(July 14, 2023 at 5:11 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You said:"You are the evidence. Your existence is evidence of a great originator. Please think wisely" I quoted you in my reply to you. My existence can't be evidence for a great originator unless you assume the consequent.
If a tree is burned, it leaves ashes.
There are ashes, therefore they are from a burned tree.
The essence of the problem of affirming the consequent is that it assumes what it's trying to prove. Ashes can come from burnt things besides trees. I could have some other origin than an omniscient universe creator. In order to arrive at me being the evidence for a great originator, you have to eliminate every other possibility for my origin. And you haven't come remotely close to doing that.
I am not sure whom you're talking to here, really.
The OP isn't even an argument, it simply states that God's existence is obvious, when once contemplates reality.
More to the point; I don't have to eliminate any possibility for your origin, because that's not how arguments are generally stated for theism. An argument for theism would simply attempt to prove that your existence is best explained by God. You can always take the way out and posit any other hilarious scenario for your origin, the only problem is that it would be of very low initial plausibility.
