Debunking Christianity? It's actually quite as simple as asking "why?"

[Boris Spacek]

Pretty hefty leap from god to God. I was looking back through the posts, and yep, I came in right under you regarding your missing a step, so you have had a pretty straightforward challenge. Is possibility the only thing you hope for from the christian god, you just want him to be possible? There are a great many things that I wish were possible......can these also be true?

Sorry, your first sentence threw me off. (The capitalization is just a custom to me. It's not the way to write God once you have the theorem as opposed to the theory). But I understand you now. You're saying "I posted a challenge directly under my first post." Yes! Now I see that you did. I thought you meant that by, "I came in," you had just noticed some vital post directly under my post. No. I get it now.

But you do understand what I've been saying all this time, right? I don't need to prove God exists to engage the Young Atheist on his initial point of controversy. On the other hand, if you see it as a challenge, as opposed to the missing link to my argument (which it isn't!), then I will take you up on this, as it interests me too. However, it would be useful if you tried simultaneously to disprove God in whatever way you will; otherwise, we'll be singing the up and down song for the rest of our lives:

- Prove it!
-Disprove it!
-Prove it!
-Disprove it!
.......

---

What if I hadn't given God these qualities? What if these were all scripturally based or teaching of church patricians? I know scripture doesn't prove anything; it's just a guide to God (from my point of view), and to anyone else it's the first source Christian philosophy and doctrine. I guess, my question is, if I call something the source of Goodness, wouldn't the next step to be to establish whether Goodness could have a source? You disagree with my method of naming, but I can't: if indeed the FSM is the source of all light, then, if a source of light exists, the FSM must as well.

My point was that you can't ascribe an attribute to god before you prove that he exists. Then when you end up using said attribute as proof of his existence, you are confirming god's existence with attributes of his existence. You're putting the cart before the horse, so to speak, with your argument.

All I've done is give a name to a collection of attributes: if each of these attributes exists, then shouldn't God as well?

If you could prove he was the source of these attributes yes, but again, proving he had these attributes would require to first prove he exists.

Ok. Fair enough. But what is God apart from these attributes? The way I see it, it's a simply equivalence: God is the source of goodness; he is eternity. I suppose I shouldn't call the source of goodness an attribute; whereas, it would be right to say, an attribute of God is that He IS the source of goodness. By my definition, God is these things, so I don't have to prove that, since it's an axiom. I think it sounds like I'm grafting onto someone else's God these attributes (which, from historical arguments, the Christians were doing), instead of starting fresh and algebraically making God the origin and entire populace of these qualities, these abstractions.

So, in effect, His existence should be ratified by the existence of what He is equal to. Recognizing God really should just be a matter of grouping and naming. About the only problem I can see from here is in deciding what God isn't: omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and all perfection. But thinking? Is He sentient? Anyway.

1. God = perfection (well, I can't get anywhere without this)
2. Perfection exists, among other things (duuuuuuhhhhhhh...maybe?)
3. Ergo God exists (I guess so)