[quote=“Old_man_shouts_at_cl, post:23, topic:847, full:true”]
@Old_man_shouts_at_cl, If it does not make sense please explain why so I can clarify! I feel that this is a really important point.
Your Statement: “StudentFinalPaper’s argument does not get me any closer to God.”
My Recommended Modification “StudentFinalPaper’s argument does not get conclusively to God.”
Reasoning: It is fair to state that the arguments I put out don’t conclusively get us to God (it might for some) but not reasonable to state that there were 0 movements in that direction.
Expansion 1: If we both look at a 2D shape and I say it’s a triangle and you say it’s a circle then in order for one of us to be right the shape has to meet the all of the criteria of our proposed shapes definition. If the shape we are looking at truly has 1 corner on it, then we have logically moved closer to it potentially being a triangle. By meeting at least 1 criterion of a triangle’s definition, we actually have moved closer to it potentially being a triangle. This is how cumulative cases are built in court and logic when singular conclusive evidence is not available or one wants to bolster their position. (as a sub point we have also debunked that it is a circle since an essential requirement for circles are that they have no corners)
Expansion 2: If after revealing that the shape we are looking at has a corner you say: “this get’s you no closer to having a triangle” or variant “this proves nothing” then your statement would be unreasonable because triangles have corners while circles do not. Now you could say: “this does not prove conclusively that we’re looking at a triangle because lot’s of shapes have corners not just triangles” and that statement would be fair and correct. But your first assertion would be unreasonable to hold since 1 criterion of the triangle has already been met.
Expansion 3: As a theist, I would assert that the God of my particular religion has the characteristic of being beginning-less (there was not a time where he was not) and causeless (there was not another entity/event that caused Him to be). The universe is finite and therefore had a beginning. To argue an infinite past of any variation leads to an infinite regress which is a logical absurdity. Therefore, there would have to be an absolute start to a singular/multiverse. If this is the case then there has to be an absolute beginning where the universe came into existence. Since things to not pop out of existence from nothing then some Entity would have had to cause the universe to exist (which I’ll dub The Cause for now). We don’t know everything about the universe BUT we can assert this from logic: infinite regresses in this contexts cannot exist since if we have an infinite past then we could never arrive at the present moment. If that’s the case then everything has to stop at a Cause. But if the Cause exist’s it has to have certain characteristics to stop the logical absurdity of an infinite past regress. This means that The Cause MUST have at least 2 characteristics: ONE, The Cause must be Causeless (otherwise infinite regress of "who caused The Cause, and who caused the Cause that caused the Cause, and so on); TWO, The Cause must be beginning-less (otherwise infinite regress of “what was before The Cause” and what was before The Before prior the Cause, etc). Therefore, in order to resolve logical absurdities, I would argue that there exists an entity - The Cause - which must have the argued 2 characteristics. But these characteristics match the criterion of a God - especially the God which I would assert exists.
Conclusion: Because of the facts listed above, like the triangle, we are indeed closer to the assertion that The Cause (or God) exists than Him/It not existing. It’s might not be conclusive (from the arguments mentioned), but we are indeed logically closer.
PS. Please provide arguments as to how I’m using semantics as a dodge and not a genuine rebuttal. Perhaps I missed something? That wasn’t my intention.