No it isn't. You still have not demonstrated why a god should be eternal.
Lets replace eternal with blue eyes
1: God has by definition blue eyes
2: If God exists, his must have blue eyes (from 1)
3: If God does not exist, he doesn't have blue eyes (from 1)
4: God's blue eyes either exist or don't exist (from 2,3)
5: If blue eyes were impossible, then the idea of God would be logically contradictory.
6: The idea of God is not logically contradictory.
7: God's blue eyes is not logically impossible (from 5,6)
8: God's blue eyes is necessary (from 4,7)
9: God exists (from 8).
See the flaw here?
Lets replace eternal with blue eyes
1: God has by definition blue eyes
2: If God exists, his must have blue eyes (from 1)
3: If God does not exist, he doesn't have blue eyes (from 1)
4: God's blue eyes either exist or don't exist (from 2,3)
5: If blue eyes were impossible, then the idea of God would be logically contradictory.
6: The idea of God is not logically contradictory.
7: God's blue eyes is not logically impossible (from 5,6)
8: God's blue eyes is necessary (from 4,7)
9: God exists (from 8).
See the flaw here?
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you