That’s all I have time for boys and girls. Good evening and best wishes. I will address anything I have missed maybe tomorrow.
I leave you with questions to think about and hopefully answer:
-In the case of causation what are your options?
-Why can you not ask ‘why’ in the case of that which is uncaused?
And as I presented to Dr. Matt, Leibniz’s question,
-Why does something exist, rather than nothing?
I got lot’s of questions for you Dr. Matt, let me know if you have time for me to ask them. Is your email still good? The one I have? I know you have been super, super busy.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Pat, what is your proof that something cannot be uncaused? It seems the problem is we are offering that as an unprovable possibility[/quote]
Precisely correct.
What is is his proof? Well it was the “argument A” I referenced in my logical progression above. But that argument is clearly invalid.[/quote]
Yep, that is exactly what I have been getting at as well.
[/quote]
The proof? The proof is simple, 'Can you ask why ‘something’? exists. If you are dealing with something caused the answer is ‘yes’, if you are dealing with something uncaused, the answer is ‘No’.
What an uncaused entity must be makes it logically in valid to ask ‘why?’ There is no ‘why’. You cannot deal with uncaused entities explicitly. Its because what an entity must be to both exist and be uncaused. Those unique properties are totally different from caused entities. [/quote]
I’m thinking of some entity that is either caused or uncaused (I won’t tell which it is), lets call it X.
Pat, you are not understanding the point of contention. I do not propose a third option to “caused/uncaused.” Rather, your argument ignores the second option, by not even addressing the proposition that what exists is uncaused. Take a careful look at it and you should see. I really don’t want to keep hammering the point home. We have now gone like 15 posts wherein I am identifying a very specific problem and you are simply ignoring it, either to buy time or because you don’t take my meaning.
Again, please deal with the argument that I made that proves your invalid.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Pat, what is your proof that something cannot be uncaused? It seems the problem is we are offering that as an unprovable possibility[/quote]
Precisely correct.
What is is his proof? Well it was the “argument A” I referenced in my logical progression above. But that argument is clearly invalid.[/quote]
Yep, that is exactly what I have been getting at as well.
[/quote]
The proof? The proof is simple, 'Can you ask why ‘something’? exists. If you are dealing with something caused the answer is ‘yes’, if you are dealing with something uncaused, the answer is ‘No’.
What an uncaused entity must be makes it logically in valid to ask ‘why?’ There is no ‘why’. You cannot deal with uncaused entities explicitly. Its because what an entity must be to both exist and be uncaused. Those unique properties are totally different from caused entities. [/quote]
I’m thinking of some entity that is either caused or uncaused (I won’t tell which it is), lets call it X.
Why does X exist?
Is that a valid question?[/quote]
Certainly.[/quote]
Also, Pat, you keep saying that this argument is circular:
[quote]
Argument A states that
[i]----1'. Something exists.
----2'. That something cannot have caused itself.
----3'. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
----4'. Therefore, that something is caused.[/i]
If [the something that exists, detailed in premise 1’, is uncaused]–hereafter referred to as proposition P–then the something that exists was not caused by itself and it was not caused by [nothing].
Therefore, if P, then premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied.
However, if premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied, then either conclusion 4’ is true, or argument A is invalid.
If P, then ~4’
Therefore, argument A is invalid.[/quote]
Which it clearly, clearly is not. There is nothing circular about it. If you think that that deals with it, you are mistaken.
When you say “your argument is circular,” I have a feeling you’re attacking some misphrased abstraction that you came up with and then attributed to me. “Some thing exists because it exists.” Right? Well I never made that argument, never typed those words, and that proposition is nonsensical under the proposition P of my argument. So it would do you good to drop that–drop circularity–and actually read this argument, because, unless dealt with, it really does poke a fatal whole in your entire contention in this thread.
No no no Pat, this is not how constructing logical arguments and proofs works. What you are doing now is a particularly common logical fallacy called “argument from ignorance.” The way that a logical proof works is that you have a series of statements that lead to a conclusion. If you can show that if the conditions you have laid out are met, then the conclusion follows every time then you have proven your argument, but it is on you to prove it. It does not mean that it is true until someone else explicitly shows it to be false. We are claiming that your argument is not valid. The burden of proving this is on us.
