The Strongest Argument for God

Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8208
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 386 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

#226

Post by Philip » Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:18 pm

Ken: No; putting the cart before the horse would be to assume NDE;'s include spirits before I'm even convinced there is even such a thing as spirits.
OK, fair enough - you don't know. But as a study of NDEs can point to life that goes on that is beyond the mere physical, and that these studies clearly support that, it would seem that NDEs would offer intriguing evidences for you to look into. That is, if you really want to seek out evidences that might support a spiritual dimension of humans that goes beyond their bodies and death.
Ken: It appears you know a lot about NDE's, I don't. I know nothing about them mostly because I have no interest in them..."
Now, that's a bit strange, Ken. You've been here five years, with over 3,000 posts arguing for every conceivable argument that there is no evidence that God exists. And yet, you're "NOT INTERESTED???!!!" NDEs are found across the world, and have now been seriously studied by many qualified researchers - providing powerful evidences that man is more than just a body, and that some soulish / spiritual aspect of a person survives death that allows them to think, hear, and perceive in extraordinary detail, well after all the standards for life have ceased functioning - including the brain. But that doesn't interest you? Wow! I'd say you won't ever find the truth - not if all you do is only seek evidences that you think props up your atheism. And your lack of interest in NDEs is very telling to your lack of seriousness about determining whether God and a spiritual world exists beyond the physical realm.
These users liked this post by Philip:
bippy123 (Wed Jul 17, 2019 7:29 pm)

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

#227

Post by Kenny » Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:38 pm

Philip wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:18 pm
Ken: No; putting the cart before the horse would be to assume NDE;'s include spirits before I'm even convinced there is even such a thing as spirits.
OK, fair enough - you don't know. But as a study of NDEs can point to life that goes on that is beyond the mere physical, and that these studies clearly support that, it would seem that NDEs would offer intriguing evidences for you to look into. That is, if you really want to seek out evidences that might support a spiritual dimension of humans that goes beyond their bodies and death.
Ken: It appears you know a lot about NDE's, I don't. I know nothing about them mostly because I have no interest in them..."
Now, that's a bit strange, Ken. You've been here five years, with over 3,000 posts arguing for every conceivable argument that there is no evidence that God exists. And yet, you're "NOT INTERESTED???!!!" NDEs are found across the world, and have now been seriously studied by many qualified researchers - providing powerful evidences that man is more than just a body, and that some soulish / spiritual aspect of a person survives death that allows them to think, hear, and perceive in extraordinary detail, well after all the standards for life have ceased functioning - including the brain. But that doesn't interest you? Wow! I'd say you won't ever find the truth - not if all you do is only seek evidences that you think props up your atheism. And your lack of interest in NDEs is very telling to your lack of seriousness about determining whether God and a spiritual world exists beyond the physical realm.
There are a lot of topics people talk about on here, am I supposed to be an expert on all of them? C'mon!
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8208
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 386 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

#228

Post by Philip » Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:21 am

Ken: There are a lot of topics people talk about on here, am I supposed to be an expert on all of them? C'mon!
Nice try at dodging my question, Ken. Why would you not be interested in serious and powerful research indicative of a reality of life beyond the physical. Because if you were serious about determining if the spiritual exists, you'd be intensely interested at studying what has been discovered about NDEs! Yet, you have NO interest? y:-?

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5928
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 91 times
Been liked: 139 times

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

#229

Post by Byblos » Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:36 am

Kenny wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:08 pm
Byblos wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:45 pm
Kenny wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:30 am
What is rational or logical is subjective, not objective. Just because something is logical to me doesn't mean it will be logical to you.
And this tell us everything we need to know about kenny and his (il)logic.

Seriously man, have you not ever heard of the law of non-contradiction? Or is that subjective too? :shakehead:
Yeah; math is logical and rational as well! But not everything that is rational or logical is going to be objective! And in the context of what we are discussing, what is logical and rational to me obviously is not to you; otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting I assume spirits are involved when I don't even believe in spirits.
I know this is going to be a waste of my time but I'll play for a while.

Kenny, please give us an example of a logical argument that is also subjective.
These users liked this post by Byblos:
bippy123 (Wed Jul 17, 2019 7:29 pm)
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

#230

Post by Kenny » Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:19 am

Byblos wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:36 am
Kenny wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:08 pm
Byblos wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:45 pm
Kenny wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:30 am
What is rational or logical is subjective, not objective. Just because something is logical to me doesn't mean it will be logical to you.
And this tell us everything we need to know about kenny and his (il)logic.

