Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[instantc]

Nothing? No evidence? Why are you still here?

I made up this argument for you, already discussed it a bit in the philosophy section:

1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

2. Anything at all does exist

3. The being, without which anything at all couldn't exist, does exist.


The argument is valid, (2) is obvious, and also the conditional in (1) seems sound to me. Which premises do you disagree with and why? Or do you conclude that a being without which anything couldn't exist (lets call is God) exists?

This argument is not constructed properly.
"1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist" is false because even though it is conditional, it contains the premise of a creative being necessary to existence. The argument fails because it is poorly constructed, thus obscuring its circular nature.

This becomes clear when it is stated properly:

1. There is a being without which nothing can exist.
2. Things exist.
3. Therefore there is a being without which nothing can exist.

When your argument is thus stated cleanly, it becomes obvious it is circular.

Here you are mistaken, I'll illustrate by changing the argument slightly

1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist

2. There is no being, without which anything at all cannot exist

3. Nothing exists

Notice that your objection is now stated in premise (2) and the new argument is valid. So (1) doesn't imply that such being would exist. As far as I can see, (1) is sound. You have now subscribed to (2) in your previous post, and it didn't help bring down (1).

[instantc]

Nothing? No evidence? Why are you still here?

I made up this argument for you, already discussed it a bit in the philosophy section:

1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

2. Anything at all does exist

3. The being, without which anything at all couldn't exist, does exist.


The argument is valid, (2) is obvious, and also the conditional in (1) seems sound to me. Which premises do you disagree with and why? Or do you conclude that a being without which anything couldn't exist (lets call is God) exists?

Your argument is about exactly as valid as this one:

1. If the being, without which presents underneath Christmas trees cannot exist, doesn't exist, then presents underneath Christmas trees do not exist.

2. Presents underneath Christmas trees do exist

3. The being, without which presents underneath Christmas trees cannot exist, does exist.

The argument is valid. (2) is obvious, and also the conditional in (1) seems sound to me. Which premises do you disagree with and why? Or do you conclude that a being without which presents underneath a Christmas tree wouldn't exist (lets call it Santa) exists?

Obviously you can make a mock copy of my argument, which is a mock argument to begin with. But, can you debunk it?

Similarly, some explanation must exist for the existence of everything, but it doesn't mean that this explanation is therefore God.

If this is an admittance of the soundness of my mock argument, I'd advice you to think again, since it attempts to prove the existence of the being that enables everything else to exist, not just any explanation for everything. I could even change 'being' into 'person' and the argument would be just as valid. Can you debunk it?

[Danmark]

Nothing? No evidence? Why are you still here?

I made up this argument for you, already discussed it a bit in the philosophy section:

1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

2. Anything at all does exist

3. The being, without which anything at all couldn't exist, does exist.


The argument is valid, (2) is obvious, and also the conditional in (1) seems sound to me. Which premises do you disagree with and why? Or do you conclude that a being without which anything couldn't exist (lets call is God) exists?

This argument is not constructed properly.
"1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist" is false because even though it is conditional, it contains the premise of a creative being necessary to existence. The argument fails because it is poorly constructed, thus obscuring its circular nature.

This becomes clear when it is stated properly:

1. There is a being without which nothing can exist.
2. Things exist.
3. Therefore there is a being without which nothing can exist.

When your argument is thus stated cleanly, it becomes obvious it is circular.

Here you are mistaken actually. I'll illustrate by changing the argument slightly

1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist

2. There is no being, without which anything at all cannot exist

3. Nothing exists

Notice that your objection is now stated in premise (2) and the new argument is valid. So (1) doesn't imply that such being would exist. As far as I can see, (1) is sound.

No, you are incorrect. You have merely stated your argument in the negative. It remains circular because Statement 1 contains the premise that there is a being without which nothing can exist.

In fact, you have proved the argument is faulty, because by simply "changing the argument slightly" your argument now 'proves' "3. Nothing exists."

