Hi Nous,
Then please provide the evidence that this proposition is false: "All phenomena whose origin cannot possibly be accounted for by an empirical finding are accounted for as the creation of God."
Now you are shifting the burden of proof. The proposition that "All phenomena whose origin cannot possibly be accounted for by an empirical finding are accounted for as the creation of God" is
your claim to prove, not mine to disprove. It stands as unsound unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
So you're claiming only P1, not the argument itself, is "circular"? And you're claiming that P1 is both "circular" and false? Please show it. Please explain in what way my P1 is "circular" in a way that P1 of the Socrates argument is not.
Regarding its falsity, I've already shown it in my previous posts:
...as I wrote last time, before your P1 can be accepted as true and your entire argument accepted as logically sound, you will need to demonstrate the truth of (a) God's existence as well as both (b) God's capacity to do what we cannot yet explain and (c) the certainty (certainty, because you wrote "all," not most or some) that God has indeed done so. Simply stating Goddidit is either a case of begging the question or circular reasoning more generally.
Also, as I added in a later post is the most fundamental requisite assumption you are making in your P1:
Indeed, is "God" even a coherent idea?
@Nous - You will need to clarify what you even mean by God in your argument to me, as well. God is such a nebulous term that means different things to different people, it fails to denote anything meaningful on its own.
As to being based on circular reasoning, not one person to my knowledge has ever made a single argument for God's existence that couldn't have holes poked into it, usually due to being based either on circular reasoning or begging the question. So you will need to demonstrate the validity and soundness of all the requisite assumptions you made that I have named in my quoted posts before you can validly
and soundly assert that, "All phenomena whose origin cannot possibly be accounted for by an empirical finding are accounted for as the creation of God."
BTW, do you have any problem with this argument:
P1: All phenomena whose existence cannot be accounted for as an empirical effect within the closed system of the universe are accounted for as having an extra-empirical origin.
P2: Energy is a phenomenon whose existence cannot be accounted for as an empirical effect within the closed system of the universe.
C: Therefore, energy is accounted for as having an extra-empirical origin.
Yes. Multiple problems: it is another unsound P1. First of all, since there is no evidence of "extra-empirical" existence (and what exactly does that mean?), your premise P1 is unsound. You will need to demonstrate this claim.
Second, do you mean to imply that everything we do not understand empirically today can never be understood empirically? A look at human history clearly demonstrates many who thought we've reached the limits of understanding and who have time and time again been proven wrong. Just because we do not understand something empirically today certainly does not imply we never will empirically.