[/quote]
But that’s not what I am doing at all. I am not saying the argument is true until the argument is proven false, the argument is true because we are dealing with causation and we are dealing with 2 options.
And if you do say an argument is false, don’t you think you should prove it? Can we disprove logical arguments simply by saying, nope that’s not right?
[/quote]
Pat, this makes absolutely no sense. Having only two options doesn’t prove anything. The entire field of first order logic is based on having two options: true or false: a proposition can be true or false and a conclusion can be true or false. You still have to prove your statements, claims, arguments, and conclusions. The way you do that is by constructing an argument and presenting your conclusion and showing that every single time that the premise(s) of your argument are satisfied then your conclusion follows. Yes, this does mean that there are some things that can not be proven logically. For probably the 20th time in the last page, here is the argument that you have resented:
[quote]
Something exists.
That something cannot have caused itself.
That something cannot have been caused by nothing. [/quote]
These form the logical premises of your argument and each can either be true or false, so they are valid logical premises. This does not mean your argument is true, just that it does fall within the realm of classical logic.
[quote]
4. Therefore, that something is caused.[/quote]
This is your conclusion, and it is also a valid logical proposition because it is either true or not true, but again that does not make your argument true. In order for your argument to be true, you must demonstrate that every time your premises are met that your conclusion does as well
Now, we get to your claim, the whole reason for this thread:
This satisfies your premises but not your conclusion. By the rules of logic, your argument is invalid. I did not make up these rules, smh did not make up these rules, and sufiandy did not make up these rules. If your argument does not hold following the rules of logic, then it is not a logical argument and your argument does not constitute a proof. Your argument might make sense to you, it might make sense to most of the world, hell it might make sense to myself, smh, and sufiandy, but that does not make it logical. In order for an argument to be logical it must follow the rules of logic
[quote]
In the case of causation, what are your alternatives? You have caused or uncaused. Is there another? Would not a 3rd option just be causal and therefore reducible to one of the two?
If, in the case of causation you know of something more than caused and uncaused I sure as hell would like to know what it is.
And that is the contention that smh is provide. Well it ‘something’ can be caused, ‘something’ can be uncaused, or something can be ??? [/quote]
Again, it doesn’t even matter how many alternatives there are as long as each alternative has only the option of being true or false. Here is an example: For all integers, n < n^2. This has an infinite number of alternatives, I can have n = 1, n = 29384, n = 3432, etc. But each time I put n into the statement, it can only be true or false and I can prove this statement true or false for all integers.
[quote]
The point is that you cannot derive the existence of something uncaused explicitly. It’s impossible because of what something must be to both exist and be uncaused. If ‘something’ isn’t determined to be uncaused in the premise then it’s not an alternative. Unless the question ‘why does something exist?’ is prove to be explicitly invalid. Then uncaused is not an option.
For instance:
Something exists
That something is uncaused.
???
You cannot add the premise ‘that something did not cause itself’, it’s not caused so to say it’s not caused by itself is redundant. It’s uncaused, there is no causation. Causation does not exist here. [/quote]
Then you do not have a valid logical argument to prove your claim. I am not trying to be mean, but it is that simple. It does not mean that your claim that God exists and is uncaused is not true, or that it does not make sense, or that it is unreasonable, but it your claim to be able to prove it with logic is not true.
[quote]
Which would be a perfect criticism if there were more than 2 options. In this case there are not. So if it’s not one, then its the other and vice versa. If there are billions of options as in the case of color, then you have a point, more premises are then required to determine which color. But in the case of causation there are 2 options. Only 2 and no others. Like I said, if there are more than 2 options in the case of causation then I want to know what the 3, or billions of others there could be.
The criticisms is one of false alternatives. [/quote]
No, Pat. It does not matter how many premises that you have, as long as each premise can be either true or untrue. Then, if you claim one or the other you have to prove that your conclusion follows when your premises hold and if you can not, then you do not have a logical proof of your claim.
