Quote:
Originally Posted by Theaetetus  Because God is not self-evident I would say that your conclusions do not follow the premise. You cannot take others' words out of context to prove your conclusions. Hume would never argue that all ideas are images of sense impressions when applied to the idea of God. Remember Hume was an empiricist dealing with the practical not the abstract. Thus, you are turning Hume's philosophy on its head for your proof. That invalidates you proof.
Here is a different example of your argument. Because "God" is a word and the idea of God exists in our minds is meaningless. "Invisible", "pink", and "unicorn" are words and the idea of an invisible pink unicorn exists in my brain. Where did that idea come from? Does it mean that the invisible pink unicorn exists and is much more than my conception of it? |
Now you're making me think more. Thank you!
But, "invisible" and "pink" are contradictory. That invalidaes your counter-example, b/c logically impossible ideas by definition cannot exist in reality. There's nothing logically impossible about God's existence.
What if remove the "self-evident" part, and just try to use all of this prove God exists?
Am I doing
something right?