

I can easily show you went wrong and have a false analogy.

How about I give you a chance or Atheists a chance to correct you.

It may help you to reason to arrive at what reason calls. (hint: look at premise 1).

Even with premise 1, it does not follow. I intentionally left out premise 1 because it's really vague, and I just wanted to see what work premise 2 and 3 did ON THEIR OWN. Even if premise 1 is true-- truer than true, it does not change anything.

2 and 3 don't prove the conclusion. With 1, and given that the nature of goodness is stemming from God's breath and is a hue of his life and brought down light in degrees, and water that causes his plants to grow,  it is proven. And 1 is saying there is but one possible nature to goodness and since we know a mystic spiritual light nature is a possibility, it is the reality.

[The Grand Nudger]

What's this "we" business?  How can "we" know anything if you don't know shit?

[vulcanlogician]

And 1 is saying there is but one possible nature to goodness and since we know a mystic spiritual light nature is a possibility, it is the reality.

If premise 1 is supposed to say all this, it does a piss poor job.

EDIT: Whatever, what exactly DO premise 2 and 3 say on their own then? I mean 1 either supports 2 and/or 3, or the conclusion. Which is it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Not only that, if premise 1 is supposed to say this..and 2 and 3 don't prove the conclusion...then nothing proves a damned thing.  It's just a statement of the articles of ones faith contained in a singular premise, with a bunch of irrelevant bullshit hitched to it's tail.

I've got an argument.  1,2,3 -therefore..except two and three don't therefore............

[Mystic]

And 1 is saying there is but one possible nature to goodness and since we know a mystic spiritual light nature is a possibility, it is the reality.

If premise 1 is supposed to say all this, it does a piss poor job.

I phrase things shortly, you guys know what I mean by other threads with long explanations.

---

1 is saying whatever reality of goodness is, it has by definition one reality in all possible worlds.
2 from God would give it a mystic nature stemming from an absolute mystic source as a possibility.
3 Since it's possible, it follows, it is so given 1 and 2.

[The Grand Nudger]

So you don't actually accept your own arguments as stated.  Is it any surprise that no one else does?  They can't pass muster with you.

[Mystic]

The argument can be rephrased.

if it's possibly from God, it cannot be in any other way. (perhaps more intuitive)
It's possible it is from God.
Therefore it can be only one way.
Therefore it is from God.