Originally posted by wolfgang59
P.
This reminds me of a magician who visited the Special Needs
School I taught at in UK. He completely misjudged his audience
when he asked them to think of a number between 10 and 20!

😉

It's putting me in mind of some Lewis Carol type character. Every time I ask for a simple, short, concise and clear answer, I get an even more lengthy stream of cut'n'paste and nothing new at all, certainly not the simple answer I asked for.

--Penguin

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 7) "What's wrong with this argument?" (OP)

The argument's assumption of the presence of time. The nature, essence or essential being of God
includes the attribute of eternal life: His absolute existence outside the boundaries of time. (Page 10)
___________________________________________________

[ ...[text shortened]... e it clear which part of the argument you find problematic?" -Penguin [God has no cause.]

Originally posted by Penguin
You are incredible...

Me: Do you mean your first response, or your second response?
You: I mean my first response. Here it is again: [pastes second response].

Either way, can you please make it clear which part of the argument you find problematic?
1. Is it the premise that "Everything that exists has a cause"?
2. Or the premise that "God exists"?
3. Or do you think that the conclusion that "God has a cause" does not logically follow if both premises are true?

A simple "it is 1", "it is 2" or "it is 3" is all that is needed.

Since you love cut'n'paste so much, please cut'n'paste the relevant one of these three lines:
It is 1
It is 2
It is 3

Originally posted by Penguin
A simple "it is 1", "it is 2" or "it is 3" is all that is needed.

Let me help him out here.
He is claiming that it is neither 1. nor 2. but the logic itself ie 3. He is basing this claim on his interpretation of 1. as being correct, but applicable only to the Human realm, but 3. incorrectly (according to him) extends 1. to all existence.
It is a reasonable stance to take until someone points out that he has misinterpreted 1. ie Wolfgang clearly intended 1. to refer to all existent things not just the human realm, or he would not be making the argument in the first place. At this point he should then change his objection to 1.
Good luck getting him to do so.

Originally posted by Penguin
Originally posted by Penguin
You are incredible...

Me: Do you mean your first response, or your second response?
You: I mean my first response. Here it is again: [pastes second response].

Either way, can you please make it clear which part of the argument you find problematic?
1. Is it the premise that "Everything that exists has a cause"?
2 ...[text shortened]... t'n'paste the relevant one of these three lines:
It is 1
It is 2
It is 3

"3. [God has no cause.]"

Originally posted by Penguin
It's putting me in mind of some Lewis Carol type character. Every time I ask for a simple, short, concise and clear answer, I get an even more lengthy stream of cut'n'paste and nothing new at all, certainly not the simple answer I asked for.

--Penguin

Yes ; and the questions and answers grow exponentially until
the meaning of the original question is lost forever. I would
really like to see forum moderation that penalised tangential
arguments - it would certainly eliminate all politicians!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Let me help him out here.
He is claiming that it is neither 1. nor 2. but the logic itself ie 3. He is basing this claim on his interpretation of 1. as being correct, but applicable only to the Human realm, but 3. incorrectly (according to him) extends 1. to all existence.
It is a reasonable stance to take until someone points out that he has misinterpr ...[text shortened]... place. At this point he should then change his objection to 1.
Good luck getting him to do so.

"1. ie Wolfgang clearly intended 1. to refer to all existent things not just the human realm..." -twhitehead

Subjective to assume any premised subset is included if not clearly stated; had it included God, the answer: No.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Yes ; and the questions and answers grow exponentially until
the meaning of the original question is lost forever. I would
really like to see forum moderation that penalised tangential
arguments - it would certainly eliminate all politicians!

"1. Everything that exists" [including God] "has a cause" [No]
"2. God exists" [Yes]
"3. Therefore God has a cause" [No]

"What's wrong with this argument?" -wolfgang59 [Only 2. is satisfied; therefore 3. is an invalid conclusion.]