[quote]
And no, ganging up on me 3 to 1 is not going to force me to ignore what logic tells me is true.[/quote]
That is the problem, you do not seem to understand the difference between “logical” and “makes sense.” Here is one more example I am claiming that for all real numbers, if x^2 - 6 = 3, then x = 4. Here I have a premise: There is a number that satisfies x^2 - 6 = 3. I also have a claim: that x = 4. This is a logical argument, because my statements can be true or false, but it makes no sense, and is easily shown to be invalid. Any 6th grader would call me an idiot and say that 10 does not equal three.
[quote]pat wrote:
That’s all I have time for boys and girls. Good evening and best wishes. I will address anything I have missed maybe tomorrow.
I leave you with questions to think about and hopefully answer:
-In the case of causation what are your options?
-Why can you not ask ‘why’ in the case of that which is uncaused?
And as I presented to Dr. Matt, Leibniz’s question,
-Why does something exist, rather than nothing?
I got lot’s of questions for you Dr. Matt, let me know if you have time for me to ask them. Is your email still good? The one I have? I know you have been super, super busy.[/quote]
Absolutely, you should always feel free to e-mail me. I want to hear more about this mustang!
Pat, as we all pointed out there is a flaw in this argument. Can you fix it or at least give a new one in a similar format that we can reference, so we can stop using the flawed version?
X exists.
X cannot have caused itself.
X cannot have been caused by nothing.
Therefore, X is caused.
So this would be true for something like “An Apple” but false for “God”. A valid argument needs to be true for anything you plug into the unknown.
What Dr. Matt said about your argument making sense, and not necessarily being wrong, but not being proved, is perfectly put, and it forms the entirety of my contention in this thread.
Please note, Pat, that I am among the people who believe that the argument from cosmology is strong–not proved, of course, but strong–and it is mostly on the basis of this belief that I describe myself as an agnostic theist.
But to think that God’s existence is a proved and settled matter? No. Not nearly.
This is the first actually interesting and worthwhile ‘existence of God’ thread in, like, forever…
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I’ll dig one up from google if you’d like. I don’t feel like reinventing the wheel. Feel free to present an argument that the universe is a brute fact that requires no cause. [/quote]
I will wait for the argument.
More importantly: As I have said many, many, many times, I am not arguing the proposition that the universe does not have a cause. I am arguing that the proposition that the universe does not have a cause is an assumption, exactly like its negation, and cannot be disproved without fallacy and/or assumptive maxims, and have thus far been correct in that it absolutely has not been disproved.[/quote]
I’m through page three but I’d like to ask a question. smh, you are arguing that the ‘the universe does not have a cause’ is an assumption. Can you agree that there are only two choices:
universe has a cause
universe does not have a cause
If you do agree that there are only two possible cases, then you must either say that both of these are assumptions (which it seems is what is being said in the quoted portion above), or neither are assumptions. They are both equivalent opposites (negation, you called it).
If they are both assumptions, then it leaves you nowhere. If they are not assumptions there is a right and wrong answer. You (plural) do not act as if they are assumptions, and therefore while perhaps technically formally correct it is practically speaking worthless. Nobody has ever proven that ‘other people have minds’ philosophically, and yet everyone acts as if it were the case. To take the extreme skeptic’s position that nobody else has a mind is essentially hypocritical because you act as if they do–as if you are interacting with other minds. At some point induction comes into it unless you are willing to be said hypocrite skeptic. The same, I would argue, goes for the universe, if and only if your statement that both propositions 1 and 2 are assumptions is valid.
You’ll have to forgive me, the technical philosopher’s ‘analytical/symbolic logic’ jargon is long since forgotten because my head is crammed full of science jargon. Hopefully the point is clear.
Wow! A lot to get to, unfortunately I am busy. I may choose to address all the concerns in one post, but it may be long. It’s clear I have to explain this from the core to how the conclusion is made and why it must be true.
A brief snippet is that philosophy studies itself and it’s history more than any other discipline, and the reason for that is so that one doesn’t ‘reinvent the wheel’. It means I have to explain from the core of what philosophy is to the conclusion of the presented argument.
Because, these questions, these counter claims have long been dealt with in philosophy. It’s also why I already know the answer. It has nothing to do with being brilliant at any level, it’s that it’s already been dealt with in depth and I know what is already known. I was functioning on the commonality of understanding that is clearly not present; I.E. we are not on the same page and we have to be to come to understanding.