Returning to your original argument, by positing the existence of a being necessary to existence, you are saying that existence proves there is such a being. Do you see that this is circular?

[instantc]

Returning to your original argument, by positing the existence of a being necessary to existence, you are saying that existence proves there is such a being. Do you see that this is circular?

Lets focus for a while on my new version, since I want to use it to demonstrate the common premise (1).

. It remains circular because Statement 1 contains the premise that there is a being without which nothing can exist.

If this were true, then (1) and (2) of the new argument would be in contradiction and the argument wouldn't be valid at all, as (2) literally says that such a being doesn't exist. But the conclusion does indeed follow from those premises, so if not sound, the argument is at least valid, and therefore your objection doesn't work.

So your objection is stated as such in premise (2) and the conclusion still follows.

[no evidence no belief]

My opinion is that the supernatural does not exist. I do NOT claim to know that the supernatural doesn't exist.

Atheist semantic games, used to keep the flattering fantasy self identity alive as long as possible.

Really? Is your control of the English language so shaky that you think distinguishing between "opinion" and "knowledge" is a semantic game?

In 2007, it was my opinion that Obama would be elected President in 2008.

In 2009, it was my KNOWLEDGE that Obama was elected President in 2008.

It is my opinion that you are not college educated. It is my knowledge that I am college educated.

It is my opinion that you don't have a valid passport. It is my knowledge that I do have a valid passport.

It is my opinion that somebody had sex with Mary 9 months before Jesus was born. It is my knowledge that I had sex with my wife 9 months before our baby was born.

Are you still confused?

[Danmark]

Returning to your original argument, by positing the existence of a being necessary to existence, you are saying that existence proves there is such a being. Do you see that this is circular?

Lets focus for a while on my new version, since I want to use it to demonstrate the common premise (1).

. It remains circular because Statement 1 contains the premise that there is a being without which nothing can exist.

If this were true, then (1) and (2) of the new argument would be in contradiction and the argument wouldn't be valid at all, as (2) literally says that such a being doesn't exist, which is your objection. But the conclusion does indeed follow from those premises, so if not sound, the argument is at least valid, and therefore your objection doesn't work.

So your objection is stated in premise (2) and the conclusion still follows.

I'm confused by your concession that your argument is not sound, but that somehow it is still valid.

But if you wish, fine, let's focus on your new version:

1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist
2. There is no being, without which anything at all cannot exist
3. Nothing exists

This version claims the nonexistence of a being 'without which anything at all cannot exist and therefore nothing exists. Again this is circular. The clarity of the circularity is obscured by the complexity of the language you have employed.

I'll try to restate your argument with simpler language:

1. If there does not exist a being necessary to existence, then nothing exists.
2. There is no such being.
3. Therefore nothing exists.

Do you now see how your argument is circular, both unsound, and invalid?

[no evidence no belief]

Nothing? No evidence? Why are you still here?

I made up this argument for you, already discussed it a bit in the philosophy section:

1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

2. Anything at all does exist

3. The being, without which anything at all couldn't exist, does exist.


The argument is valid, (2) is obvious, and also the conditional in (1) seems sound to me. Which premises do you disagree with and why? Or do you conclude that a being without which anything couldn't exist (lets call is God) exists?

Your argument is about exactly as valid as this one:

1. If the being, without which presents underneath Christmas trees cannot exist, doesn't exist, then presents underneath Christmas trees do not exist.

2. Presents underneath Christmas trees do exist

3. The being, without which presents underneath Christmas trees cannot exist, does exist.

The argument is valid. (2) is obvious, and also the conditional in (1) seems sound to me. Which premises do you disagree with and why? Or do you conclude that a being without which presents underneath a Christmas tree wouldn't exist (lets call it Santa) exists?

Obviously you can make a mock copy of my argument, which is a mock argument to begin with. But, can you debunk it?

I did.

