(March 22, 2015 at 6:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(March 21, 2015 at 7:15 pm)Delicate Wrote: These words come from your own post. They constitute among the most compelling arguments you've presented so far.
Considering the way you've avoided the majority of my other arguments as though you have no answer to them, I won't take this as a signifier of the actual quality of my argument.
Quote:You're clearly saying that I define God as uncreated because that's how I want to define him.
And as I have shown, that's clearly false.
And, as with all the other arguments I've made that you can't rebut, you've ignored the more present point in favor of harping on the irrelevant one. As I've said before, regardless of where the definition comes from, you still can't define your way around an argument. You've selected your definition of god from a range of them, and I don't care what reasons you had for doing so; the point is that "...by definition!" is not an argument.
Now, are you going to address the ninety percent of my arguments that you've thus far simply avoided, or not?
It's evident that you're confused since you're still harping on definitions.
But like I said, definition don't matter. Replace God with any variable, where the object represented by the variable has the property of being uncreated.
The theist now alleges to have an argument for the existence of something that has the property of being uncreated.
And your whole definition spiel has become irrelevant. If you have to argue against this you have make a metaphysical objection, not a definitional objection.
I don't know why you think you've made so many great points when they are so obviously silly and false.
If you want to make a serious objection to cosmological arguments, a much more substantial way to do it is via the metaphysics of causation.
