The witness argument (yet again, I know, I know)

[Anomalocaris]

<Yawn> you're getting very boring, MK.

Well, listening to MK come up with his “arguments” and “proofs” now is like watching maggots grow on the corpse of what was at one time a merely very sick person.  If you speed up the tape there is still shock and disgust value.   But watching it happen in real time just overpowers the grossness with truly agonizingly tedium.

[robvalue]

1,000 bad arguments =/= 1 good argument

It's not like in Zelda when you collect pieces of heart containers.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Thanks for waiting, MK. Just a few points:

1.  I'm still unclear as to what you mean by 'accurately existing'.  The word choice implies that it is possible to exist inaccurately, to accurately not exist, and so forth.  Can you expand on what you mean?

2.  You seem to have a habit of assuming that mysterious or unexplained (to you, any road) phenomena must be attributable to God.  Why?  This is simply arguing from ignorance.

3.  You are indeed asserting the conclusion in the premise, by insisting that there must be some sort of objective Being to judge and maintain humanity. You then call this judge God.  The trouble is that you haven't shown why such a judge - or any judge or even judgement - is necessary or even desirable.

Boru

[Whateverist]

 To prove the existence of God, you cannot start by assuming that God exists

Did not do so here.

Did too, did too! QED, no God. Sorry but thanks for playing.

Gadzooks, ninja'd again.

[Mystic]

Thanks for waiting, MK. Just a few points:

1.  I'm still unclear as to what you mean by 'accurately existing'.  The word choice implies that it is possible to exist inaccurately, to accurately not exist, and so forth.  Can you expand on what you mean?

I mean we are an idea whether it's our brain that generates it or something else.  That idea is a living thing, and what I mean by accurate is that what we do and our personality hue and shape and form has a definite exact form. The opposite of that is to say, there is no reality to that, and our mind generates an estimate to who we are, the estimate can be deluded, misguided or accurate. However what is obvious is that our mind cannot create that absolute reality to who we are.  That is that who that inherits all our actions in the past, in exact measurement, is a reality only God can maintain. God as in the Absolute Perfect being. 

So if we have an exact reality and we are created through a mind, it's either our mind or God (a mind) that sees us as is. 

Now if you want to say how do we know this. See the reply to Khemikal about love and reason.

2.  You seem to have a habit of assuming that mysterious or unexplained (to you, any road) phenomena must be attributable to God.  Why?  This is simply arguing from ignorance.

Is this fair?. Can perfect judgment be separate from giving us accurate judgement to who we are in an absolute way? And can perfect judgement be separated from the perfect being?

3.  You are indeed asserting the conclusion in the premise, by insisting that there must be some sort of objective Being to judge and maintain humanity. You then call this judge God.  The trouble is that you haven't shown why such a judge - or any judge or even judgement - is necessary or even desirable.

The argument is to demonstrate that premise, and that premise with some facts, lead to conclusion of God.

[The Grand Nudger]

So if we have an exact reality and we are created through a mind, it's either our mind or God (a mind) that sees us as is. 

Or neither.

[Mystic]

Our personhood exists through judgment of some kind. Since we aren't perfect in wisdom and perception to judge others or ourselves in absolute manner, we aren't the source. The perfect Judge is the source and his vision and command to exist is the reality of how we exist.

[The Grand Nudger]

Our personhood exists through judgment of some kind.

Less asserting, more demonstrating.

Since we aren't perfect in wisdom and perception to judge others or ourselves in absolute manner, we aren't the source.

Or maybe the "source" of our personhood has imperfect knowledge of itselfs and others. Odd..you did just describe an entity that fits that description which can be demonstrated to exist......

The perfect Judge is the source and his vision and command to exist is the reality of how we exist.

Yeah yeah yeah, I get that you really really really -wish- that there was some "perfect judge" for whatever godforsaken reason..but since you're using this as a euphemism for a god..its what you would need to demonstrate.

[Mystic]

Waiting on you Boru.

[Mystic]

This is argument not only sound, but it's premises are manifest and not really disputable. They are clear and can be clearly argued for as I have.