I demonstrated that your argument can be used to come to conclusions (Santa exists) that we know are false, and that therefore we cannot rely on it to arrive to true conclusions in those instances where we cannot use external knowledge (Santa doesn't exist) to verify if the conclusion your argument gave us is accurate or not.

If your calculator tells you that 2+2=5, can you rely on it to accurately tell you what the square root of 4876968748653 is?

If your argument tells you Santa is real, can you rely on it to accurately tell you whether God is real?

Your argument takes you to meaningless conclusions. It's bunk, buddy.

[FarWanderer]

Nothing? No evidence? Why are you still here?

I made up this argument for you, already discussed it a bit in the philosophy section:

1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

2. Anything at all does exist

3. The being, without which anything at all couldn't exist, does exist.


The argument is valid, (2) is obvious, and also the conditional in (1) seems sound to me. Which premises do you disagree with and why? Or do you conclude that a being without which anything couldn't exist (lets call is God) exists?

This argument is just awful. First off, "the being" is a loaded term. It should be "the thing", or even better, simply "something". And then the answer is Nature. "The being" is Nature. Simple as that.

It's actually quite silly. You could make the exact same argument replacing "the being" with anything, like "my dog", and it would have the exact same soundness. Now "my dog" is God.

Aside from using loaded terms, the grammar is needlessly complicated to the point that I think you don't even understand what you're even saying. Premise 1, as written, uses a non-restrictive relative clause. What the sentence really means can be more clearly shown with two distinct sentences:

1A. Without the being, anything at all could not exist.
1B. If the being doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

The premise is both redundant and not even remotely self-evident.

In your summary you say

Or do you conclude that a being without which anything couldn't exist (lets call is God) exists?

Here you are using a restrictive relative clause. It has a different meaning than a non-restrictive one. It's a false equivocation. If you chose to write premise 1 using a restrictive relative clause (dropping the relevant commas) then you end up with this:

1. If the being without which anything at all cannot exist doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

But that doesn't work either. It's in fact invalid logic. This is because "without which anything at all cannot exist" becomes integrated into the noun of "the being". Therefore, if it doesn't exist, then neither does it's quality of being necessary for other things to exist.

[10CC]

Nothing? No evidence? Why are you still here?

I made up this argument for you, already discussed it a bit in the philosophy section:

1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

2. Anything at all does exist

3. The being, without which anything at all couldn't exist, does exist.


The argument is valid, (2) is obvious, and also the conditional in (1) seems sound to me. Which premises do you disagree with and why? Or do you conclude that a being without which anything couldn't exist (lets call is God) exists?

This argument is just awful. First off, "the being" is a loaded term. It should be "the thing", or even better, simply "something". And then the answer is Nature. "The being" is Nature. Simple as that.

It's actually quite silly. You could make the exact same argument replacing "the being" with anything, like "my dog", and it would have the exact same soundness. Now "my dog" is God.

Aside from using loaded terms, the grammar is needlessly complicated to the point that I think you don't even understand what you're even saying. Premise 1, as written, uses a non-restrictive relative clause. What the sentence really means can be more clearly shown with two distinct sentences:

1A. Without the being, anything at all could not exist.
1B. If the being doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

The premise is both redundant and not even remotely self-evident.

In your summary you say

Or do you conclude that a being without which anything couldn't exist (lets call is God) exists?

Here you are using a restrictive relative clause. It has a different meaning than a non-restrictive one. It's a false equivocation. If you chose to write premise 1 using a restrictive relative clause (dropping the relevant commas) then you end up with this:

1. If the being without which anything at all cannot exist doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

But that doesn't work either. It's in fact invalid logic. This is because "without which anything at all cannot exist" becomes integrated into the noun of "the being". Therefore, if it doesn't exist, then neither does it's quality of being necessary for other things to exist.

Yeah, I'm sorry but FW got this right.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to Philbert]

How exactly is anyone to even tell a supernatural experience from a natural one? Until this is answered, the term "supernatural" is meaningless.