RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
November 11, 2016 at 4:44 pm
(This post was last modified: November 11, 2016 at 5:08 pm by Simon Moon.)
(November 11, 2016 at 4:04 am)Mariosep Wrote: Dear Simon Moon:
I have given the proof of God existing nth times already, starting from the postulation of the concept of God, to the evidence in objective reality outside of our mind, in all instances of causation, like conception and birth of babies by their papas and mamas, thus to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence, namely: an entity in existence corresponding to the posited concept scil. first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, which I call God.
Yes you have posted it way too many times.
And I, and many other people have showed why it is a logically invalid argument. Even if I give you the benefit of doubt on the affirming the consequent fallacy, your argument still contains other fallacies that invalidate its modus ponens.
Here they are again:
Fallacy of composition. You continue to make this mistake. Just because we observe cause and effect within the universe, does not mean causation applies to the universe itself.
Answer this; since time and space did not exist until the expansion of universe, how would causation occur? Causation, by definition, requires time and space. In other words, causation is a temporal and spacial phenomena.
Fallacy of equivocation. You use the phrase ' instances of causation' with 2 different meaings.
The first is describing the causation within the universe, which is just a rearrangement of existing matter and energy, known as creation ex material.
The second definition you use for ' instances of causation' is the creation of the universe out of nothing, which is creation ex nihilo.
Please directly address these two points. No one here has ignored your 'proof', but you have disingenuously ignored our refutations.
I created another thread with a similar title to this one, using the same argument you have used, to prove that Universe Creating Pixies exist. Yes, I admit that it is a joke thread. But that does not change the fact that my 'proof' is no different than yours, but leads to a different conclusion.
Show me why my argument on the other thread fails to prove that Universe Existing Pixies exist, but your argument proves that a god exists.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-46189.html
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
