Proving God in 20 statements

[Mystic]

The way you explained your argument is either fallacy by ambiguity (misusing the word "greatest") or it's fallacy by affirming the conclusion (ie. your argument states in the argument the conclusion that leads exactly to the conclusion).

I believe in God and I believe there are good arguments to point to his existence as well some clear reminders.  However, I don't find your argument strong at all.

[Ravenshire]

Then you'd better come up with some evidence and not just philosophical babble.

I have much evidence as I've alluded to in previous posts. However, I must set the philosophical stage first. One is not likely to listen to statistical proof if a priori one has written off it's possible existence. The proof I've presented is logic, through and through but that's just the beginning.

Evidence is, well, evident. If what you've got needs a bunch of psycho-babble bullshit to explain it, it's not evidence.

[smfortune]

The way you explained your argument is either fallacy by ambiguity (misusing the word "greatest") or it's fallacy by affirming the conclusion (ie. your argument states in the argument the conclusion that leads exactly to the conclusion).

I believe in God and I believe there are good arguments to point to his existence as well some clear reminders.  However, I don't find your argument strong at all.

Your difficulty lies in the argument's ontological leanings. I understand that. For 10 centuries philosophers have been trying to debunk it. I've tied the ontologocial argument to a mathematical observation: Incompleteness. The tethering makes the onotological conclusion even more obvious. I'd hoped that "greatness" would finally be understood in the infinite being necessarily revealed in an explanation of the universe. But the argument isn't a fallacy, on the contrary, it is valid and sound (but not convincing)...it wasn't meant to be such (at least not for the ardent atheist). I'm glad that we've finally come around to opening the door to true questionning. Perhaps there is a god, who could this being be? I believe that truth leads only one way.

[Nay_Sayer]

The way you explained your argument is either fallacy by ambiguity (misusing the word "greatest") or it's fallacy by affirming the conclusion (ie. your argument states in the argument the conclusion that leads exactly to the conclusion).

I believe in God and I believe there are good arguments to point to his existence as well some clear reminders.  However, I don't find your argument strong at all.

Your difficulty lies in the argument's ontological leanings. I understand that. For 10 centuries philosophers have been trying to debunk it. I've tied the ontologocial argument to a mathematical observation: Incompleteness. The tethering makes the onotological conclusion even more obvious. I'd hoped that "greatness" would finally be understood in the infinite being necessarily revealed in an explanation of the universe. But the argument isn't a fallacy, on the contrary, it is valid and sound (but not convincing)...it wasn't meant to be such (at least not for the ardent atheist). I'm glad that we've finally come around to opening the door to true questionning. Perhaps there is a god, who could this being be? I believe that truth leads only one way.

Easy, FSM.  Let him into your heart and you'll see.

[Mystic]

No it has nothing to do with that. I believe greatness points to ultimate greatness as it's source and basis. I believe that ultimate greatest basis to all greatness and source of all beauty and praise, the one to whom all greatness belongs to is God.

However your argument mentions "greatest" before explanation. This in language would then take on meaning of that which is greatest in explanatory power.

If you define it as greatest being, then your argument is just asserting the conclusion.

[smfortune]

I have much evidence as I've alluded to in previous posts. However, I must set the philosophical stage first. One is not likely to listen to statistical proof if a priori one has written off it's possible existence. The proof I've presented is logic, through and through but that's just the beginning.

Evidence is, well, evident. If what you've got needs a bunch of psycho-babble bullshit to explain it, it's not evidence.

Some are ever hearing but deaf and ever seeing but blind. The average atheist I've come to realize is very intelligent but that's precisely the problem. He's convinced himself that he's sorted out truth from fiction especially when such a conviction leads to no conviction about sin at all. If he were but to open his eyes and ears and follow his natural born intelligence where it'll lead, he'll find the truth a lot more exciting and mind-blowing than he's ever imagined. What is evident is widely different than what is "self-evident" when self gets in the way.

---

The way you explained your argument is either fallacy by ambiguity (misusing the word "greatest") or it's fallacy by affirming the conclusion (ie. your argument states in the argument the conclusion that leads exactly to the conclusion).

I believe in God and I believe there are good arguments to point to his existence as well some clear reminders.  However, I don't find your argument strong at all.

Your difficulty lies in the argument's ontological leanings. I understand that. For 10 centuries philosophers have been trying to debunk it. I've tied the ontologocial argument to a mathematical observation: Incompleteness. The tethering makes the onotological conclusion even more obvious. I'd hoped that "greatness" would finally be understood in the infinite being necessarily revealed in an explanation of the universe. But the argument isn't a fallacy, on the contrary, it is valid and sound (but not convincing)...it wasn't meant to be such (at least not for the ardent atheist). I'm glad that we've finally come around to opening the door to true questionning. Perhaps there is a god, who could this being be? I believe that truth leads only one way.