Again, I hope to spend some good time addressing all your concerns and hopefully we can all understand a little better. I don’t have time, but I will deal with it. I just want to know it’s being read if I take the time, because it’s laborious.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You are simply wrong at this point, or not understanding the argument against which you are pitted. Nothing in your previous post was even apropos of the debate. So, here is an argument, tell me precisely where you find fault and why:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Here is my argument in argument form:
Argument A states that
[i]----1'. Something exists.
----2'. That something cannot have caused itself.
----3'. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
----4'. Therefore, that something is caused.[/i]
If [the something that exists, detailed in premise 1’, is uncaused]–hereafter referred to as proposition P–then the something that exists was not caused by itself and it was not caused by [nothing].
Therefore, if P, then premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied.
However, if premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied, then either conclusion 4’ is true, or argument A is invalid.
If P, then ~4’
Therefore, argument A is invalid.[/quote]
[/quote]
Again, circular. You are arguing that the argument is invalid because it is in fact circular.[/quote]
What?
I am arguing that the argument is invalid because its conclusion does not follow from its premises. I am not sure you’re reading this argument.[/quote]
This one is short, so I’ll take this on real quick.
Something exists.
That something cannot have caused itself.
That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
Therefore, ???
List the all the possible conclusions for these premises. It’s a finite number, and please do not say ‘I don’t know’, try.
Aragorn–great post. I will touch on a number of things you brought up. Some of this will repeat things I’ve said over the course of these two sprawling threads. Also, I won’t use logic-jargon, not that I know much logic either.
I am using the term “assumption,” but it is probably better to say: “Neither claim can be proved with true certainty one way or another.” I will take Pat’s proposition (proposition P) as an example, though everything that I’m about to say can be said of the counter-proposition as well. His argument begins fairly sturdily (it’s been made by some of the best, after all). When it’s subjected to some critical analysis, however, it is found to hinge on the proposition that “what exists, and is not God, is caused.” But when asked to prove this, Pat–and it should be noted that this is not a comment on his abilities, which I admire, but is rather a product of cold and unremitting reality–when asked to prove this, Pat’s arguments descend immediately into formal and informal fallacy, question-begging, and argument by mere assertion. He simply cannot prove P–and, to be frank, has only rarely obliged me in trying–and this is very well evidenced in the most recent logical argument that I formulated and posted.
All this aside, there is the further objection, which Matt has made eloquently, that the cosmological proof is not even internally consistent in that its conclusion invalidates its own premise of causality. I am not explicitly making this argument at this time, but I support it completely. But, again, my argument has little to do with this.
Now, this is all about Pat’s ability or lack thereof to prove P with a priori logic and utter certainty–this is what he claimed to be able to do. What about if we loosen the standards some? Well, you may or may not know that I describe myself as an agnostic theist for the very reason that I find proofs of God to be convincing–that is, from what I can tell of the universe’s operation and nature, God is as good an explanation as any. Actually, it would be better for me to say “as bad an explanation”–because, really, we’re talking about things we are probably incapable of physically understanding with the finite, material piles of gelatinous gook that we call brains.
But I would be an utter fool to say that what I can tell of the universe’s operation and nature is necessarily synonymous with what is. Remember that we are not talking about billiard balls bouncing off of each other here: We are talking about the burning eternal questions, the biggest ones that could fill a trillion pages of parchment and still not even be touched on. These questions are so numinous as to almost not even make sense to us as we ask them, and whatever their answer, there is not a doubt in my mind that it is strange beyond the point of comprehensibility.
I know, in other words, that I know nothing. That isn’t a great response to, “Hey honey, where did you put the keys?” But it is the only response, to my mind, to questions of God and being.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You are simply wrong at this point, or not understanding the argument against which you are pitted. Nothing in your previous post was even apropos of the debate. So, here is an argument, tell me precisely where you find fault and why:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Here is my argument in argument form:
Argument A states that
[i]----1'. Something exists.
----2'. That something cannot have caused itself.
----3'. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
----4'. Therefore, that something is caused.[/i]
If [the something that exists, detailed in premise 1’, is uncaused]–hereafter referred to as proposition P–then the something that exists was not caused by itself and it was not caused by [nothing].
