Part 2 of my opening statement in debate with shwanerd

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

LMAO! Thanks for the laugh.

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

"The perfect island" would be completely subjective. Useless argument- tossed out. Try again.

[migkillertwo]

its useless? Kant used that argument.

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

"Perfect" is completely subjective. What you would consider "a perfect island" I would consider the 3rd or 4th level of Dante's hell. Dead argument prima facie.

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

I get this strange feeling that the goalpost has wheels.

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

You are jumping to conclusions when you assume the universe was by design. Someone always wins the lottery. Millions of people may lose, but someone always wins. Just because something is improbable does not make it impossible, ergo you are making unsubstantiated assumptions.

[lilchrizz123]

Millions of people may lose, but someone always wins

Not every lottery does someone win, that's a false statement.

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

Wrong. Someone always wins, maybe not in the first drawing, but someone always wins. If no one wins then it's a scam and not a lottery, kid.

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

You expecting us to accept your dozens of premises amounts to a pathetic display of special pleading.

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

By your own string of logic here, even if we grant you your god (which there is absolutely no evidence for) your god must also have a god who must also have a god, ad infinitum. AND even if we grant all of this to you, there is absolutely no proof it is the god of abraham.

[Deliratio]

That's probably why the opening statement has several parts.

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

As if volume makes him correct? He's throwing everything at the wall hoping something will stick.

[Deliratio]

I think you made a mistake when quoting Davies. If I recall correctly, Hawking wrote the expansion rate could not differ in 10^-16, so the range is a little broader.

Robin Collins noted that

a) the laws of the universe are also fine-tuned (for example, the gravitational-force is necessary for life) and b) a multiverse would also have laws and parameters

[Deliratio]

I made an argument at TheologyWeb that a necessary island would require necessary time and space, so we are back at leibniz again.

There are several ways to show how premise (3) of the OA is true.

The simplest solution is your quasi-response to Kant "existence may not be a property, but necessary existence is!"

But I think this approach will do better:

(a) A maximally great being has great-making properties in every possible world.

(b) Non-existing things do not have properties.

[Deliratio]

Do numbers really exist necessarily?

Maybe you should have a look at "the conceptualist argument", there is a good discussion available at the "doxazo theos"-blog.

[migkillertwo]

if they do exist and are not merely man-made abstractions, then yes they exist necessarily and eternally and have no explanation.

[lilchrizz123]

migkiller be nice to him, lol you've already refuted his possible refutations before he even made a video.

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

hahah I lknow, domination

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

"hahah I lknow, domination"

Ha ha ha, delusion.

[lilchrizz123]

What delusion are you talking about?

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

If you consider this a domination, you are delusional.

[lilchrizz123]

Then refute it.

[theman77777777232]

haha

[TheGamingWeasel]

Why did you used Plantinga's ontological argument? He doesn't consider it as a successful piece of natural theology.

[migkillertwo]

he doesn't?

well that is damn-interesting.

[TheGamingWeasel]

It is unquestionable valid but the premise - divine necessary existence is logically possible is itself in question and cannot be supported by compelling argument. But the fact remains that the ontological argument is back in play.

[Deliratio]

Plantinga has several versions of his OA. The most simple is

(1) If God exists, God would exist necessarily

(2) It's possible that God exists

(3) Axiom S5 is sound

(4) Therefore, God exists necessarily.

I prefer the one that makes the distinction between "maximal greatness" and "maximal excellence".

[Deliratio]

Plantinga wrote:

"Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion."

[Christus94]

Where is Part one.

[migkillertwo]

it took a little longer for it to process. it should be up now.

[migkillertwo]

judging from his other videos, I'm going to have to agree. in fact, I seriously doubt that he's even going to step up and respond.

[ukchristian28]

Please delete the above comment as I did not write it. My friend was on my account to help me with something. I guess I should have told him not to write stuff under my name. I thought he would have known that though.

[lilchrizz123]

Lol i said to myself, i didn't expect that from ukchristian..

[ShwaNerd]

Way to be civil there.