How do you imagine eternal existence.
Easily enough...
Imagine something and apply to it the property of infinite existence.
What is it that you are imagining?
A circle.
The definition I presented is the basic definition, from ancient times till now, not my own personal definition.
From what I can see from the definition, is that God's existence is the reason we experience existence. Sounds like a pretty good explanation of existence to me. Maybe you can do better?
To use an analogy someone else used: if you could have reached point X via path A or path B, and you see a sign which reads "path B is the path which brought you to point X" your view would be that you travelled path B to get there.
Others would see the alternative path (path A), wonder on what basis the sign was written, who wrote it etc.
And we would conclude that we don't know, and that there is no way of knowing, which path we followed to get to point X.
Your assumption that the definition is correct, and is applicable to something that exists, is (again as others have pointed out) question begging.
No argument has been presented by me thus far, and nothing I have said leads to the conclusion that I accept nothing but the definition. Perhaps you should stick to what is written, rather than infer stuff.
I see you don't know what an argument actually is.
If you state something, and then state a conclusion derived from that (whether using fallacious or valid logic), that is an argument.
It is nigh on impossible to continue a discussion without making arguments.
Unless you simply preach.
As soon as you say "God is..." and then conclude something based on that definition, you have made an argument.
So perhaps you should understand what you have written.
And be aware of what implications you are making with your writings.
I also see I am not the only one to have raised this concern.
What good is your grasp of logic, if you can't even get the subject right?
Where/how have I got the subject wrong?
Have you not stated that God is "the original cause"?
Have you not stated that, as a result, if God did not exist then this would thus result in us not existing? (note how this is an argument you have made).
Does this argument not preclude the possibility that the definition of God might not apply to anything that does not exist, and thus there is another reason for our existence?
This accusation is either a result of poor reading, and comprehension, or a desperate attempt to halt further discussion.
My status of belief or lack of belief, does not need to be the subject of the discussion (and I maintain that it isn't).
That IS the definition of God, and not being able to imagine a world where God didn't exist, is no more postulating an a priori assumption, than imagining the world to be exactly as it is (if one could imagine that). It is, for me, simply taking into account the definition of God.
It doesn't just take into account the definition of God, though.
It takes into account your assumption that God exists.
You can not shed yourself of this on an intellectual level, for the purposes of discussion, irrespective of what you truly believe or not.
And yes, what you believe or not is irrelevant.
That is not the issue.
But what you believe is unfortunately preventing you from doing what others seem quite capable of, because, it seems, that belief you have introduces an
a priori assumption into any argument you try to make.
The accusation thus stands, and if anything it is to highlight the pointlessness of further discussion with one incapable of even identifying and acknowledging that such an
a priori assumption is at the root of their claims and arguments.
It is like trying to get a child with Aspergers and who can only take things literally to imagine that a ball you're holding up in front of you does not exist.
Because they see the ball they can not imagine that the ball is not there.
And there is no point in having a discussion with them that relies on them imagining the non-existence of that ball.
The task was not to imagine the world you currently live in, but imagine a world where God didn't exist.
Yes.
I know.
And I share the view that the world would look exactly as it does now.
We are at point X.
Whether God exists or God does not exist (i.e. whether we have taken path A or path B to get here), we are still here.
Unless we know for certain one way or the other that God does/does not exist - or unless we introduce an
a priori assumption that God exists - the only logically valid conclusion is that the world would look as it does now.
Simply because we do not know whether God exists or not.
We have the definition of God, but as you have agreed this does not mean that God necessarily exists.
Yet everything you subsequently try to argue / claim is based on the notion of God existing because of that definition.
My previous accusation stands, and everything you have subsequently tried to say in your defence just reinforces the accuracy of that accusation.
So while you are incapable of separating that
a priori assumption from your arguments / claims, further discussion will merely be an exercise in futility.
As the last 15 pages have shown.
