The Strongest Argument for God

[Philip]

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.

[Kenny]

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!

[Philip]

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?

[Byblos]

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?

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.

[Kenny]

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?

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]

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?

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!

[Byblos]

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?

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

[Kenny]

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?

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]

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.

[Kenny]

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]

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.

[Kenny]

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!

[RickD]

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!

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.

[Kenny]

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!

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]

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!

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.