RE: Proving God in 20 statements
April 4, 2016 at 11:55 pm
(This post was last modified: April 4, 2016 at 11:56 pm by Mystic.)
(April 4, 2016 at 11:34 pm)smfortune Wrote:
(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.
You mentioned as "greatest explanation". You said that must be God but never explained why. But if you define "greatest" explanation as in the sense the explanation is the greatest possible explanation in the sense of praise and glory, then this different then the impression it gives as in explanatory power.
Then your argument would be nothing but affirming the conclusion.
You start off saying God is the greatest explanation of the universe, and then assert that the greatest explanation must be the true explanation of the universe. However you did nothing to prove that.
Yes God is philosophically speaking the greatest explanation in terms of glory/beauty/majesty, because that is how God is defined (as absolute glory/beauty/majesty).
But stating the universe must have such an explanation behind it has not been proven by this argument. It's been asserted, then it leads exactly to where it started. That's not an argument. That's a fallacy of affirming the conclusion.
