Dualism

[Purple Rabbit]

Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.

The ontological argument is that because we can imagine a God he must exist. Yeah right - Is that the best you can offer for people believing they have proof? I think you need to go find some evidence - this is laughable.

It is indeed laughable, I fully agree, but hey, I am not a theologian thinker. The boys from the frontal lobe department down at th churches should be sacked right away! Since I have named three (former) leadng figures of the theologian brand here I guess you are gonna give me names of at least four leading theologians who deny the claim on the existence of god.

Playing with words again. It's laughable for YOU to suggest this is people believing there's proof. People's beliefs themselves are not in question here.
You have named 3 non examples... you need to go away and find an ACTUAL example.
Why should I have to go away and find anything? I have made no claims. I said it was a personal stance that I've yet to find fault with. Did you miss that bit?

Let's have a look how the argument went so far.

First you demanded justification for my claim that theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god. You did that here:

PR Wrote:Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.
There's a claim. substantiate please.

Then I give you three examples of two dead theologians and one contemporary theologian (Anselm, Aquinas and Swinburne). I do that here:

Anselm made that claim (with the ontological evidence for the existence of god), Thomas of Aquino who viewed theology as a science made that claim, Richard Swinburne makes that claim, to name only a few. Philosophical literature is stuffed with it. In fact for many years philosophy has been so heavily influenced by theologian dogma that it was quite risky (and life threathening even) to not include a definite proof of god’s existence in any major work on philosophy or science.

Then you discard my examples on the ground that the proofs of these men are invalid. You do that here:

The ontological argument is that because we can imagine a God he must exist. Yeah right - Is that the best you can offer for people believing they have proof? I think you need to go find some evidence - this is laughable.

Of course this is a rather vitreous diversion tactic, a wordgame played in the hope no-one notices that you have changed the rules while playing the game. It is not relevant at all if these so called proofs are valid or not, what counts is that these theologians claimed them to be valid.

To summarize:
P1 - these men were/are theologians.
P2 - these theologians claimed proof for the existence of god.
C1 - Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.

From P1 and P2 it follows that theologians through the ages have claimed proof for the existence of god. If you do not agree with this please make clear what's wrong about P1 or P2 or how the premisses not necessarily lead to the conclusion, for you have done none of that so far.

From C1 it follows that through the ages theologians do not share your key assumption that belief does not require proof. The rest of your talk is blabla to divert attention from this key point.

Please sanatize your argumentation. I believe that you can do better than you have done so far.