Seriously man, have you not ever heard of the law of non-contradiction? Or is that subjective too? :shakehead:
Yeah; math is logical and rational as well! But not everything that is rational or logical is going to be objective! And in the context of what we are discussing, what is logical and rational to me obviously is not to you; otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting I assume spirits are involved when I don't even believe in spirits.
I know this is going to be a waste of my time but I'll play for a while.

Kenny, please give us an example of a logical argument that is also subjective.
Unmoved mover argument that results in the God of the bible at the beginning.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 194 times
Been liked: 1050 times

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

#231

Post by RickD » Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:11 pm

Kenny wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:19 am
Byblos wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:36 am
Kenny wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:08 pm
Byblos wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:45 pm
Kenny wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:30 am
What is rational or logical is subjective, not objective. Just because something is logical to me doesn't mean it will be logical to you.
And this tell us everything we need to know about kenny and his (il)logic.

Seriously man, have you not ever heard of the law of non-contradiction? Or is that subjective too? :shakehead:
Yeah; math is logical and rational as well! But not everything that is rational or logical is going to be objective! And in the context of what we are discussing, what is logical and rational to me obviously is not to you; otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting I assume spirits are involved when I don't even believe in spirits.
I know this is going to be a waste of my time but I'll play for a while.

Kenny, please give us an example of a logical argument that is also subjective.
Unmoved mover argument that results in the God of the bible at the beginning.
Oh My!
:shock:
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5928
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 91 times
Been liked: 139 times

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

#232

Post by Byblos » Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:59 am

Kenny wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:19 am
Byblos wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:36 am
Kenny wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:08 pm
Byblos wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:45 pm
Kenny wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:30 am
What is rational or logical is subjective, not objective. Just because something is logical to me doesn't mean it will be logical to you.
And this tell us everything we need to know about kenny and his (il)logic.

Seriously man, have you not ever heard of the law of non-contradiction? Or is that subjective too? :shakehead:
Yeah; math is logical and rational as well! But not everything that is rational or logical is going to be objective! And in the context of what we are discussing, what is logical and rational to me obviously is not to you; otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting I assume spirits are involved when I don't even believe in spirits.
I know this is going to be a waste of my time but I'll play for a while.

Kenny, please give us an example of a logical argument that is also subjective.
Unmoved mover argument that results in the God of the bible at the beginning.
You're reaching Kenny. First of all, the unmoved mover and the God of the Bible are two distinct arguments, the first being a metaphysical argument and the second being a revelatory argument. I am not too concerned about the second so let's just tackle the first, shall we?

Please tell us:

1) How the unmoved mover is a logical argument. This will show us that you in fact understand the argument. And, more importantly,
2) How this argument is subjective
These users liked this post by Byblos:
bippy123 (Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:16 pm)
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

#233

Post by Kenny » Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:16 am

Byblos wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:59 am
Kenny wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:19 am
Byblos wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:36 am
Kenny wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:08 pm
Byblos wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:45 pm


And this tell us everything we need to know about kenny and his (il)logic.

Seriously man, have you not ever heard of the law of non-contradiction? Or is that subjective too? :shakehead:
Yeah; math is logical and rational as well! But not everything that is rational or logical is going to be objective! And in the context of what we are discussing, what is logical and rational to me obviously is not to you; otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting I assume spirits are involved when I don't even believe in spirits.
I know this is going to be a waste of my time but I'll play for a while.

Kenny, please give us an example of a logical argument that is also subjective.
Unmoved mover argument that results in the God of the bible at the beginning.
You're reaching Kenny. First of all, the unmoved mover and the God of the Bible are two distinct arguments, the first being a metaphysical argument and the second being a revelatory argument. I am not too concerned about the second so let's just tackle the first, shall we?

Please tell us:

1) How the unmoved mover is a logical argument. This will show us that you in fact understand the argument. And, more importantly,
2) How this argument is subjective
Imagine 3 guys looking at this argument. The first guy will look at the argument and see it as a logical connection to his religion. He will reason that his idea of God has the exact description required to be at the top of this argument; the unmoved mover; with everything else in existence moved/caused by him.

The second guy will look at this argument and will see it as a logical connection to his religion which is a completely different religion than the first guy, and he will reason that his idea of God (also different than the first guys God) has the exact description required to be on top of this argument; the unmoved mover. The first guy and the second guy will have countless disagreements about why their God fits the right description, and why the other guys God does not.

