(July 4, 2012 at 3:51 pm)Skepsis Wrote:(July 4, 2012 at 3:39 pm)gringoperry Wrote: A causes B, yet we do not know what A is. We can be sure that A causes B, yet there are numerous possible labels to assign to A. So, why God? Why not me? For all you know I am the only conscious being in existence that can cause anything. You could be a product of my eternal loneliness. It is quite probable that everything has cause; given what we know. However, you can't just go around assigning whatever you want to A. What you want it to be has a slim to no chance of being the actual case. Seriously, are we really having this debate?
What he is trying to do is create a hypothetical where God would be the only possible explanation for event X. He says that, if this hyothetical came to pass, the claims that you need to prove God before you can prove that God did something loses its validity. However, in which universe will this hypothetical ever come to pass, where only God as he personally defines it can cause an event that only said defined God could accomplish?
This will never happen, and everyone here knows it, but this argument doesn't seem anywhere near its close.
Mooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!! Clive is not playing fair, he is trying to change the rules of the game in his favor, and it's not fair!!!
