faustuz

The title of your thread is “necessity of God”, not “possibility of God”. It would be helpful from the onset if you were accurate with regards to what you intend to prove. It does not seem that you set out to prove that “faith is rationally plausible”. It seems that you ended up there because your attempt to prove the “necessity of God” didn’t work out, so now you have switch tactics and will try to prove the (admittedly more plausible) assertion that “faith is rationally plausible”. I suppose that your argument is that since neither of us have come up with a reasonable first cause, a “suprasensible”, or spiritual, or transcendental entity is equally justifiable in relation to anything I’m going to come up with.

Well, I’m going to concede that I have no explanation of the first cause of the universe. Since I don’t have an explanation, I won’t attempt to make one up. I think that the most reasonable thing to do when one doesn’t know the explanation of something is simply to admit that they don’t know (and perhaps work to find the answer). Faith may or may not be rationally plausible, but admitting that one doesn’t know something is more honest.

irichc

Necessity of PRESUPPOSING God, not of explaining it. How could a limited intelligence understand an unlimited one?

Daniel.

irichc

Is this the American style of arguing? :-)

Daniel.

faustuz

Have you yet proved the necessity of presupposing God?

I have no idea how a limited intelligence could understand an unlimited one. Before I even attempted to grapple with the question, I would first want some evidence that an unlimited intelligence exists.

Biff the unclean

Necessity of PRESUPPOSING God, not of explaining it. How could a limited intelligence understand an unlimited one?
Now you are right back in your jungle hut PRESUPPOSING that the big JuJu Doll makes the rain fall.
There is no "unlimited intelligence." There is only you telling a story that he can't back up.
Of course you can't take god's picture, or feel him, or hear him, or smell him…because there is no god. To PRESUPPOSE that there is a god when you can't even sense him is irrational

Is this the American style of arguing? :-)
It is the Irish way. We Irish tend to "call them as we see them." The Americans are much more polite. They will let a Spaniard abandon all logic and wallow in superstition and fantasy without even laughing at them.

irichc

Good for you, dumbass! :-)

Daniel.

Biff the unclean

My syllogism concerned Universe, not rain
A syllogism is two premises and a conclusion. I don't know what the OP is but it's not a syllogism. And what does it matter if it's about rain or the entire universe? In both cases it's assigning magical explanations to natural phenomena instead of investigating the natural causes.
The big difference between thinking that rain comes from the Big JuJu Doll and the Universe comes from and invisible Superman who lives in the sky is that you can prove that there actually is a Big JuJu Doll. Which makes the presupposition of "The Unlimited Intelligence from Outer Space" slightly less rational than Voo Doo.

Good for you, dumbass! :-)
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

irichc

Tell me, my little stupid:

1) If the Universe had an external cause, how should I show it to you, being us both in space-time?

2) And, if I finally give you a "piece of God" (that's what you're asking me for), how would you know that it's from God?

Or are you assuming WITHOUT PROOFS that there aren't neither external causes nor gods? Then, why don't you go to the first point and try to refute my reasonings? We have the same logical weapons, but yours seem to be rusty.

Daniel.

Biff the unclean

Tell me, my little stupid:
My goodness Danny boy you went from Latin to name calling so quickly. There are quite a number of things you might be able to call me, but little and stupid aren't among them.

1) If the Universe had an external cause, how should I show it to you, being us both in space-time?
Do you read this stuff before you hit the print button? If you cannot show me an eternal cause because we are both "in space-time" (oh brother, I didn't know they had Star Trek in Spain) then no one can show it to you either. Therefore there is no way for you to know it is real. When you don't know that something is real but you say it is anyway, you are being deceitful.

2) And, if I finally give you a "piece of God" (that's what you're asking me for), how would you know that it's from God?
Since no one in the history of the world has done that I won't hold my breath. But once again if there is no way for me to know then there is no way for you to know either.

Or are you assuming WITHOUT PROOFS that there aren't neither external causes nor gods?
That's nonsense. I never said that there were no external causes. I said that there are no un-natural causes, as none have ever been observed for anything. As for gods, what gods would those be? No one has ever seen a god, they exist only in stories.

Then, why don't you go to the first point and try to refute my reasonings? We have the same logical weapons, but yours seem to be rusty.
No we don't both have the same logical weapons it would appear. You seem to have no concept of what logic even is. I cannot refute your reasoning because there isn't any reasoning on your part.
You don't know what the first cause is; yet you declare it to be a god. Even though you cannot produce any evidence that gods even exist. No reasoning used there.
You've never observed it, you even boast of the fact, yet you declare that it is "suprasensible" (whatever that means, that's not an English word), it expands the universe, it is omnipotent, it's eternal, it's got unlimited intelligence, it's completely simple and spiritual and it's the only god.
There is no way you could have any of this information yet you declare it to be true.

You've gone from not knowing how a natural process began to claiming that it is the work of an imaginary magic invisible superbeing that you cannot show me but somehow you know all sorts of attributes it posses. Then you have the gall to say that my logic is rusty. I'm sure your logic is bright and shiny because it's still wrapped in the package it first came in. One owner, never used, highest bidder.

You are using superstition and fantasy instead of logic and facts.

faustuz

If I've learned anything from this thread it's that ad hominems go down better with smiley faces.