The third guy will look at this argument and will see no logical connection to either of the other guys religions, nor their God of choice.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 194 times
Been liked: 1050 times

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

#234

Post by RickD » Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:48 pm

Kenny wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:16 am
Byblos wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:59 am
Kenny wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:19 am
Byblos wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:36 am
Kenny wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:08 pm

Yeah; math is logical and rational as well! But not everything that is rational or logical is going to be objective! And in the context of what we are discussing, what is logical and rational to me obviously is not to you; otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting I assume spirits are involved when I don't even believe in spirits.
I know this is going to be a waste of my time but I'll play for a while.

Kenny, please give us an example of a logical argument that is also subjective.
Unmoved mover argument that results in the God of the bible at the beginning.
You're reaching Kenny. First of all, the unmoved mover and the God of the Bible are two distinct arguments, the first being a metaphysical argument and the second being a revelatory argument. I am not too concerned about the second so let's just tackle the first, shall we?

Please tell us:

1) How the unmoved mover is a logical argument. This will show us that you in fact understand the argument. And, more importantly,
2) How this argument is subjective
Imagine 3 guys looking at this argument. The first guy will look at the argument and see it as a logical connection to his religion. He will reason that his idea of God has the exact description required to be at the top of this argument; the unmoved mover; with everything else in existence moved/caused by him.

The second guy will look at this argument and will see it as a logical connection to his religion which is a completely different religion than the first guy, and he will reason that his idea of God (also different than the first guys God) has the exact description required to be on top of this argument; the unmoved mover. The first guy and the second guy will have countless disagreements about why their God fits the right description, and why the other guys God does not.

The third guy will look at this argument and will see no logical connection to either of the other guys religions, nor their God of choice.
Obviously you don't understand the unmoved mover. Did you read what Byblos just said about the unmoved mover being a metaphysical argument?

The unmoved mover does not attempt to prove any specific God of any religion.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

#235

Post by Kenny » Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:08 pm

RickD wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:48 pm
Kenny wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:16 am
Byblos wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:59 am
Kenny wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:19 am
Byblos wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:36 am


I know this is going to be a waste of my time but I'll play for a while.

Kenny, please give us an example of a logical argument that is also subjective.
Unmoved mover argument that results in the God of the bible at the beginning.
You're reaching Kenny. First of all, the unmoved mover and the God of the Bible are two distinct arguments, the first being a metaphysical argument and the second being a revelatory argument. I am not too concerned about the second so let's just tackle the first, shall we?

Please tell us:

1) How the unmoved mover is a logical argument. This will show us that you in fact understand the argument. And, more importantly,
2) How this argument is subjective
Imagine 3 guys looking at this argument. The first guy will look at the argument and see it as a logical connection to his religion. He will reason that his idea of God has the exact description required to be at the top of this argument; the unmoved mover; with everything else in existence moved/caused by him.

The second guy will look at this argument and will see it as a logical connection to his religion which is a completely different religion than the first guy, and he will reason that his idea of God (also different than the first guys God) has the exact description required to be on top of this argument; the unmoved mover. The first guy and the second guy will have countless disagreements about why their God fits the right description, and why the other guys God does not.

The third guy will look at this argument and will see no logical connection to either of the other guys religions, nor their God of choice.
Obviously you don't understand the unmoved mover. Did you read what Byblos just said about the unmoved mover being a metaphysical argument?

The unmoved mover does not attempt to prove any specific God of any religion.
Nobody in this conversation is claiming the argument is an attempt to prove any specific God of any religion.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 194 times
Been liked: 1050 times

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

#236

Post by RickD » Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:23 pm

Kenny wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:08 pm
RickD wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:48 pm
Kenny wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:16 am
Byblos wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:59 am
Kenny wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:19 am

Unmoved mover argument that results in the God of the bible at the beginning.
You're reaching Kenny. First of all, the unmoved mover and the God of the Bible are two distinct arguments, the first being a metaphysical argument and the second being a revelatory argument. I am not too concerned about the second so let's just tackle the first, shall we?

Please tell us:

1) How the unmoved mover is a logical argument. This will show us that you in fact understand the argument. And, more importantly,
2) How this argument is subjective
Imagine 3 guys looking at this argument. The first guy will look at the argument and see it as a logical connection to his religion. He will reason that his idea of God has the exact description required to be at the top of this argument; the unmoved mover; with everything else in existence moved/caused by him.

