RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 12, 2017 at 2:20 pm
(This post was last modified: November 12, 2017 at 2:21 pm by Whateverist.)
(November 11, 2017 at 10:55 pm)Cyberman Wrote: Yep. They all have to assume the very thing they're intended to prove, in order to work.
Yesterday I turned lead into gold, by the astonishingly complex method of assuming I did it.
Happy for you. Try to enjoy your gold without getting lead poisoning.
I've been thinking that the basic form of all arguments for God could be expressed better as:
(1) Condition X is unimaginable without God.
(2) Condition X is well established.
(3) God exists.
And the universal basis for rejecting the argument is that (1) always and necessarily begs the question, thereby smuggling in as a premise what was supposed to be argued for. The fact that "God" always goes undefined is another issue.
(November 12, 2017 at 2:01 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: If gawd existed, it would know exactly what evidence it would take to convince each and every one of us. Why is it that all we get are crackpots with unconvincing logical arguments?
Maybe It knows but .. fuck you?
