A good argument for God's existence (long but worth it)

[Brian37]

Brian you speak for yourself.

Any Atheist can always accept the proofs Theists offer for God and accept the reminders that point to his existence. *smiles*

Number 1 rule of doubting, know when to stop doubting.

ps - Thanks for the welcome back.

Rule #1 If you are not doubting you are not thinking. 

I am not here to bow to your God or any. If you were Christian or Hindu or Jewish I would have the same response. Not my job to blindly swallow.

[Edwardo Piet]

Rule #1 If you are not doubting you are not thinking. 

I highly doubt that.

Oh, I see what you mean! Thanks!

[Mystic]

1. You said we do have degrees for what we value (ie. somethings we value more than others).
2. You even conceded we ought to value some things more than others.
3. You then said there is no connection between the "name" of "what ought to be valued the most" to the "what ought to be valued the most".

I don't mean letters, I mean that reference we have in us to that which we ought to value the most.

Clarification:

1. Is that we have no reference to what we ought to value the most, then on basis do you believe in 1 and 2 (see above what you conceded)?

Remember here so far, we are discussing in theory, we haven't argued what that being is.

The name of “that which ought to be valued the most” in possibility worlds speaking, has to be a connection that makes us know what ought to be valued the most.

No, it doesn't. 

It does, I would argue because the term is known already to refer to a reality.  What I mean by the name, is the true name.

So whatever is the true connecting concept (ie. I don't mean letters) to that which ought to be valued most, it makes us know to some degree what ought to be valued most.

The opposite is really hard to argue on the other hand. That we have no degree of knowledge of what ought to be valued most despite a connecting concept that we recall by the words "Ought to be valued most". 

What I mean by name is the image we recall through words and connect through and the connection, not the letters themselves.

Remember at this point, we aren't concluding a Creator Spirit or anything. Just that something ought to be valued the most, and that the words themselves make us recall what that is, and the name is that connection to that.

Just like the word "red", you have a concept of "red" colors or "red" things, and we aren't talking about "r e d" letters, but rather the reference to it. I mean by value, we have a concept of value, and that we need a measuring reality by which we see.

I argue once you conceded we need to see objectively by truth and measure by truth, it becomes obvious, that, we the true thing ought to be valued the most is the source of that perception by which we need to see and get clarification from.

There is a close affinity with the "value" and the "perception of value" such that they are interlinked.  That is because the perception of value is love eyes and we value love.

[Alex K]

Sorry MK, you've used up all your "long but worth it" credits. Show me a good argument in three terse paragraphs and I'll read it. If you need half a book, it's a sure sign it's bullshit.

[Edwardo Piet]

This is as terse as he's gotten so far:

What exactly do you think you said in the OP that is remotely argument to successfully addressing the argument from evil?

The name of God is obviously connected to God, so it makes no sense to say "the name of God" points to this concept, that the name of God somehow exists, and properly manifests what an ultimate being would be to a degree, that we have a reference to what an ultimate being would be, but that no such being exists.
 
It is insane to think we would know what ultimate greatness would be and how it would act, while there is no connection to it.
 
The argument of evil falls flat in that regard and becomes paradoxical.  It has no argument.

That's it. That is the relevant part.

To which I said:

And how is that relevant? The name/concept of God is not the same thing as God. But yes, God shall be defined. And if he is defined to be all powerful, all good and all knowing.... well, the argument from evil addresses those things and you haven't.

Fair enough if you don't think your God is all good, all powerful and all knowing. But in that case... why are you even bothering to attempt to argue against the argument from evil when it's not relevant to the God you believe in?

[Mystic]

Sorry MK, you've used up all your "long but worth it" credits. Show me a good argument in three terse paragraphs and I'll read it. If you need half a book, it's a sure sign it's bullshit.

The witness argument was the best argument by far.   It's very simple that we require an objective judging perception to define us and our perception is not that, nor do we make ourselves inherit our actions.

That's it. The perpetual identity was good. The signs of value in ourselves was long but good too. This is good too.

The moral argument is sound. The paradox of any possible Creator being unable to create goodness from nothing hence proving it's eternal is good too.

You guys have been hit with so many good arguments, rather sad, you guys insisted on accepting arguments and evidence to believe in God and only on that condition, but when shown it, you turn aside from them and don't properly digest them.

[Edwardo Piet]

The biggest problem for you here, MK, is that you can't tell the difference between a valid argument and a non-sequitur.

[LadyForCamus]

What's up LFC?

Hamster dance!!

[Alex K]

Sorry MK, you've used up all your "long but worth it" credits. Show me a good argument in three terse paragraphs and I'll read it. If you need half a book, it's a sure sign it's bullshit.

The witness argument was the best argument by far.  

Ok then let's concentrate on that one if you say so.

It's very simple that we require an objective judging perception to define us and our perception is not that, nor do we make ourselves inherit our actions.

I don't understand a single word. This summary is just gibberish to me. Maybe too compressed?

[Edwardo Piet]

What's up LFC?

Hamster dance!!

Yay!