Silly Creationist

[thebigfudge]

---

Meh, Swinburnes, Kalam, any number of cosmological arguments. Doesn't really make a difference which you're employing. You know this is the second chance I've had to post this link up in two days.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t..._Arguments

Please explain to me how your argument differs from the cosmological argument (which, for reasons explained at length, is unsound)

---

Ugh, Wikipedia. Not sure where you get the idea that the cosmological argument is necessarily unsound just because some atheistic/agnostic logicians objected to it, there are many theistic logicians who do believe it is sound. That being said, I was not making a cosmological argument at all, but rather a presuppositoinal one. In order for any knowledge to be gained, you have to presuppose that we live in a universe created by the God of the Bible because it is only this universe that could even be intelligible. So the fact that you are even trying to make an argument against God's existence is in turn proving His existence because you would be unable to even do this in an atheistic universe.

So the fact that you can argue against God is the proof of god. So if I argue against Ganesh does that mean that i prove his existence ?