The Strongest Argument for God

[Kenny]

You literally just did! Look at what you wrote. You said that Three guys looking at the unmoved mover argument each think the argument points to their God, or another God, which you think makes the argument subjective.

But since the unmoved mover argument does not argue for nor point to a specific God, then the argument is not subjective. Someone who thinks the argument says something that it doesn't say, may erroneously think it's subjective. But it isn't.

I’m saying this logical argument is subjective because different people will interpret it different ways each person using their logic and their reason to come to different conclusions.
Assuming all 3 guys incorrectly interpreted the argument, they still used logic and reason within the argument to reach their various conclusions. This was accomplished because the logic and reason within the argument is based upon personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations, and beliefs (subjective) rather than empirical, measurable facts (objective)
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Objec ... Subjective

P.S RickD I gotta hand it to ya bro; you offer one heck of a challenge!

No Kenny, you're not getting it. The argument itself doesn't talk about a God of any specific religion. Neither the premises nor the conclusion of the argument specify a God of any religion.

I never suggested it did. I’m saying there are people who use this argument to point to their specific religion, and the reason they are able to do this while still remaining logical and reasonable is because the logic within argument itself is based on assumptions, interpretations, and beliefs; not empirical provable facts; thus the link I provided.

But it still does not make the argument subjective.

So... you believe the logic within this argument is based upon empirical provable facts thus making it an objective logical argument?

[RickD]

I’m saying this logical argument is subjective because different people will interpret it different ways each person using their logic and their reason to come to different conclusions.
Assuming all 3 guys incorrectly interpreted the argument, they still used logic and reason within the argument to reach their various conclusions. This was accomplished because the logic and reason within the argument is based upon personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations, and beliefs (subjective) rather than empirical, measurable facts (objective)
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Objec ... Subjective

P.S RickD I gotta hand it to ya bro; you offer one heck of a challenge!

No Kenny, you're not getting it. The argument itself doesn't talk about a God of any specific religion. Neither the premises nor the conclusion of the argument specify a God of any religion.

I never suggested it did. I’m saying there are people who use this argument to point to their specific religion, and the reason they are able to do this while still remaining logical and reasonable is because the logic within argument itself is based on assumptions, interpretations, and beliefs; not empirical provable facts; thus the link I provided.

But it still does not make the argument subjective.

So... you believe the logic within this argument is based upon empirical provable facts logic, thus making it an objective logical argument?

There, fify. Silly boy, you know empirical deals with science. How can you make such an elementary mistake?

[Kenny]

No Kenny, you're not getting it. The argument itself doesn't talk about a God of any specific religion. Neither the premises nor the conclusion of the argument specify a God of any religion.

I never suggested it did. I’m saying there are people who use this argument to point to their specific religion, and the reason they are able to do this while still remaining logical and reasonable is because the logic within argument itself is based on assumptions, interpretations, and beliefs; not empirical provable facts; thus the link I provided.

But it still does not make the argument subjective.

So... you believe the logic within this argument is based upon empirical provable facts logic, thus making it an objective logical argument?

There, fify. Silly boy, you know empirical deals with science. How can you make such an elementary mistake?

I don't understand the point you are making by crossing out my words and replacing them with your own

[RickD]

I never suggested it did. I’m saying there are people who use this argument to point to their specific religion, and the reason they are able to do this while still remaining logical and reasonable is because the logic within argument itself is based on assumptions, interpretations, and beliefs; not empirical provable facts; thus the link I provided.

But it still does not make the argument subjective.

So... you believe the logic within this argument is based upon empirical provable facts logic, thus making it an objective logical argument?

There, fify. Silly boy, you know empirical deals with science. How can you make such an elementary mistake?

I don't understand the point you are making by crossing out my words and replacing them with your own

F-fixed
I-it
F-for
Y-you

Your question didn't make sense, so I fify.

[Kenny]

But it still does not make the argument subjective.

So... you believe the logic within this argument is based upon empirical provable facts logic, thus making it an objective logical argument?

There, fify. Silly boy, you know empirical deals with science. How can you make such an elementary mistake?

I don't understand the point you are making by crossing out my words and replacing them with your own

F-fixed
I-it
F-for
Y-you

Your question didn't make sense, so I fify.

If you didn't understand, all you had to do was ask. Yes science also uses empirical methods; what is it you don't understand?

[RickD]

So... you believe the logic within this argument is based upon empirical provable facts logic, thus making it an objective logical argument?

There, fify. Silly boy, you know empirical deals with science. How can you make such an elementary mistake?

I don't understand the point you are making by crossing out my words and replacing them with your own

F-fixed
I-it
F-for
Y-you

Your question didn't make sense, so I fify.

If you didn't understand, all you had to do was ask. Yes science also uses empirical methods; what is it you don't understand?