(August 12, 2009 at 6:01 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: No, it is not a statement of creation. That is an invalid equivocation of terms on your part.Or an invalid equivocation of terms on your part.
Quote:Rather, it does something to prove it by analysing the intrinsic logical coherence (regardless of extrinsic evidence) of the epistemic structure of Christianity versus atheism.Yet morality and logic can be explained without a God (as can knowledge), so it ultimately fails to prove anything.
Quote:A God who is not consistent with the biblical doctrine of God as a transcendent, omniscient intellectual being would not lead to the logical coherence that the TAG concludes that the Christian worldview has.How exactly is the Islamic God any different? It is both transcendent, omniscience, etc. What if I were to dream up a certain God that had all the attributes of the Christian God without being the Christian God (i.e. not Yahweh). Surely in that case the TAG argument could apply there as well?
Quote:It is worthless to compare FSM to a self-existent transcendent God. FSM is composed of matter, and is flying through space in timeYou evidently have not studied Pastafarian doctrine at all. Don't talk about things you know nothing about.
Quote:YHWH is one of the names for God, which refers to God's transcendence and self-existence; ehyeh asher ehyeh, I am that I am, I shall be that I shall be, etc. It is implicit in the notion of a self-existent transcendent and necessary being.Stop dodging the question. You knew full well that I meant the specific Christian God. How does TAG point solely to the Christian God, when any number of Gods that share it's attributes could equally be the resultant deity?
