Thanks for waiting, MK. Just a few points:
1. I'm still unclear as to what you mean by 'accurately existing'. The word choice implies that it is possible to exist inaccurately, to accurately not exist, and so forth. Can you expand on what you mean?
2. You seem to have a habit of assuming that mysterious or unexplained (to you, any road) phenomena must be attributable to God. Why? This is simply arguing from ignorance.
3. You are indeed asserting the conclusion in the premise, by insisting that there must be some sort of objective Being to judge and maintain humanity. You then call this judge God. The trouble is that you haven't shown why such a judge - or any judge or even judgement - is necessary or even desirable.
Boru
1. I'm still unclear as to what you mean by 'accurately existing'. The word choice implies that it is possible to exist inaccurately, to accurately not exist, and so forth. Can you expand on what you mean?
2. You seem to have a habit of assuming that mysterious or unexplained (to you, any road) phenomena must be attributable to God. Why? This is simply arguing from ignorance.
3. You are indeed asserting the conclusion in the premise, by insisting that there must be some sort of objective Being to judge and maintain humanity. You then call this judge God. The trouble is that you haven't shown why such a judge - or any judge or even judgement - is necessary or even desirable.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
