(September 5, 2014 at 8:41 am)Cato Wrote: I consider Michael's syllogism both valid and sound based on our accumulated experience.My question did not address logical validity nor experientially soundness, but whether the argument was meaningful. My position on the cosmological argument is that the argument is -- like the concept of god or Russell's teapot -- unlikely to the point of being dismissible.
If I made my point poorly or tediously, perhaps it was partially due to the fact we were already in a "how many angels..." kind of discussion where the question was whether and how to design an experiment to test the existence of an imaginary being.
