Why all "Logical Proofs Of God" fail ...
March 4, 2014 at 4:56 pm
(This post was last modified: March 4, 2014 at 5:07 pm by Rampant.A.I..)
(March 3, 2014 at 8:58 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(February 17, 2014 at 8:10 am)MitchBenn Wrote: A lot of apologists (deliberately?) confuse the concepts of "logic" and "reality". Reality is that which exists, regardless of who believes in it or not. Logic is a method of discerning and defining reality.Massive fail. Some nonbelievers confuse reality with the physical universe. If God is real, then by definition He is part of reality. If logic is indeed a method for gaining knowledge of reality, and if God is part of reality, then logic is a method for gaining knowledge of God.
Wow. Somebody needs to take a community college Logic 101 class.
The unmoved mover is an historically flawed argument, with a presupposed conclusion in the premise.
I'm not sure what the point of reciting Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was, other than to make your argument appear to be legitimate, when in fact all you've done is shifted the burden of proof around so that you don't have to provide any evidence, logical or otherwise.
You're just stacking unsupported claims and presupposing <God exists> so "everything is evidence".
