No, existence doesn't entail that. Existence may have been ETERNAL.
MDR, I just figured out what the problem is. None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion. The conclusion is true if the two statements are true. That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true. This is a syllogistic argument:
All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
My dog is a human being.
Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
This is pretty much the argument being presented. What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true. I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient. Garbage in.... garbage out.
Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.
There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.
And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant. Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true. The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true. You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true. In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
We can dispute and argue the truth or plausibility for any of the three statement in the syllogism. But there is no requirement that any of the statements be true in order for there to be a syllogistic argument. But a valid syllogistic argument? Now we are into a territory where the truth or plausibility of all the statements can and should be called into question.
But if there is no way to verify or falsify any of the statements via logic, reason, known quantities, or empirical experience, the syllogism remains just the same.
Now if we go with the opening statement that:
Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.
. . . . that is easily subject to question 'how do you know that? Or what is your argument for that?
Likewise he who is foolish enough to say the opening statement is false is easily subject question 'how do you know that?' or what is your argument for that?
But if the opening statement cannot be challenged via reasoned argument or verifiable evidence, then the following does logically follow:
Knowledge exists.
Therefore there is a God.
MDR, I just figured out what the problem is. None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion. The conclusion is true if the two statements are true. That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true. This is a syllogistic argument:
All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
My dog is a human being.
Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
This is pretty much the argument being presented. What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true. I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient. Garbage in.... garbage out.
Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.
There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.
And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant. Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true. The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true. You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true. In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
We can dispute and argue the truth or plausibility for any of the three statement in the syllogism. But there is no requirement that any of the statements be true in order for there to be a syllogistic argument. But a valid syllogistic argument? Now we are into a territory where the truth or plausibility of all the statements can and should be called into question.
But if there is no way to verify or falsify any of the statements via logic, reason, known quantities, or empirical experience, the syllogism remains just the same.
Now if we go with the opening statement that:
Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.
. . . . that is easily subject to question 'how do you know that? Or what is your argument for that?
Likewise he who is foolish enough to say the opening statement is false is easily subject question 'how do you know that?' or what is your argument for that?
But if the opening statement cannot be challenged via reasoned argument or verifiable evidence, then the following does logically follow:
Knowledge exists.
Therefore there is a God.
MDR, I just figured out what the problem is. None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion. The conclusion is true if the two statements are true. That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true. This is a syllogistic argument:
All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
My dog is a human being.
Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
This is pretty much the argument being presented. What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true. I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient. Garbage in.... garbage out.
Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.
There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.
And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
Ah, I see. We had to endure your sloppy pontificating when you could have saved us from the motion sickness induced nausea of your pointless rattling with a simple "the gawds did it... because I say so!"MDR, I just figured out what the problem is. None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion. The conclusion is true if the two statements are true. That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true. This is a syllogistic argument:
All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
My dog is a human being.
Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
This is pretty much the argument being presented. What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true. I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient. Garbage in.... garbage out.
Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.
There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.
And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.
From nothing, nothing comes.
The universe exists.
God exists.
Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time. But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here. A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.
The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means ex nihilo creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (post #99). Ex nihilo creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of argumentum ad absurdum regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.
Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism. With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it. Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it. This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.
MDR, I just figured out what the problem is. None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion. The conclusion is true if the two statements are true. That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true. This is a syllogistic argument:
All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
My dog is a human being.
Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
This is pretty much the argument being presented. What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true. I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient. Garbage in.... garbage out.
Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.
There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.
And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant. Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true. The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true. You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true. In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
We can dispute and argue the truth or plausibility for any of the three statement in the syllogism. But there is no requirement that any of the statements be true in order for there to be a syllogistic argument. But a valid syllogistic argument? Now we are into a territory where the truth or plausibility of all the statements can and should be called into question.
But if there is no way to verify or falsify any of the statements via logic, reason, known quantities, or empirical experience, the syllogism remains just the same.
Now if we go with the opening statement that:
Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.
. . . . that is easily subject to question 'how do you know that? Or what is your argument for that?
Likewise he who is foolish enough to say the opening statement is false is easily subject question 'how do you know that?' or what is your argument for that?
But if the opening statement cannot be challenged via reasoned argument or verifiable evidence, then the following does logically follow:
Knowledge exists.
Therefore there is a God.
Where this breaks down is the assumption that if the statement is not challenged it must be true. It is not the responsibility of others to challenge the statement, it is the responsibility of the one making the statement to support it. If you cannot support it, then the statement is not valid. It might actually be true, but you can't use it to support the conclusion.
MDR, I just figured out what the problem is. None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion. The conclusion is true if the two statements are true. That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true. This is a syllogistic argument:
All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
My dog is a human being.
Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
This is pretty much the argument being presented. What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true. I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient. Garbage in.... garbage out.
Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.
There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.
And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.
From nothing, nothing comes.
The universe exists.
God exists.
Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time. But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here. A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.
The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means ex nihilo creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (post #99). Ex nihilo creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of argumentum ad absurdum regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.
Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism. With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it. Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it. This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.
MDR, I just figured out what the problem is. None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion. The conclusion is true if the two statements are true. That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true. This is a syllogistic argument:
All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
My dog is a human being.
Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
This is pretty much the argument being presented. What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true. I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient. Garbage in.... garbage out.
Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.
There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.
And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.
From nothing, nothing comes.
The universe exists.
God exists.
Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time. But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here. A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.
The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means ex nihilo creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (post #99). Ex nihilo creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of argumentum ad absurdum regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.
Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism. With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it. Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it. This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.
It doesn't have to be well defined. It only has to be possible within the syllogistic equation.
Going back to my original wording:
Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists
.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
We don't have to describe or define the something. We only have to see the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something. What that something is would be a different discussion.
MDR, I just figured out what the problem is. None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion. The conclusion is true if the two statements are true. That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true. This is a syllogistic argument:
All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
My dog is a human being.
Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
This is pretty much the argument being presented. What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true. I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient. Garbage in.... garbage out.
Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.
There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.
And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.
From nothing, nothing comes.
The universe exists.
God exists.
Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time. But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here. A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.
The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means ex nihilo creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (post #99). Ex nihilo creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of argumentum ad absurdum regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.
Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism. With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it. Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it. This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.
It doesn't have to be well defined. It only has to be possible within the syllogistic equation.
Going back to my original wording:
Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists
.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
We don't have to describe or define the something. We only have to see the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something. What that something is would be a different discussion.
*sigh*
It's the terms that don't matter as long as they're reasonably representative of its guts, as you say: "the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something." Defending the cosmological argument against the well-developed counters of significant sophistication requires definition and a boarder understanding of what it means to assert ex nihilo creation, especially in the face of the scientific considerations. Otherwise, assigning the theological conclusion to the something does not follow and cannot withstand the full arsenal of materialistic challenges. All I'm telling is that these things will equip one to defend the theological conclusion. After all, I intend to defend it. Foundation. Copy and paste.
