[shawndumas]

for the sake of argument let's assume there is a God. and let's say He was better than all the things He created. better than that awesome sunset that you saw that took your breath away; better than that favorite meal you love -- you know the one. love is giving the object of your love the best... the best you've got. what if God giving Himself was Love defined?

just for argument's sake...

[anglican1549]

It certainly is reasonable to look for an archetype for what we consider transcendent acts and qualities. Even the most ardent atheist generally is moved by acts of mercy, heroics, sacrifice, and unmerited love.

His chosen framework cannot properly and consistently account for these things, perhaps the best he can do is proffer a narrative about bio-chemical impulses and evolutionary advantage -- but the transcendent "feel" at the end of the day seems no more than an illusion of nature.

[hueving]

That's a bad assumption to start with because there is no evidence of such a thing. "just for the sake of argument, let's assume there are invisible horses everywhere. (followed by explanation of how these horses are responsible for love)"

[anglican1549]

Your epistemology and categories are already flawed, as if there's an analogy between a thing (like a horse) and the Ground of Being (classically called "God"). God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things. If you think classical theism posits deity the same way people posit horses, of course you'll want "evidence" that is empirical.

So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads? The premise ("There is a God") might not be true, but an a priori exclusion of such a being seems no more based on logic than the counter claim. What is helpful, I think, is if by looking through those lenses we see if God gives the world more explanatory power than by not looking through those lenses.

[hueving]

>God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things.

Neither is an invisible horse. These all fall under the category of things that there is no physical evidence for.

>So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads?

No, because his entire premise is based on the existence of something that follows no logic or physical laws. Something that violates the laws of logic cannot be reasoned about.

[anglican1549]

But an invisible horse is referencing a thing simply without the accidents of visibility, but a finite thing nevertheless.

You're still trapped in a category Christians (or any traditional Theists) don't believe about God. We're asserting X, you're attacking Y.

[shawndumas]

a valid argument is valid apart from the truth of its premises [1]. I am perfectly happy to agree that an argument's construction is formally valid and still deny it's conclusion.

all sound arguments are valid but not all valid arguments are sound.

so I ask; in what way is my argument invalid?

-----

[1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity#Validity_and_soundne...

[hueving]

>so I ask; in what way is my argument invalid?

I never said it was. I said it had a bad assumption, which makes the whole thing entirely pointless and self-serving.

Entering a debate where you make your arguments using the form "Assume I am right about the thing we are debating. Now here are all of the logical conclusions of that." is completely worthless because nobody cares about the logical conclusions when the argument is about the part you are taking under assumption.

[shawndumas]

The original post was, "If God exists, I doubt he cares if we believe in him or not. I like to believe he would not be that insecure."

My response was addressing the part about insecurity. You are objecting to the original poster's thought experiment -- "If God exists" -- which I was allowing for the sake of argument.

So you are objecting to my continuation: Is this what you are intending to do?