(February 1, 2015 at 2:08 pm)SteveII Wrote:(February 1, 2015 at 12:05 am)Esquilax Wrote: And you can't just cover for your first baseless assertion with a second, because now you've just replaced "are miracles possible?" with "is god possible?" and even if you answer the latter question you'd still need to answer the former. As it stands, you're attempting to rush ahead without answering either question, and that alone makes every conclusion you draw suspect at best.
Through reasoning, we discover that the existence of God is logically possible (ontological, cosmological, teleological). Tell me what is wrong with this syllogism:
1. If God possible, miracles are possible,
2. God is possible
3. Therefore Miracles are possible
The definition of miracles is an event that occurs beyond the explanation of natural things.
You have a claim between your premise and conclusion. That's exactly as 'good' a 'syllogism' as:
1. If Esquilax's friend is possible, time travel is possible.
2. Esquilax's friend is possible.
3. Therefore, time travel is possible.
You can prove anything with 'logic' like that. Which makes it not logic.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.