Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 5:28 am
Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 am
My argument and conclusion is in the OP supported by later posts.
WRONG.
I do NOT even know what your argument and conclusion is in the opening post, but I KNOW you have NOT supported them in later posts. I do NOT even have to check to KNOW this.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amDo you have any sound counter to my premises.
Again, I KNOW the answer is YES, without even checking.
What was even P1, which you say I failed countering?
AND, is this "P1" in the argument and conclusion in the opening post, which you just talked about?
If yes, then is that the opening post in this thread?
If no, then what opening post are you talking about AND where is it exactly? In which thread are you referring to exactly?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amI have mentioned it is possible for an empirical-based God to exists but this is subjected to availability of evidence.
So, even YOU ADMIT, 'God is a possibility to be real'.
THERE, now I have PROVEN what you have said I have NOT proven.
You seem so confused, and you keep jumping from one view to another. Maybe it would be better for you to just always LOOK AT
what IS actually True, instead of LOOKING AT what you BELIEVE is true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amIf one stated his God is that bearded man in the sky who had created the Universe, then bring evidence of that bearded man so that the bearded man can be tested to confirm he is God or not.
Is there a human being alive who states any such thing?
If yes, then bring them to me.
If no, then WHY bring up and say such idiotic and stupid things as this obviously IS?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amHowever note my point, all claims of empirical-based God will ultimately be reduced toward the ontological God unless the theist is satisfy with an inferior God. Even then, one need to bring the empirical evident to justify the existence of such an empirical God.
STOP ASSUMING what WILL happen, then you MIGHT not be SO WRONG, SO OFTEN.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amRe human nature and in general, for any empirical God there will be room for an empirical God that is greater than the God that is claimed. This generate an infinite regression where only an ontological [absolutely perfect] God can stop the infinite regression.
The so called "infinite regression" STOPPED a long time ago.
Also, you have absolutely NO idea what 'human nature' is. Unless, of course, you can PROVE otherwise.
Would you like to prove me WRONG by explaining exactly what 'human nature' is?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:22 amBut the absolutely perfect ontological God cannot possibly exist as real.
LOL.
What actual evidence do you have to prove this BELIEF of yours?
My proof of that belief is in the OP supported by points in later posts.
Note the details of the premises are explained in notes that followed.
I do NOT even KNOW where this is all taking place. This is because you will NOT answer my question about WHERE IT IS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 5:28 amRe the empirical god can be possibly real, that is subjected to production of evidence which is not likely to be available.
So, is evidence "not likely to be available" or can evidence "NOT be provided" as you had earlier stated was in fact the case You do like to change your views quite often.
Also, NOTE that I have ALREADY provided the EVIDENCE for the PERFECT empirical GOD ALREADY.
Also, NOTE you keep MISSING IT.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 5:28 amHowever note my point, this will be reduced to the ontological God.
So, WHY waste time on the empirical God in the first place?
By the way, the ontological God has also ALREADY been proven to be possible to be real.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 5:28 amNone of your points above [jumping all over] address and counter my argument in the OP.
But that is MY POINT. You have NOT yet made a sound and valid argument. If you HAD, then it could NOT be countered anyway, obviously.
All you have done is formed some illogical, irrational, invalid so called "argument" based off of your BELIEFS alone. But you keep MISSING my POINT about this as well.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 5:28 amI suggest you address each of the premises [including the explanation] clearly and specifically.
Suggestion NOTED. But what opening post are you talking about, and in which thread are you referring to?
Do you even read what I write? I asked you to clarify these actual points in the that you are replying to.
Why will you NOT answer my very simple clarifying questions posed, to you?
This is how ridiculous this is now.
The points I raise is done by asking you clarifying questions.
But you say, "NONE of my points" address and counter your argument in the opening post.
ONE of my points, ask through a clarifying question was; What opening post are you talking about and in what thread?
You do NOT answer this clarifying question.
But you go on to say and suggest; I address each of the premises [including the explanation] clearly and specifically.
But HOW CAN I DO THIS when you do NOT tell me WHAT THREAD you are referring to?
What is MORE TRUE is NONE OF YOUR POINTS actually address any of my very simple clarifying questions posed to you. If you HAD addressed my questions, THEN I could have ALREADY addressed "each of the premises [including the explanation] clearly and specifically. That is; IF each of your premises [including the explanation] is ALSO clearly and specifically written out as well. We will have to wait and see though.