Ender

They're all different gods with varying attributes. You have a tyrannical, jealous, limited, war-mongering Jehovah and a remorseful "Father" with a penchant for theological suicide. How do you know they are the same God, notwithstanding a species of faith that amounts to sheer gullibility? How do you determine that the modern Jewish version of god is incorrect and that the christian version isn't?

Your answer blows and is susceptible to further questions.

Cheers!
~WiGGiN~

sir drinks-a-lot

Trollnonymousj,

Sorry if this has been covered before, but I am new to the thread. I will go back an read the previous discussion, but would like to get started.

Your argument looks valid:

Argument G: A proof that God exists.

1. If something exists, then God exists.

2. Something exists.
----
3. God exists.

So, if the premises are true, the conclusion follows. Now you must show that the premises are true. Can you do that?

anonymousj

sir drinks-a-lot,

I will respond to your question when you have provided a satisfactory defence of why you have addressed me as 'trollnonymous'.

cheers,

anonymousj

Kellys255

1. If something exists, then Anonymousj is Trollnonymouj.
2. Something exists.
3. Anonymousj is Trollnonymoj.

Kellys255

oops, Trollnonymous

Kellys255

I follow these threads but the reason I don't post is because I can't type worth a crap.

Thats " Trollnonymousj".

I wish Anonymousj would answer Koy's argument, but he seems unable to.

sir drinks-a-lot

Because I believe you are a specimen of Forumallicatus Trollusca.

Adrian Selby

Sorry anonymousj, but what entity is that? Only Lot thought he heard voices in a whirlwind, but wind can sometimes sound strange. Jesus wasn't a miracle birth so much as Mary not wanting to tell Joseph she'd slept around and therefore used his stupidity against him.

Seriously though, you refer to an entity. But how can I get from the fact that you say God is an entity that the Bible is about to the soundness of your first premise. Can I infer that because it says in the Bible God created the world, that this would explain why, if something exists, God exists?

Adrian

sir drinks-a-lot

Trollnonymous,

Actually, I think Autonomon hit the nail on the head on the first page of this thread with this post:

Your argument follows the syllogic:

B -> A
B
A
This can be reversed in interesting ways, for example:
B -> ~A
B
~A

You countered quickly, but I think you may have misread his post. He has issues with your fisrt premise, not your second.

tronvillain

HRG:
In other words, for "A => B" to be a true generalization rather than a true observation, it should be impossible for "T => F."