On 28 Dec 2003 18:18:01 -0800, keith wrote:
>No it doesn't. It makes the logical status of the conclusion dependent
>on the premise. It doesn't make the being named in the conclusion
>dependent on anything for his existence.
>>keith
That's an axiom about god, and therefore doesn't affect my point about the
logic of proofs of god's existence. I'll repeat my point: People who try to
prove god's existence, by that very process of proof have accepted that god's
existence is contingent upon other things. If they, like you, nevertheless
believe that god's existence is not contingent, then they have contradicted
their own beliefs. IOW, proving gods' existence is a mug's game if you
believe its existence is not contingent - so why do it?
You keep bringing in premises that weren't included in the original argument
- such premises have no bearing on the validity if the original argument.
Once again - I'm not discussing whether god exists or not, I'm discussing the
logic of purported proofs of god's existence. If you claim that god's
existence is not contingent, you cannot logically accept any proof its
existence, since any such proof makes god's existence contingent.
I hope I've made myself clear.
As to whether or not god exists: I have no wish to debate that.
--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."
(Robert Ingersoll)