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"1. ie Wolfgang clearly intended 1. to refer to all existent things not just the human realm..." -twhitehead

Subjective to assume any premised subset is included if not clearly stated; had it included God, the answer: No.

From opening post:
"1. Everything that exists has a cause"

GB: You are asserting that the word "everything" does not include your god?

True or False?

Originally posted by FMF
🙄 Sounds awfully convoluted. So, you'd have us believe that wolfgang59's withering criticism of you on this thread suddenly "reminded you of Heidi Lynn" and reminded you of a thread that's been dormant most of three weeks on a different forum which you then went to but you decided not to post anything there because you had posted four times, once on each of the ...[text shortened]... it had "reminded you of Heidi Lynn", and so on and so forth...? Pretty convoluted if you ask me.

Interest was/continues to be genuine. How others may criticize me in no way impacts my interest in and concern for them.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Interest was/continues to be genuine. How others may criticize me in no way impacts my interest in and concern for them.

To your credit, you deleted the creepy post ~ even if you've been brazenly fibbing about it ever since! 😀

Originally posted by wolfgang59
From opening post:
"1. Everything that exists has a cause"

GB: You are asserting that the word "everything" does not include your god?

True or False?

True: The Sovereign God of the Universe who has revealed Himself to mankind through His Word and Son has no cause.

Originally posted by FMF
To your credit, you deleted the creepy post ~ even if you've been brazenly fibbing about it ever since! 😀

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
FMF, the generic post with the baby's name omitted was 'Hope the new baby and mother are still doing fine' wouldn't seem "creepy" to any father or grandfather reminiscing when his own daughter was a child. Made an error and corrected it. Period.
_______________________________________________________

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
After posting in this forum then deleting it I went to the General Forum and found wolfgang59's thread on page 3 with a last post by FreakyKBH 18 May '14. Having already posted to each of the four pages, decided not to bump it. Thread 158727
________________________________________________________

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Interest was/continues to be genuine. How others may criticize me in no way impacts my interest in and concern for them.
_________________________________________________________

Facts have been presented; accept or reject them. Same volitional option as with belief in Christ for your eternal salvation.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"1. Everything that exists" [including God] "has a cause" [No]
"2. God exists" [Yes]
"3. Therefore God has a cause" [No]

"What's wrong with this argument?" -wolfgang59 [Only 2. is satisfied; therefore 3. is an invalid conclusion.]

Harumble, hang out the bunting!!!!!

GB has finally given a clear answer, it is Premise 1 to which he disagrees. Only took 9 days of cajoling to get it out of him.

Personally, I agree with him on the falsity of Premise 1. It does not currently appear to be true that everything that exists has a cause.

Wolfgang59, was there anything you wanted to say in response to this now that we have, after 13 pages, got a clear answer to the OP from a theist (actually, 2 theists since RJ also disagrees with premise 1)?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Let me help him out here.
He is claiming that it is neither 1. nor 2. but the logic itself ie 3. He is basing this claim on his interpretation of 1. as being correct, but applicable only to the Human realm, but 3. incorrectly (according to him) extends 1. to all existence.
It is a reasonable stance to take until someone points out that he has misinterpr ...[text shortened]... place. At this point he should then change his objection to 1.
Good luck getting him to do so.

Precision concerning the universe of discourse is reasonable enough, statements such as "all" can be tricky if it is not. It won't work in this case as the universe of discourse is unrestricted. So really grampy is left with the claim that proposition (1) is false, since the universe of discourse is straightforwardly all things divine or not, clearly so given the scope of this forum.

I find it surreal that a thread about logic should gain so much interest and controversy.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Facts have been presented; accept or reject them. Same volitional option as with belief in Christ for your eternal salvation.

The only facts that matter are that I reckon your response to wolfgang59's criticism of you was "creepy" while you have sought to pass it off as "ill considered". You really should reflect and let yourself have a chuckle at the way you carry on from time to time. 😉