Theist, what is a legitimate logical argument that supports your religion's legitimacy?

No, you just said it's wrong. That's not explaining it.

I did explain that I conceived of something that wasn't possible, didn't I?

That's your explanation.

No, I'm not interested in supporting this claim.

Then it is rejected. Hitchens Razor.

What does physics have to do with logical possibility?

It's not logically possible for me to do something that is physically impossible.

What does this mean?

Again, which WORD is giving you trouble?

No, I'm exclusively talking about logical possibility.

So am I.

Well then you seem to be opposed to the majority of experts in the area.

I don't think you have the support that you imagine you have. You're going to have to give more than unsupported claims and appeals to (unknown) authorities.

This is a pretty standard use of conceivability.

No. No it isn't. You're essentially saying "This is conceivable if you imagine a world where this is conceivable".

That's a tautology and an unsupported premise.

So you think I'm reporting my own mental state incorrectly?

Did I say you were the only conceiver? What I AM saying is that the inability to conceive of something does not imply the possibility of that thing, only that the conceiver has the inability.

At no point have you explained anything invalid with my argument.

But I have. I conceived of something that is not possible. You have yet to explain how it is possible except by moving the goalposts on "possible".

You've only questioned premises

Yes.

and gotten confused about possibility

No. I know what possible means and you aren't using it that way.

Where is it invalid?

Already explained.

/r/DebateReligion Thread Parent