Therefore, if P, then premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied.
However, if premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied, then either conclusion 4’ is true, or argument A is invalid.
If P, then ~4’
Therefore, argument A is invalid.[/quote]
[/quote]
Again, circular. You are arguing that the argument is invalid because it is in fact circular.[/quote]
What?
I am arguing that the argument is invalid because its conclusion does not follow from its premises. I am not sure you’re reading this argument.[/quote]
This one is short, so I’ll take this on real quick.
Something exists.
That something cannot have caused itself.
That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
Therefore, ???
List the all the possible conclusions for these premises. It’s a finite number, and please do not say ‘I don’t know’, try. [/quote]
Therefore, that something was either caused by something that is neither itself nor [nothing], or it was not caused. The latter is a possibility until you show that it isn’t, and you sure as hell haven’t done that now. This is exactly why your argument is invalid–and yes, it very much is: Because your premises are satisfied and your conclusion is still false if the something is uncaused. I can’t explain this point any more clearly.
It is getting ridiculous that you are not identifying with precision a point to which you object in my very plain and very logical argument. Mine is valid, and its conclusion is that yours is invalid. Therefore, yours is invalid. You need to either try to show why this is not true–pointing to specific premises and exposing specific problems therein–or you need to let me know that you can’t and therefore won’t.
Edit: Just to be clear, any frustration on my part is about how addictive this discussion is, in relation to how much work I have to do in the next twelve hours.
[i]----1'. Something exists.
----2'. That something cannot have caused itself.
----3'. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
----4'. Therefore, that something is caused.[/i]
If [the something that exists, detailed in premise 1’, is uncaused]–hereafter referred to as proposition P–then the something that exists was not caused by itself and it was not caused by [nothing].
Therefore, if P, then premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied.
However, if premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied, then either conclusion 4’ is true, or argument A is invalid.
If P, then ~4’
Therefore, argument A is invalid.[/quote]
Pat, whether you know it or not, you are not doing this correctly. It is simple and it does not involve any strange obfuscation. It goes like this:
Premise 1: T/F?
Premise 2: T/F?
Premise 3: T/F?
Premise 4: T/F?
Premise 5: T/F?
Conclusion 6: V/I; S/U?
This is what is required of you if you mean to try to salvage your argument. As it stands now, that argument is plainly invalid.
The disputed argument can still be strongly cogent, but not formally valid.
Strong and weak arguments are, in my opinion, why belief in God takes faith. They are also why “faith” =/= “blind faith” or “irrational faith” or “irrational reasoning” or any combination of the above. When people do not understand induction they resort to claims like “blind faith” and so forth because they only live in a world of deductive, Holmesian logic. However, this as Dr. Matt has put it is insufficient to the world in which we find ourselves in and the reason inductive rationale must be used.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The disputed argument can still be strongly cogent, but not formally valid.
Strong and weak arguments are, in my opinion, why belief in God takes faith. They are also why “faith” =/= “blind faith” or “irrational faith” or “irrational reasoning” or any combination of the above. When people do not understand induction they resort to claims like “blind faith” and so forth because they only live in a world of deductive, Holmesian logic. However, this as Dr. Matt has put it is insufficient to the world in which we find ourselves in and the reason inductive rationale must be used.[/quote]
I agree, though in my experience, people usually assign the term “blind faith” to specifics–Adam and Eve, the serpent, Lord Krishna, Nirvana, etc. I, for one, would not characterize theism itself as “blind faith”–at least not derogatorily, and no more than any ultimate set of beliefs is taken blindly on faith.
However, to claim that God’s existence is a proved and settled matter? This is the kind of reach that always ends badly.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
We are talking about the burning eternal questions, the biggest ones that could fill a trillion pages of parchment and still not even be touched on. These questions are so numinous as to almost not even make sense to us as we ask them, and whatever their answer, there is not a doubt in my mind that it is strange beyond the point of comprehensibility.
I know, in other words, that I know nothing. That isn’t a great response to, “Hey honey, where did you put the keys?” But it is the only response, to my mind, to questions of God and being.[/quote]
I think that if anything, this burning and historically unremitting incomprehensibility can perhaps be taken as support for a theistic universe. After all, what could possibly be more incomprehensible than the infinite intelligence and power of God?
