A Philosophical Argument for the Existence of God

[TheChristianEgoist]

This argument is different from many others (including the Kalam argument on this forum) in that it does not require (or really tolerate) the minutia of various theories of the special Sciences (like physics). It thoroughly anticipates and dismisses most major objections in the structure of the argument, itself.
You can find a full post of my argument, along with many clarifying comments and objections answered here: http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com ... ble-mover/

1) Things can only act according to their natures. This is the law of causality.

2) Regarding action, the nature of a thing is either purposeful or accidental – meaning that an action is either purposeful or un-purposeful, intentional or unintentional. This is the law of the excluded middle applied to the nature of action.

3) Accidental actions are necessarily the result of some sort of interaction – which means that every accidental action necessitates a prior action of some kind.

4) There cannot be an infinite regress of accidental actions. An infinite regress of a series cannot exist because a series must have a beginning in order to exist.

5) There must have been an action which triggered the beginning of accidental action (3 & 4), and this ‘trigger’ action could not, itself, have been accidental (3).

6) If the beginning to accidental action could not have been accidental, then it must have been purposeful (2).

7) A purposeful action is a volitional action and volition presupposes a mind and values.

8) An actor with mind, values, and volition is a person.

9) A personal actor began all accidental action in the universe.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to help3434]

Thanks help. I've literally been arguing with this guy for days about this. He inevitably responded every time by saying that I can't prove my claims and that my reason filter was broken, making me illogical. Quite frustrating.

[JohnA]

[Replying to help3434]

Thanks help. I've literally been arguing with this guy for days about this. He inevitably responded every time by saying that I can't prove my claims and that my reason filter was broken, making me illogical. Quite frustrating.

But toy have nor proceed anything,other than your reason filter being broken.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

I said before (which you keep on missing), even if impossible means not possible, it does not imply your argument that it is a eternal rule for everything.

To say everything everything is possible until proven impossible is wrong. Silk you to do is play the dice.

Your logic fails. It is the logic of a Theist.

[JohnA]

[Replying to help3434]

Thanks help. I've literally been arguing with this guy for days about this. He inevitably responded every time by saying that I can't prove my claims and that my reason filter was broken, making me illogical. Quite frustrating.

Please address my dice example (18).
Would love to see how you worm yourself out.

Btw. Your friend that helped you forgot that other dictionaries disagree, so he used argument from authority and population.

The prescriptive dice logic clearly disagrees with the descriptive dictionary.

How many goes do you want is what the FSM is asking.

[JohnA]

[Replying to JohnA]

no because impossible is DEFINED as "not possible". you can't just decide that's not what the word means anymore.

Concede?

But you have not convinced me of such.
That is like saying god exist because it is in the dictionaries.
You are completely ignoring the nature of your claim.

Besides, which dictionary are you using that says impossible is defined as "not possible".

This one does not agree with your claim:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/impossible
1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.
2. Not capable of being accomplished: an impossible goal.
3. Unacceptable; intolerable: impossible behavior.
4. Extremely difficult to deal with or tolerate: an impossible child; an impossible situation.

I think you are finding yourself in an impossible position.

Did you watch the cube video?

I think you have already conceded indirectly via your content of your posts!

From the Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary:
im•pos•si•ble (ɪmˈpɒs ə bəl)

adj.
1. not possible; incapable of being or happening.
2. unable to be performed or effected: an impossible assignment.
3. difficult beyond reason or propriety: an impossible situation.
4. utterly impracticable: an impossible plan.
5. hopelessly unsuitable, undesirable, or objectionable: an impossible person.

Impossible means not possible. This is even simpler than the dictionary definition of atheist.

Argument from authority.

Are you arguing that not impossible means possible? Above in one faulty example saying impossible = not possible. That is not what we are debating. Your faulty argument from authority is also a red herring and you ate straw manning my opponents position.

That is what he is trying to argue:it is logical that not impossible means possible. And he fails, like you.

The dice example is very clear on this. Can you tell where the given example is wrong?
He can not give me one example for his burden. I have given him mammy examples where is logic fails and practical examples where non burden works.
Remember he is trying to say it is logical and possible for a god/gods/supernatural to exist. Do you agree? If so, state your case or admit defeat.
I am merely saying it is not impossible That he can convince me that he can possible be right (some god/gods/supernatural is possible to exist). He is failing.

The irony is that even if he can, it then only proves my point.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 144 by JohnA]

If something is not impossible, that means it is possible. Why are you struggling with basic definitions?

[help3434]

But toy have nor proceed anything,other than your reason filter being broken.
<snip>

Silk you to do is play the dice.

Er, what? Almost a quarter of what you have been writing on this thread seems to be a word salad.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 144 by JohnA]

If something is not impossible, that means it is possible. Why are you struggling with basic definitions?

Why are you assuming not impossible = possible?

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 146 by help3434]


Hu. This is your attempt at an ad hominem? Try to discredit your own logic based on someone's few spelling grammar mistakes? That is weak. Your screwed up dogma is useless, worse than your logic. You Can do better, but your dogma is too preoccupied by idiocy. How do you deal with this on a fault line?


He has not proceeded, other than sharing the same broken reason filter than you use.

So, you say it is possible for some good to exist. I would never say it is not impossible. How do you get to it is possible? Hu?
Let me expose your dogma as born in your alerted fatuous obscurantism and weak attempt at fallacies.

Come on. You called me. So let's play. And I will not stop until I have the truth from you. Start reading the history on this topic (posts between your defeated dogma promoter and me). Play the videos. Freak l'll expose your dogma for what it is: broken.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 148 by JohnA]

No, it is no ad hominem. I am pointing out I can't understand what you are trying to say. How can I even debate you when your posts are full of gibberish like "But toy have nor proceed anything" ?

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 148 by JohnA]

No, it is no ad hominem. I am pointing out I can't understand what you are trying to say. How can I even debate you when your posts are full of gibberish like "But toy have nor proceed anything" ?

My posts are clear.
I would never say it is impossible for a god to exist. That does not mean or is possible.
If you disagree, then you have to tell me why. You have taken the burden.
If not then you were wrong when you said not impossible = possible since I have a practical logical example where your logic fails.

Your choice. I asked you this same question before, but you refused to answer it. Try to answer this time. Or just pretend you did not read this. Your choice. We both know you have been degraded to obscurantism. Make it neuter, easier for yourself.