If you believe in god, you have to believe in leprechauns.

It is my contention that accepting the existence of a deity logically forces the believer, if they are consistent, to also believe in myriad other fanciful imaginings. I provide my argument below, with leprechauns being used where any conceivable, unprovable proposition could be substituted.1. Any proposition must be provable or unprovable.2. Unprovability is an absolute quality. I.e. one thing cannot be more or less unprovable then another.3. The existence of a divine being or beings is unprovable.4. The existence of leprechauns is unprovable.a. Therefore, the existence a divine being or beings and the existence of leprechauns are equally unprovable.b. It is illogical and inconsistent to accept one while dismissing the other when both are equally unprovable.I invite any who disagree with me to show my error, if they can. I can provide definitions for any of my terms or defenses of any of my propositions upon request.

While I agree with you, faith is irrational, the point I was making is that it is inconsistent to accept one unprovable thing (a deity) but not others (leprechauns, pink unicorns, etc.). I suppose one may say that it would be a corollary to my proposition that belief in a deity and belief in Leprechauns is of equal value. I'll think about that.I was hoping that some more reasonable theists would try to demonstrate otherwise and in engaging them, get them to admit their inconsistency. Of course, I may be wrong and some very clever theist could show how I am incorrect and that no such inconsistency exists.Thank you for your comments and I hopefully await the comments of any theists.

Then my follow up question would be why do you choose your particular inconsistent belief over all the others? Is it, for you, somehow superior and if so, why?

Lam,
I've read all the commonly cited attempted proofs for a deity and I would be thrilled to see one I haven't read before. Please post it here or in another thread if you would be so kind. Thank you in advance.

I am famaliar with good ol' Anselm. I figured I had heard the argument Lam was refrencing, but I didn't want to seem too arrogant. I don't know why I felt that way... I usually don't.

We could go with Mark Twain's definition of faith:"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

The first cause argument is an old one. It is an invalid special pleading. If all things require a cause, why does the unmoved mover or first cause not? If the first cause can exist uncaused, why can nothing else.The standard reply, and I am not stating that it would be yours, is that God does not require a cause. that is why it is a special pleading and a fallacy.

Defining some deity as first cause does not change the fact that the argument you are proposing is a special pleading, which is a logical fallacy. A good explanation is here:Special pleading - WikipediaThe relevant section states that "unexplained claims of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter" is one form of the fallacy. That is exactly what you are doing when you claim that all things but your idea of god must have a cause.The name for your argument is the "unmoved mover", and was originally postulated by Aristotle just over 2300 years ago. It has been refuted many times over the years, the most common being the one I have told you.

Then, if that is the case, why can the naturalistic beginning of the universe not be uncaused? If god requires no cause, is it not possible that there are other things that don't? Given that, is it not possible that the universe itself is such a thing?

What Crashfrog said is essentially what I would have.

Robinrohan, I'm afraid that you are missing the central point. An eternally extant thing has no cause. A spontaneous event can also be said to have no cause (in out context). Why do you claim that one can occur but not the other?The reason you give is that the eternally existing thing simply does not require a cause, while everything else does. That is a special pleading, and it is simply a wrong way of thinking.You can certainly believe what you want, but you should at least admit that you hold illogical, contradictory beliefs.

No, you havent. Not even close. First, you have provided no support for your first cause beyond repeating it ad nauseum.There is no proof for your "X" existing and certainly none that it has existed eternally.You have shown nothing but the typical arrogance and ignorance of the creationist. Repitition is not support and it ain't so be cause you say it is.Oh, there are several problems with the argument I used to start this thread. I knew that when I posted it. I was trying to spark debate. Several people have found the problems and commented on them. You, unfortunately, have not.

Then do not attempt to debate in a manner that warrants it. Assertion is not debate. All you have done is made unfounded assertions.If you don't like the way I am addressing you, show me that you deserve respect! Make an argument and actually support it.

What evidence is their for a god of some kind? I am unsure about the multiverse thing, but I know how much real evidence there is for a god. None. Next?By unprovable I mean your second suggestion. You know, like an infinitely powerful and knowledgable god. Want to hear why?

It did get pretty far afield. Also, I fear that I may have missed a lot in the middle as well as leaving a challenge unanswered. As to that, I must plead the distractions of work and such and apologize.As to the runaway-ness of this thread, I agree. Close 'er down, unless someone else objects.