Burden of Proof

[Mark 13:13]

I like it, its creative and silly, and so is fun. without getting drawn into fancy words for philosophical concepts which i,m ill equiped to use I can say there appears to me the possability of a problem with....

the first statement as if we are allowed to imagine is there a limit to what we can imagine? some may be able to that you could have a creator of the creator of a universe which would be a greater achievement that the first statement and this could go on forever as has been pointed out in other contexts on other threads.

the statement 5. is interesting as its close to what a singularity is to many people who can't understand how something called a singularity can have no volume and yet be seen to exist.

You are not understanding the reason behind Gaskin's parody of the Ontological Argument.

The Ontological Argument is fallacious. In other words it is not logically valid. When a syllogism is not logically valid, it means that the premises do not support the conclusion.

The parody is an attempt to show just how inane the Ontological Argument is, It is not mean as a valid argument itself.

without getting drawn into fancy words for philosophical concepts which i,m ill equiped to use

You REALLY should read some books on basic logic. Especially since you continue to bring up so many of these failed philosophical arguments.

So far you've used the Cosmological Argument and the Ontological Argument, yet you don't understand them, and more importantly, you don't understand why they fail.

This is exactly why you are too dependent on this ->

All true but he seems someone in tune with my mental processes just on a higher level so for me I need to read.

The reason why logic and science are so effective is because they DON'T count on your personal mental processes. The human mind is way too susceptible to confirmation bias, misinterpretations, prejudices, etc.

Common sense is very often wrong.

I did understand the point, I was just playing about with the proof itself, I hadn't realised my arguement was this Ontological arguement and took your word for it and that as it had been dealt with elsewhere and I don't have sufficient time to see how at moment. I just accepted your statement. I apologise if you thought otherwise. As far as proofs go in relation to GOD i have stated it clearly before that no one can ever prove or disprove so every proof to me is just a game with words and ideas that we go on endlessly until we cease to exist or GOD shows himself. Should the later happen I can't believe He will be bothering with proofs.