RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 14, 2017 at 2:44 pm
(This post was last modified: November 14, 2017 at 3:12 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(November 14, 2017 at 2:08 pm)SteveII Wrote: I am not stringing claims together. I will discuss the reasons (which are different than the premises themselves) to believe the premises are more plausible than their negation.
For reference:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1 and 3)
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God. (from 2 and 4)
Still at it, then? If you didn't know what was wrong with the argument before, you do now. It just can't get any worse for an argument than for the premise to be unsound, the form invalid, and the nested propositions uninformative with regards to each other. This has been discussed, you quoted it, you decided to respond...but somehow managed not to respond -in- your response. Your insistence that some premise is really, really plausible is irrelevant. Consider this, even if it were..and even if the conclusion were true..it wouldn't be for the reasons you've given, you failed to give a reason because you failed to adhere to the conditions of propositional logic.
That's complete and abject failure. I understand that it's an accurate description of your beliefs, and also that you believe that your beliefs are plausible.... but it's simply not and will never be a rational argument. You believe...because you believe..and that was made explicit in the premises of your malformed argument. You believe that your belief is rational, similarly, because it is yours...and your empty reassertion in the face of propositional mechanics is an example of your need to defend the rationalization as a part of your beliefs, about your beliefs..but more importantly about yourself. You're a rational person..right? Your beliefs are plausible, right? You've even got "reasons" for your "reasons".
Are you, are they...and if they were, was this...including the response above.... a good demonstration of that? I'm uninterested in further "reasons" from you if those you've already presented are indicative of their quality. "Reasons" resistent to factual correction aren't reasons at all, they're just so many more beliefs strung together.
Come back with a sound premise, in which the conditional relationships justify their contraposition, arranged into a valid form. These are the requirements of a compelling argument.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
