The absolute absurdity of God

[Simon Moon]

A void doesn't make sense, but an immaterial mind does?

It seems your definitions of "making sense" and "correct understanding" and mine, drastically differ.

Please provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support your claim that an immaterial mind is even possible. Once you accomplish that, then provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument that it actually does exist.

A reasoned argument? How about a basic Cosmological Argument from Contingency:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

Fine so far.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence

Yes it does.

that explanation is God.

Whoa there sparky!

This sounds an awful lot like an unsupported premise/assertion.

Please show your work. How did you eliminate every other explanation? How do you even know about every other possible explanation?

3. The universe exists.

Yes, it does.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

I am sure it does.

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

How does an unsupported assertion (from 2) lead to true conclusion?

Your argument is unsound.

This is a perfectly logical inductive argument. The premises are based on legitimate conclusions (each one can be easily defended with a surprising lack of defeaters).

Again we seem to differ on our definitions.

My definition of a "perfectly logical" argument is one that does not contain fallacies or unsupported premises.

Even if you don't find the argument convincing--what you cannot say is that the notion of God's existence does not make sense or is irrational. We logically infer what attributes must a first cause have: uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal.

The argument is unconvincing because it has unsupported assertions.

All that other stuff you tacked on there to describe your "first cause" is not supported. How do you know the first cause could not have been just powerful enough to create the universe? Why does it have to be personal? Why could it not have changed after it created the universe?

This is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." Wikipedia.

Yeah.

Why don't you try to post an inductive argument that meets your own criteria? Because this one certainly doesn't.