"In the beginning God created ...."

[Immanuel Can]

We can make it as broad as necessary to include any other logical arguments that aim to demonstrate the existence of God, because they all fail for the same reason.

Well, no.

Just as the Kalam and the Ontological are very different arguments, so to are the Design Argument, the Moral Argument, the Mathematical Argument, the Historical Argument and the arguments from prophecy or miracles, and so on...these are all very different arguments, with very different masses of evidence associated with them.

[Skepdick]

You're a bit late. It's basic philosophical training.

That's a peculiar claim. I was never trained in "philosophy".

What or where is "philosophy"? Show me.

[tillingborn]

We can make it as broad as necessary to include any other logical arguments that aim to demonstrate the existence of God, because they all fail for the same reason.

Well, no.

Just as the Kalam and the Ontological are very different arguments, so to are the Design Argument, the Moral Argument, the Mathematical Argument, the Historical Argument and the arguments from prophecy or miracles, and so on...these are all very different arguments, with very different masses of evidence associated with them.

True, some fail more than others. As arguments, they are only as compelling as anybody finds them, but none of them prove that God exists because none of them have sound premises.

[tillingborn]

If YOU can't show me aesthetics . Why do YOU claim they exist?

You either feel it or you don't.

[Immanuel Can]

We can make it as broad as necessary to include any other logical arguments that aim to demonstrate the existence of God, because they all fail for the same reason.

Well, no.

Just as the Kalam and the Ontological are very different arguments, so to are the Design Argument, the Moral Argument, the Mathematical Argument, the Historical Argument and the arguments from prophecy or miracles, and so on...these are all very different arguments, with very different masses of evidence associated with them.

True, some fail more than others.

That's a glib response, and untrue. It asks me to accept that I had said that all such arguments "fail." But they don't.

That's the "twist-and-stick" tactic again. You use it frequently. Do you not see that I can see through it?

[Skepdick]

You either feel it or you don't.

Show me feelings.

[tillingborn]

Just as the Kalam and the Ontological are very different arguments, so to are the Design Argument, the Moral Argument, the Mathematical Argument, the Historical Argument and the arguments from prophecy or miracles, and so on...these are all very different arguments, with very different masses of evidence associated with them.

True, some fail more than others.

That's a glib response

I had little choice, I would have been humiliated in the face of the native English speakers if I hadn't made that joke.

and untrue.

You said yourself that the different arguments have different masses of evidence; so although the way I expressed it was glib, it is simply repeating your own words in a way I am culturally compelled to. I'm afraid I cannot bring myself to telegraph comedy with smilies as you do. It is very bad manners where I'm from, because it implies that you are not clever enough to recognise a joke.

It asks me to accept that I had said that all such arguments "fail." But they don't.

Which ones prove that God exists?

That's the "twist-and-stick" tactic again. You use it frequently. Do you not see that I can see through it?

This is another cultural impediment; I have no idea what you mean by "twist-and-stick" and googling it makes me none the wiser. Whatever you think, I can assure you that it is not a tactic I would intentionally use, as you have taken the opportunity to pick the low hanging fruit and avoid the more difficult issues which I shall repeat here:

As arguments, they are only as compelling as anybody finds them, but none of them prove that God exists because none of them have sound premises.

Is avoiding questions you struggle with a tactic of yours?

[tillingborn]

You either feel it or you don't.

Show me feelings.

This guy massively overestimates his wit.
This guy is an idiot.
This guy is boring.

[Immanuel Can]

. I'm afraid I cannot bring myself to telegraph comedy with smilies as you do. It is very bad manners where I'm from, because it implies that you are not clever enough to recognise a joke.

It's not bad manners online, you'll find.

But where are you from, then? What country does not recognize emojis?

I have no idea what you mean by "twist-and-stick"

It's like a gymnast leaping off a box horse or dismounting from some apparatus. She throws herself into the air, twists, and tries to "stick" (i.e. to land squarely). More often then not, she stumbles.

The "twist and stick" in discussion is to make an errant (twisted) rewrite of somebody else's point, adding in things they did not say or imply, and they to try to hold them duty bound (stuck) to defend it. Of course, anybody who can see the twist coming can refuse to stick with the argument...because it's dishonest to rewrite and add to somebody else's point, in the first place.

[Skepdick]

This guy massively overestimates his wit.
This guy is an idiot.
This guy is boring.

Show me wit, overestimation, idiocy and boredom.

[tillingborn]

. I'm afraid I cannot bring myself to telegraph comedy with smilies as you do. It is very bad manners where I'm from, because it implies that you are not clever enough to recognise a joke.

It's not bad manners online, you'll find.

I'm sure you've noticed that the online world is not some flat and homogenised landscape, where everyone is of and has the same standards.

But where are you from, then? What country does not recognize emojis?

I think you are being too literal. Political borders don't really apply in this space.

I have no idea what you mean by "twist-and-stick"

It's like a gymnast leaping off a box horse or dismounting from some apparatus. She throws herself into the air, twists, and tries to "stick" (i.e. to land squarely). More often then not, she stumbles.

I see. It makes sense then that I wasn't getting very far with Blackjack analogies.

The "twist and stick" in discussion is to make an errant (twisted) rewrite of somebody else's point, adding in things they did not say or imply, and they to try to hold them duty bound (stuck) to defend it. Of course, anybody who can see the twist coming can refuse to stick with the argument...because it's dishonest to rewrite and add to somebody else's point, in the first place.

Funnily enough, that's exactly what I said you were doing to me over 20 odd pages. Perhaps you do have a sense of humour. In which case avoiding questions you struggle with while responding to a post that asks:

Is avoiding questions you struggle with a tactic of yours?

is quite funny. So bravo, but seriously:

It asks me to accept that I had said that all such arguments "fail." But they don't.

Which ones prove that God exists?

[tillingborn]

This guy massively overestimates his wit.
This guy is an idiot.
This guy is boring.

Show me wit, overestimation, idiocy and boredom.

This guy massively overestimates his wit.
This guy is an idiot.
This guy is boring.

[Immanuel Can]

Funnily enough, that's exactly what I said...

That phenomenon is called "projection."

It asks me to accept that I had said that all such arguments "fail." But they don't.

Which ones prove that God exists?

[/quote]
Go and view the list, and you decide.

[Skepdick]

This guy massively overestimates his wit.
This guy is an idiot.
This guy is boring.

Show me wit, overestimation, idiocy and boredom.

This guy massively overestimates his wit.
This guy is an idiot.
This guy is boring.

Apparently that's circular.

According to the rules of your religion... it baaaaad.

[tillingborn]

Funnily enough, that's exactly what I said...

That phenomenon is called "projection."

Indeed. So now that you recognise it, perhaps you will stop doing it.

It asks me to accept that I had said that all such arguments "fail." But they don't.

Which ones prove that God exists?

Go and view the list, and you decide.

If I make a decision not for objective reasons that you can share, and to which all rational people would be bound to subscribe, my reasons must be subjective. Call such reasons what you will; my word is aesthetic.