FYI, fabricated claims such as these only serve to expose your desperation. Anyone with a couple of years of college can spot their duplicity. Get real and stop spinning silliness. It doesn't impress.
Well you gave a premise (that I fabricated my claim) and you gave a conclusion (that it exposed my desperation).
Problems
1. Your premise was not demonstrated. You did not even attempt to suggest why anyone should believe it was true.
2. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise (even if it was true). It does not follow that because something was fabricated it therefore is not true or reveals any "desperation" (this latter is not even a conclusion, its merely color commentary). It is also hypocritical.
Now your argument has been shown to fail lets see why it fails.
1. Your claim that it was fabricated suggests one of two things.
a. I invented the claim myself. I most certainly did not. It has for a fact been stated by those qualified to know. Which BTW Dawkins is not. He has no philosophical training and it is glaringly obvious, same goes for Hawking who Dawkins replaced as having made the worst argument in western history against God.
b. Or that who ever did fabricate the comment was not qualified to do so. The scholar who I heard it from originally is well published, very well degreed, and who has sat on the board of accredited colleges.
2. That despite my claim being actually not fabricated by me and having been fabricated by competent authorities, that is does not lead to the conclusion as failed argument as I have stated. Demanding anyone to supply the cause of an uncaused being is perhaps the worst failure anyone can make concerning theology or philosophy.
So you have failed on all fronts so far, my argument is sound, my conclusion is reasonable and since the rest of your opening paragraph is not an argument at all (not even a bad one) but is rather emotionally based rhetoric it does not require a response.
Is this suppose to be a syllogism? If so, it fails right out of the gate.
No that was a typing error. It should have been.
1. Things that begin to exist must have a cause.
2. God (the biblical concept of God) is eternal and uncaused.
Conclusion the biblical God requires no cause and therefor demands for one are not only absurd but incoherent. Since you did not even attempt to supply the premise by which your conclusion is true it requires no further response. Merely declaring something does not make it true and is not an argument.
Please reread what you've written here and see if you can spot your errors. And, no, I'm not going to point them all out. well... perhaps one, if you ask nicely.
I am sure there are things that may be considered as technical errors in the way I stated my argument. I was giving a rough and hurried outline to someone who apparently had no experience what so ever (not even any bad experience) with arguments of tis type. It was not intended to withstand formal analysis in any specific way. I gave a form of an argument not any specific argument. However since you did not even attempt to show why anyone should believe your conclusion I have nothing to defend. So let me restate the form of an argument as I have given as a formal argument and maybe you can eventually actually demonstrate that your conclusions are true.
1. Things that exist either have an explanation of their existence within themselves or external to themselves.
2. The universe does not have an explanation of it's existence within itself.
Conclusion: The explanation for the universes existence transcends nature.
1. Things that exist either have an explanation of their existence within themselves or external to themselves.
2. The concept of God (in the bible) contains its own explanation of it's existence as a property.
Conclusion: God requires no external cause.
Post conclusion: Demanding a cause for God in this context is not only wrong it is absurd.
Might want to revisit this; clean up premise 2 so it makes sense. Show how premise 1 is relevant to your conclusion. Show how your conclusion derives from your premises. As it stands it does not.
Ok, assuming that if I do you will eventually point out (or attempt to) an actual reason to adopt your conclusions at some point I will "clean it up".
1. Things that begin to exist must have a cause.
2. An infinite regression of causation is logically impossible in nature. Or at least no one has shown one exists or can exist in nature. IOW it is reasonable to conclude natural infinite causal chains do not exist.
Conclusion: The universe must have an uncaused first cause.
I will give the second argument here but it is a little tricky. This last one is the only vulnerable argument I have made.
1. The concept of God (in the bible) did not begin to exist.
2. God (in the bible) is a causal agent.
3. The nature of the effect (the universe) can comment on the nature of it's cause.
4. According to sufficient causation the cause of the universe must be uncaused, non-material, non-special, unimaginably powerful, unimaginably intelligent, have the power to choose to act, to (theoretically)stand in creative relationships with the things created, etc.....
Conclusion: The biblical God's description is best candidate for the universes cause.
The word "best" I used here has an objective status but I would not know how to prove it. It is a reasonable conclusion but not one with a proof. Except for potential typing mistakes I think those arguments can stand.
