Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.  If so, your previous post, Anima, must be worth about ten pictures.  But I need only one:



For all your erudite (pedantic?) discussion of philosophers and their ideas, you can do neither of the following: 1) demonstrate that God exists, or that the existence of God is the best fit for reality as we observe it. 2) demonstrate that your particular God idea or religious tradition is superior to that of Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, or anyone else.

You are writing in a context where short, concise answers rule the day, and where more is less.  But nobody can be blinded by a sandstorm of just a couple grains, right?  All I see when I see these long-winded attempts is what I can read between the lines: "Nyaah nyaah, I don't need to provide evidence for my assertions about reality, until you've waded through my bibliography!"  But I can provide plenty of evidence supporting my resistance to your God ideas, and in a single source: your bedroom window.  Look out it, and tell me what you see (or, more specifically, do not).

You got proof it is bullshit?  If not how do we know you are not full of shit?

Try reading this.  What more proof does anyone need?

Let us endeavor to be terse rather than pedantic.

1. Statement = A picture is worth a thousand words. Response = Do not believe everything you see.

2. Statement = Medium is conducive to short answers. Response = Everything worth knowing doesn't fit on a bumper sticker

3. Statement = You have not demonstrated that God exists. Response = I have given sufficient support for the logical inference of a single cause of everything which was not caused by anything, which may further be falsified by the discovery of an infinite regressive causal chain (outside your window ).

P1. Nothing can exist as an infinite regress.
P2. Causes exist
C1. Causes cannot exist as an infinite regress

I readily admit this logic only stipulates at most there must be a single proactive thing which was not caused by anything to begin the chain of causation that is commonly referred to as God, but is not necessarily God or the God of Christianity. I will also readily admit that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is not necessarily a duck (though effectively a duck) .

4. Statement = You have not demonstrated God is the best fit for the reality we observe. Response = God does not need to be the best fit as this is an argument to redundancy, whereby if something is not the most efficient fit than it must not exists as a fit (your extra kidney, lung, and fingers would disagree). By argument of definition and valuation it may be stated that for the definition or valuation of anything to have meaning it must appeal to an objective determinate. (like Einstein's nothing goes faster than the speed of light which serves as an objective determinate for the speed of any given thing.) As the cause without cause is not predicated upon anything else the cause without cause shall serve as the essential determinate

5. Statement = You have not demonstrated your specific religion is superior to the others. Response = This was never my intention. Though I did give explanation of how religions and moral schemes may be evaluated, eliminated, and amalgamated. This structure should suffice to demonstrate as specified should we follow it to its conclusion. I worked through this process long ago but did not put it in this thread at the risk of being pedantic Suffice to say that in keeping with bullets 3 and 4 above one quickly comes to a single rather than multiple deity, whose qualities are defined by the maxims (conscious become omniscience; mortal become immortal) and pure perfections.

6. Statement = I do not need to provide evidence of my assertion of reality. Response = In this regard we have made extensive argument in regards to the quality of evidence. To which I have stated the implicit circumstantial empirical evidence should suffice in accordance with synthetic apriori and aposteriori (as provided in 3 and 4). From comments made in opposition it would seem the threshold of evidence set is to be explicit direct empirical evidence constituting analytic aposteriori (argued to not even be possible by Kant), as analytic apriori would be a tautology to which criticism would be it is begging the question. Hence it is argued the threshold of evidence being required by those in opposition cannot be met by anyone or anything to the exclusion of their own person and all information as yet considered knowledge. However, if the threshold is in keeping with that which permits knowledge of our own person and all other information the threshold then becomes one of implicit circumstantial empirical evidence by which inference may be made in accordance with bullets 3 and 4 above.