RE: Proving God in 20 statements
April 4, 2016 at 11:34 pm
(This post was last modified: April 4, 2016 at 11:38 pm by smfortune.)
(April 4, 2016 at 11:16 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:Some are ever hearing but deaf and ever seeing but blind. The average atheist I've come to realize is very intelligent but that's precisely the problem. He's convinced himself that he's sorted out truth from fiction especially when such a conviction leads to no conviction about sin at all. If he were but to open his eyes and ears and follow his natural born intelligence where it'll lead, he'll find the truth a lot more exciting and mind-blowing than he's ever imagined. What is evident is widely different than what is "self-evident" when self gets in the way.(April 4, 2016 at 10:49 pm)smfortune Wrote: I have much evidence as I've alluded to in previous posts. However, I must set the philosophical stage first. One is not likely to listen to statistical proof if a priori one has written off it's possible existence. The proof I've presented is logic, through and through but that's just the beginning.
Evidence is, well, evident. If what you've got needs a bunch of psycho-babble bullshit to explain it, it's not evidence.
(April 4, 2016 at 11:25 pm)smfortune Wrote:If FSM is truth and reason, then by all means!(April 4, 2016 at 11:15 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The way you explained your argument is either fallacy by ambiguity (misusing the word "greatest") or it's fallacy by affirming the conclusion (ie. your argument states in the argument the conclusion that leads exactly to the conclusion).
I believe in God and I believe there are good arguments to point to his existence as well some clear reminders. However, I don't find your argument strong at all.
Your difficulty lies in the argument's ontological leanings. I understand that. For 10 centuries philosophers have been trying to debunk it. I've tied the ontologocial argument to a mathematical observation: Incompleteness. The tethering makes the onotological conclusion even more obvious. I'd hoped that "greatness" would finally be understood in the infinite being necessarily revealed in an explanation of the universe. But the argument isn't a fallacy, on the contrary, it is valid and sound (but not convincing)...it wasn't meant to be such (at least not for the ardent atheist). I'm glad that we've finally come around to opening the door to true questionning. Perhaps there is a god, who could this being be? I believe that truth leads only one way.
(April 4, 2016 at 11:32 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: No it has nothing to do with that. I believe greatness points to ultimate greatness as it's source and basis. I believe that ultimate greatest basis to all greatness and source of all beauty and praise, the one to whom all greatness belongs to is God.Do I really mention greatness before explanatory power?
However your argument mentions "greatest" before explanation. This in language would then take on meaning of that which is greatest in explanatory power.
If you define it as greatest being, then your argument is just asserting the conclusion.
