(November 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Absolutely not, argument not refuted. Being eternal is just one of the attributes that makes something God. So to call that assuming the proof would be like saying the following syllogism is invalid…This caught my attention. Statler, eternity is just a concept. Realistically you cannot reach it, you cannot realise something eternal because you can't measure or falsify it by its own definition. Indeed, why even assert "god" as eternal in the first instance? If you were credible and had an appreciation for the English language you would've argued your god hypothesis is transfinite instead, because at least then while you're asserting while he's greater than all things finite he's not necessarily infinite and risk making an erroneous assumption since eternal is not an attribute that provides a clear positive ontology for the existence of god, or any deity for that matter.
Premise 1: All cats have cat DNA
Premise 2: Fluffy has Cat DNA.
Conclusion: Fluffy is a cat.
You would turn around and say, “Sorry! You are assuming that all cats have Cat DNA, can’t assume that!”. Well of course I can assume it because it is what makes a cat a cat. Being eternal is one of the atttributes that makes God, well God. You may not agree with the premise that God is eternal, but disagreeing with a premise does not make an argument invalid logically.
Anyway, you may return to your wonderful delusional-state that your brilliant arguments' premises don't require confirmers like real-world arguments, but refuters now. Ah, to live but a day in your life.