The second guy will look at this argument and will see it as a logical connection to his religion which is a completely different religion than the first guy, and he will reason that his idea of God (also different than the first guys God) has the exact description required to be on top of this argument; the unmoved mover. The first guy and the second guy will have countless disagreements about why their God fits the right description, and why the other guys God does not.

The third guy will look at this argument and will see no logical connection to either of the other guys religions, nor their God of choice.
Obviously you don't understand the unmoved mover. Did you read what Byblos just said about the unmoved mover being a metaphysical argument?

The unmoved mover does not attempt to prove any specific God of any religion.
Nobody in this conversation is claiming the argument is an attempt to prove any specific God of any religion.
You literally just did! Look at what you wrote. You said that Three guys looking at the unmoved mover argument each think the argument points to their God, or another God, which you think makes the argument subjective.

But since the unmoved mover argument does not argue for nor point to a specific God, then the argument is not subjective. Someone who thinks the argument says something that it doesn't say, may erroneously think it's subjective. But it isn't.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

#237

Post by Kenny » Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:50 pm

RickD wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:23 pm
Kenny wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:08 pm
RickD wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:48 pm
Kenny wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:16 am
Byblos wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:59 am


You're reaching Kenny. First of all, the unmoved mover and the God of the Bible are two distinct arguments, the first being a metaphysical argument and the second being a revelatory argument. I am not too concerned about the second so let's just tackle the first, shall we?

Please tell us:

1) How the unmoved mover is a logical argument. This will show us that you in fact understand the argument. And, more importantly,
2) How this argument is subjective
Imagine 3 guys looking at this argument. The first guy will look at the argument and see it as a logical connection to his religion. He will reason that his idea of God has the exact description required to be at the top of this argument; the unmoved mover; with everything else in existence moved/caused by him.

The second guy will look at this argument and will see it as a logical connection to his religion which is a completely different religion than the first guy, and he will reason that his idea of God (also different than the first guys God) has the exact description required to be on top of this argument; the unmoved mover. The first guy and the second guy will have countless disagreements about why their God fits the right description, and why the other guys God does not.

The third guy will look at this argument and will see no logical connection to either of the other guys religions, nor their God of choice.
Obviously you don't understand the unmoved mover. Did you read what Byblos just said about the unmoved mover being a metaphysical argument?

The unmoved mover does not attempt to prove any specific God of any religion.
Nobody in this conversation is claiming the argument is an attempt to prove any specific God of any religion.
You literally just did! Look at what you wrote. You said that Three guys looking at the unmoved mover argument each think the argument points to their God, or another God, which you think makes the argument subjective.

But since the unmoved mover argument does not argue for nor point to a specific God, then the argument is not subjective. Someone who thinks the argument says something that it doesn't say, may erroneously think it's subjective. But it isn't.
I’m saying this logical argument is subjective because different people will interpret it different ways each person using their logic and their reason to come to different conclusions.
Assuming all 3 guys incorrectly interpreted the argument, they still used logic and reason within the argument to reach their various conclusions. This was accomplished because the logic and reason within the argument is based upon personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations, and beliefs (subjective) rather than empirical, measurable facts (objective)
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Objec ... Subjective

P.S RickD I gotta hand it to ya bro; you offer one heck of a challenge! y:-?
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 194 times
Been liked: 1050 times

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

#238

Post by RickD » Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:11 pm

Kenny wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:50 pm
RickD wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:23 pm
Kenny wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:08 pm
RickD wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:48 pm
Kenny wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:16 am


Imagine 3 guys looking at this argument. The first guy will look at the argument and see it as a logical connection to his religion. He will reason that his idea of God has the exact description required to be at the top of this argument; the unmoved mover; with everything else in existence moved/caused by him.

The second guy will look at this argument and will see it as a logical connection to his religion which is a completely different religion than the first guy, and he will reason that his idea of God (also different than the first guys God) has the exact description required to be on top of this argument; the unmoved mover. The first guy and the second guy will have countless disagreements about why their God fits the right description, and why the other guys God does not.

The third guy will look at this argument and will see no logical connection to either of the other guys religions, nor their God of choice.
Obviously you don't understand the unmoved mover. Did you read what Byblos just said about the unmoved mover being a metaphysical argument?

The unmoved mover does not attempt to prove any specific God of any religion.
Nobody in this conversation is claiming the argument is an attempt to prove any specific God of any religion.
You literally just did! Look at what you wrote. You said that Three guys looking at the unmoved mover argument each think the argument points to their God, or another God, which you think makes the argument subjective.