If FSM is truth and reason, then by all means!

---

No it has nothing to do with that. I believe greatness points to ultimate greatness as it's source and basis. I believe that ultimate greatest basis to all greatness and source of all beauty and praise, the one to whom all greatness belongs to is God.

However your argument mentions "greatest" before explanation. This in language would then take on meaning of that which is greatest in explanatory power.

If you define it as greatest being, then your argument is just asserting the conclusion.

Do I really mention greatness before explanatory power?

[Mystic]

---

No it has nothing to do with that. I believe greatness points to ultimate greatness as it's source and basis. I believe that ultimate greatest basis to all greatness and source of all beauty and praise, the one to whom all greatness belongs to is God.

However your argument mentions "greatest" before explanation. This in language would then take on meaning of that which is greatest in explanatory power.

If you define it as greatest being, then your argument is just asserting the conclusion.

Do I really mention greatness before explanatory power?

You mentioned as "greatest explanation".  You said that must be God but never explained why. But if you define "greatest" explanation as in the sense the explanation is the greatest possible explanation in the sense of praise and glory, then this different then the impression it gives as in explanatory power.

Then your argument would be nothing but affirming the conclusion.

You start off saying God is the greatest explanation of the universe, and then assert that the greatest explanation must be the true explanation of the universe. However you did nothing to prove that.

Yes God is philosophically speaking the greatest explanation in terms of glory/beauty/majesty, because that is how God is defined (as absolute glory/beauty/majesty). 

But stating the universe must have such an explanation behind it has not been proven by this argument. It's been asserted, then it leads exactly to where it started. That's not an argument. That's a fallacy of affirming the conclusion.

[smfortune]

---

Do I really mention greatness before explanatory power?

You mentioned as "greatest explanation".  You said that must be God but never explained why. But if you define "greatest" explanation as in the sense the explanation is the greatest possible explanation in the sense of praise and glory, then this different then the impression it gives as in explanatory power.

Then your argument would be nothing but affirming the conclusion.

You start off saying God is the greatest explanation of the universe, and then assert that the greatest explanation must be the true explanation of the universe. However you did nothing to prove that.

Yes God is philosophically speaking the greatest explanation in terms of glory/beauty/majesty, because that is how God is defined (as absolute glory/beauty/majesty). 

But stating the universe must have such an explanation behind it has not been proven by this argument. It's been asserted, then it leads exactly to where it started. That's not an argument. That's a fallacy of affirming the conclusion.

I say that God must be as an ultimate explanation because such a conclusion is logically derived by the preceding premises (as per proper form of all syllogisms; no problem there). Now remember the conclusion is Eu <-> G(hat)x; No where is this presented in the premises (unless it is an enthymeme which it is not). So the criticism of asserting/affirming the conclusion is unfair. You could check to see if I'm wrong. You may doubt the soundness of "Any characteristic "greatness" refers to God". But like I explained previously, greatness is defined as greatest possible (in line with the premise). Which is true of God. God by definition is the greatest possible of everything (if he so chooses). The metaphysical concepts of glory, beauty and majesty while true of God are not limiting characteristics of God's possible greatness - which extents to even explanatory power.

[Mystic]

If this a sound argument, it's very hard to see.

So how about rewording in plain English. Each premise in plain English.

I reread it and it seems to have the problem I stated. Aside from the premise the universe requires an explanation which no one disagrees with, it was practically asserted and not argued for that God must be the explanation but very covertly by giving it a different name (greatest explanation).

[Goosebump]

"Getting off on mall cop authority". LOL, if you say so, scrub.

Why am I making an issue of this?  Because telling you you've stepped over a line and giving you an opportunity to sort your own shit out saves us a bunch of paperwork, that's why.

To be clear - there's a reason we don't let new members link to outside content.  Copypasting that same content isn't an acceptable workaround.  There is no acceptable workaround.  You get to wait your 30 days and 30 posts just like everyone else, snowflake.

I'll leave you to your unevidenced, unsound wankfest now.

Here's the verbal (sic) warning that I received from Atheistforums.org on trying to copy and paste the link: "You have received a verbal warning from the staff of Atheist Forums. We do not allow new users to post links to outside content until they have reached both 30 days of membership and accrued 30 points. This is clearly highlighted in the rules. (link provided) Please review our rules and refrain from posting links until you have fulfilled these criteria. If you'd like to discuss your 'proof', you may post the text in a regular post. Thanks for your cooperation." So tell me again, how did I step over a line? Look, I've been called a clown, silly and now a scrub by the gentle folk on this forum and I've been reticent about it for the sake of the discussion and frankly, I've been brought up better than retaliating with like. I've posted on theistic forums and the level of class and respect is far and away superior to what is meted out here. But I've dealt with you enough. Have a good day, sir.

Kinda seems like he's trying to be martyred. Perhaps a "I proved god and the atheists banned me." thread is in the works.