Why you should think that the uncaused-cause has communicated with human's

[IWantGod]

This thread assumes that the rational case for theism has succeeded. It assumes that, with the use of reason alone, we can know that an intelligent necessary being that is existentially fundamental and is the existential-cause of all potential beings actually exists. We can also know that the uncaused-cause intentionally sustains us in existence. We can think of this being as the true God and that all other conceptions of God or Gods is a human invented myth like Zeus.

If this is true we can ask the qeustion why sentient beings other than God exists.

While i am not sure that it is possible to prove the true-God’s intention towards us in a metaphysical sense, i think the fact that God sustains humans in existence and allows us the possibility of knowing God implies that God intend’s to communicate with us or has a plan for us, and because of this it is likely that the true God is the cause of one of the world religions that currently exists.

 

[IWantGod]

Unfortunately each of your arguments have been fundamentally flawed in ways that have been repeatedly pointed out to you,

That is not true.

 

[IWantGod]

And skeptics would give your arguments far more credence if you would acknowledge that they’re flawed.

The only people that disagree tend to be people that do not acknowledge the principle of non-contradiction. You are one of those people. So, i really have no reason to think my argument is flawed unless i choose to ignore the principle on upon which those arguments are based which is the principle of non-contradiction. My arguments are correct because the alternative is absurd. You reject those arguments because it interferes with what you want.

 

[IWantGod]

Constantly making assertions without proving your point just leads me to think that you are a troll. It’s just petty.behavior.

As soon as you have constructive and reasonable criticisms regarding the proofs that i have presented, i will happily make corrections. You have not done that and neither have you shown respect. All you have done is hurl insults, and if it happens again i will report you to the moderator.

 

[IWantGod]

Might i suggest that you do more than make assertions and insults.

 

[Roguish]

I’ve not been following threads by you (@lisaandlena) or @IWantGod, so perhaps there are grounds for what appears to be a pre-existing animosity between the two of you, but nevertheless I am puzzled as to why you would comment at all when the OP clearly explains from where he wishes to start the discussion. If you don’t subscribe to the assumption that he wishes to make, then why comment at all?

 

[Roguish]

Therein lies the problem, the OP asks us to assume too much. Why should we assume things, even for the sake of argument, that are patently and demonstrably false?

Well, good luck with your argument. I hope you enjoy discussions such as the one you are having with @IWantGod – but it sure doesn’t sound like it. Sounds more like you are torturing yourself just by being involved in this type of thread. If philosophical wiseacring (especially that of others than yourself) annoys you, maybe it’s time to leave it alone. I did, years ago, and I can assure you that to this day it feels like good riddens

 

[IWantGod]

The OP asks us to assume a number of things which can’t possibly be true. There’s simply no way to know by reason alone " that an intelligent necessary being that is existentially fundamental and is the existential-cause of all potential beings actually exists. "

Supposedly.

I obviously disagree, and based on past discussions with you i honestly don’t see how you could possibly know if a metaphysical argument for God’s existence is correct or not. I certainly wouldn’t trust you as an authority on the matter, so simply asserting that i am wrong isn’t going to convince me.

But it’s irrelevant. Like roguish said, if you don’t want to assume for the sake of argument that an intelligent uncaused-cause has been demonstrated, then don’t get involved. You seem to be upset by the mere idea that there could possibly be an argument for God’s existence using reason, so much so that you cannot even prove your assertion that no such argument could possibly exist. To me, that is just ridiculous. If that upsets you, it really isn’t my problem…

 

[IWantGod]

I’ll happily accept that it’s irrelevant if you’ll accept that there exists no metaphysical proof for the existence of God.

I can’t because that is simply not true. Like i said, unless you are willing to reveal the flaws in my argument with a real argument that doesn’t simply ignore the reality of our experiences or the principle of non-contradiction, then i have no reason to think that my argument is wrong. In fact i have every reason to think my argument is right, regardless of whether you agree or not, because the alternative is absurd.

Assertions are not refutations.