But since the unmoved mover argument does not argue for nor point to a specific God, then the argument is not subjective. Someone who thinks the argument says something that it doesn't say, may erroneously think it's subjective. But it isn't.
I’m saying this logical argument is subjective because different people will interpret it different ways each person using their logic and their reason to come to different conclusions.
Assuming all 3 guys incorrectly interpreted the argument, they still used logic and reason within the argument to reach their various conclusions. This was accomplished because the logic and reason within the argument is based upon personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations, and beliefs (subjective) rather than empirical, measurable facts (objective)
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Objec ... Subjective

P.S RickD I gotta hand it to ya bro; you offer one heck of a challenge! y:-?
No Kenny, you're not getting it. The argument itself doesn't talk about a God of any specific religion. Neither the premises nor the conclusion of the argument specify a God of any religion. So, people who conclude that the argument proves their God, aren't interpreting the argument. They're adding something to the argument that the argument itself doesn't say.

So, your example does nothing no to prove that the argument itself, is subjective.

And btw,

Byblos posed the challenge, not me. He knows much more about this subject than I do, and you'd do a real disservice if you don't let him help you understand the topic.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

#239

Post by Kenny » Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:05 pm

RickD wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:11 pm
Kenny wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:50 pm
RickD wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:23 pm
Kenny wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:08 pm
RickD wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:48 pm


Obviously you don't understand the unmoved mover. Did you read what Byblos just said about the unmoved mover being a metaphysical argument?

The unmoved mover does not attempt to prove any specific God of any religion.
Nobody in this conversation is claiming the argument is an attempt to prove any specific God of any religion.
You literally just did! Look at what you wrote. You said that Three guys looking at the unmoved mover argument each think the argument points to their God, or another God, which you think makes the argument subjective.

But since the unmoved mover argument does not argue for nor point to a specific God, then the argument is not subjective. Someone who thinks the argument says something that it doesn't say, may erroneously think it's subjective. But it isn't.
I’m saying this logical argument is subjective because different people will interpret it different ways each person using their logic and their reason to come to different conclusions.
Assuming all 3 guys incorrectly interpreted the argument, they still used logic and reason within the argument to reach their various conclusions. This was accomplished because the logic and reason within the argument is based upon personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations, and beliefs (subjective) rather than empirical, measurable facts (objective)
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Objec ... Subjective

P.S RickD I gotta hand it to ya bro; you offer one heck of a challenge! y:-?
No Kenny, you're not getting it. The argument itself doesn't talk about a God of any specific religion. Neither the premises nor the conclusion of the argument specify a God of any religion.
I never suggested it did. I’m saying there are people who use this argument to point to their specific religion, and the reason they are able to do this while still remaining logical and reasonable is because the logic within argument itself is based on assumptions, interpretations, and beliefs; not empirical provable facts; thus the link I provided.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 194 times
Been liked: 1050 times

Re: The Strongest Argument for God

#240

Post by RickD » Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:07 pm

Kenny wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:05 pm
RickD wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:11 pm
Kenny wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:50 pm
RickD wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:23 pm
Kenny wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:08 pm


Nobody in this conversation is claiming the argument is an attempt to prove any specific God of any religion.
You literally just did! Look at what you wrote. You said that Three guys looking at the unmoved mover argument each think the argument points to their God, or another God, which you think makes the argument subjective.

But since the unmoved mover argument does not argue for nor point to a specific God, then the argument is not subjective. Someone who thinks the argument says something that it doesn't say, may erroneously think it's subjective. But it isn't.
I’m saying this logical argument is subjective because different people will interpret it different ways each person using their logic and their reason to come to different conclusions.
Assuming all 3 guys incorrectly interpreted the argument, they still used logic and reason within the argument to reach their various conclusions. This was accomplished because the logic and reason within the argument is based upon personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations, and beliefs (subjective) rather than empirical, measurable facts (objective)
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Objec ... Subjective

P.S RickD I gotta hand it to ya bro; you offer one heck of a challenge! y:-?
No Kenny, you're not getting it. The argument itself doesn't talk about a God of any specific religion. Neither the premises nor the conclusion of the argument specify a God of any religion.
I never suggested it did. I’m saying there are people who use this argument to point to their specific religion, and the reason they are able to do this while still remaining logical and reasonable is because the logic within argument itself is based on assumptions, interpretations, and beliefs; not empirical provable facts; thus the link I provided.
But it still does not make the argument subjective.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Post Reply