God is very strange, but fascinating.
But you forgot the other possible answer: ‘this is what I believe to be true’. Not, ‘this is what IS’ because we are not after all infinite intelligences but very small humans trying valiantly and failingly to grasp the infinite. But ‘this is what I believe to be true’. It is not irrational OR irresponsible to posit a belief rather than say “I know that I don’t know anything”
If you accept inductive logic, then you just as you cannot say “prove to me God exists beyond all doubt” you cannot simultaneously say “you are irrational because you cannot prove such a thing beyond all doubt” because you, the asker, have not even the ability to prove deductively that other minds exist and that you interact with them, even though you accept it as rational. Neither can you say “somebody prove this to me so I can believe it”, because that is to say that you require proof of the formally impossible before accepting some proposition. If you want to believe, you must weigh the balance of argument and truth, as well as heart and will, and you must also accept that it will never be proven deductively because it is formally impossible to do so. This, of course, does not make something irrational or wrong to believe.
[quote]pat wrote:
Wow! A lot to get to, unfortunately I am busy. I may choose to address all the concerns in one post, but it may be long. It’s clear I have to explain this from the core to how the conclusion is made and why it must be true.
A brief snippet is that philosophy studies itself and it’s history more than any other discipline, and the reason for that is so that one doesn’t ‘reinvent the wheel’. It means I have to explain from the core of what philosophy is to the conclusion of the presented argument.
[/quote]
Also, Pat, you do not have to do any of this. I think I can speak for Matt and Sufi when I say that we are all very familiar with the fundamentals of logic and philosophy. Our problem is not that we don’t understand you–it’s that you’re not making a cogent argument. This discussion has arrived at a very specific place for a very specific set of reasons, and I think you should stick with these. I, for one, will not be coming along for the ride if we’re going to circle back around, only to come once again to the place where you are forced to look upon the invalidity of your arguments.
In other words–and call this intransigent if you want, but I did not meticulously craft these criticisms for them to be abandoned when they can’t be answered–I’m going to bow out if you don’t intend to get into the how and why of your (invalid) argument.
I say this without animosity, by the way. It has been very fun–one of the better God discussions I’ve participated in on this site. I just do not have the time or the patience for another trip around the block, only to end up exactly here once again.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
We are talking about the burning eternal questions, the biggest ones that could fill a trillion pages of parchment and still not even be touched on. These questions are so numinous as to almost not even make sense to us as we ask them, and whatever their answer, there is not a doubt in my mind that it is strange beyond the point of comprehensibility.
I know, in other words, that I know nothing. That isn’t a great response to, “Hey honey, where did you put the keys?” But it is the only response, to my mind, to questions of God and being.[/quote]
I think that if anything, this burning and historically unremitting incomprehensibility can perhaps be taken as support for a theistic universe. After all, what could possibly be more incomprehensible than the infinite intelligence and power of God?
God is very strange, but fascinating.
But you forgot the other possible answer: ‘this is what I believe to be true’. Not, ‘this is what IS’ because we are not after all infinite intelligences but very small humans trying valiantly and failingly to grasp the infinite. But ‘this is what I believe to be true’. It is not irrational OR irresponsible to posit a belief rather than say “I know that I don’t know anything”
If you accept inductive logic, then you just as you cannot say “prove to me God exists beyond all doubt” you cannot simultaneously say “you are irrational because you cannot prove such a thing beyond all doubt” because you, the asker, have not even the ability to prove deductively that other minds exist and that you interact with them, even though you accept it as rational. Neither can you say “somebody prove this to me so I can believe it”, because that is to say that you require proof of the formally impossible before accepting some proposition. If you want to believe, you must weigh the balance of argument and truth, as well as heart and will, and you must also accept that it will never be proven deductively because it is formally impossible to do so. This, of course, does not make something irrational or wrong to believe.[/quote]
Indeed, Aragorn, it is not my contention that Pat’s belief is irrational, nor that theism is irrational. It is Pat’s contention that he can prove that his belief is truth, and the entirety of my purpose in this thread is to prove that that is utterly false.
