You keep talking about something other than your own argument. — Fire Ologist

Like responding to your nonsense, for example?

And you then you say you reject the premise you asserted to make your own argument. — Fire Ologist

See the SEP entry on Ordinary Objects, particularly the section on Arguments from Arbitrariness, in order to see a working example how someone can reject one of their own arguments.

I disagree. Proofs for the existence of God don’t work, either by their own terms, or by the ease with which one can reject a premise or two and leave the conclusion meaningless. — Fire Ologist

False. The four arguments in the OP work. To deny a premise does not mean that there is nothing more to say, since the premise in question can be defended.

The existence of Jesus can be rejected too. So why bother to equate God, whose existence we can reject, with Jesus? Sounds like another dead end. — Fire Ologist

To me it sounds like you're saying nonsense.

You haven’t shown me why equating God with some particular name for God is important for Aquinas or Avicenna or anyone who is trying to create proofs for God. — Fire Ologist

Yes, I have. Repeatedly. Equating god with Jesus would be important for Christian philosophers, and equating God with Allah would be important for Islamic philosophers. I have already explained why, earlier in this Thread.

You sound like you are hunting for bad arguments to shoot down. — Fire Ologist

And you sound like you're assuming ill intent on my behalf, which is against the forum rules. It also sounds like an ad hominem fallacy. And it also sounds like trolling. I've been tolerant enough towards you. If you keep this up, I'll report you and your posts to the moderators.

Types of posters who are welcome here:

Those with a genuine interest in/curiosity about philosophy and the ability to express this in an intelligent way, and those who are willing to give their interlocutors a fair reading and not make unwarranted assumptions about their intentions (i.e. intelligent, interested and charitable posters). — Site Guidelines

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact", to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong – without ever addressing the point of the debate. — Wikipedia

Maybe Aquinas already meant “Jesus” when he said “God.” Kind of like you did: “if God exists, God is identical with Jesus.” — Fire Ologist

Your use of the word "maybe" here is a weasel word.

Maybe Aquinas thought it would be redundant in an argument about God to separate “God” from “Jesus” in order to assert that the two are “identical.” If such an argument could be made, if such an argument was missing from the vast stores of philosophical wisdom… — Fire Ologist

Once again, your use of the word "maybe" here is a weasel word.

I wish someone could prove God exists and that Jesus is God. — Fire Ologist

I already did it. Twice. See the OP of this Thread.

But using only logical form, based on premises that can be rejected, no one can prove a cat really is a cat, or on a mat. So, there’s that. I’m sure jumping to God instead of cats with mats to find some arguments that might actually say something will be easily rejected as well. But that’s just my take on the whole attempt to prove with logic anything about God’s existence or the identity of God. — Fire Ologist

False. I already explained to you what a proof is, earlier in this thread. Your take, which amounts to nothing more than an utterly confused and deluded opinion, is only disrupting this Thread at this point. I'm warning you once again: if you insist on being a troll, I'll have to report you to the mods.

EDIT: I've flagged your post for the moderator's consideration.

I think it does. Even though I don't have a sixth sense that allows me to obtain sensory information about time, in the manner that my eyes allow be to obtain visual information, there is "something" like an experience of time. Maybe it's a brain thing, I don't know.

I honestly don't know what to say. It's a fascinating topic. Evidently there's such a thing as lived time. Otherwise, solitary confinement wouldn't be so unfathomably soul-crushing in modern jails. It's definitely one of the worst forms of punishment. If I were given the admittedly heinous choice between being physically tortured for one minute, or spending a month in solitary confinement doing nothing, I think I might choose the former.

In D&D, the only dragons that breathe fire are the red dragons. Other dragons breathe ice, or lightning, or acid, etc.

I honestly think that time is the most difficult philosophical topic of all. It's more difficult than the topics of space, reality, God, and even Being.

Heidegger himself couldn't conclude Being and Time because he didn't have the language to tackle this issue in an adequate way. No one does.

The arrow of time is the most perplexing aspect here. If you move forward in space, you can move backwards. But you can't move backwards in time, you can only go forward, and necessarily so. The more you think about it, the more mind-boggling it gets.

To paraphrase Augustine: if no one asks me what time actually is, I know what it is. If someone asks me what it is, I don't know what to say.

Your argument looks much better! Here's the structure:

P1) p
P2) p → q
C1) ∴ q
P3) q → r
P4) r → s
C2) ∴ s
P5) s → t
P6) t → u
C3) ∴ u

It's a valid argument. A very long argument, but valid nonetheless. Its soundness (or unsoundness) is a different matter, though. If all of the premises are true, then the conclusion is true as well. But folks will probably claim that one of the premises is false. I'm guessing that the main target will be P1. In that case, you can construct a secondary argument, in which P1 is the conclusion.

EDIT: Here's a tip. You don't need to explicitly state C1 and C2. If you remove them, the structure will look like this:

P1) p
P2) p → q
P3) q → r
P4) r → s
P5) s → t
P6) t → u
C3) ∴ u

In which case, your argument will read like so:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C3) So, God changes

"For some unique x, for some unique y, x is the evening star, y is the morning star, and x is identical to y."

My theory has been refuted then.

Here's how I would write it, if I had any say on the syntax:

ιxιy((Ex & My) & (x=y))

Wanna hear my theory about that? When you were formulating it, you sensed on some level that the iota operator makes formulas look ugly, so you tried to "beautify" it with the parentheses.

But it just makes it uglier.

Obviously all of this is subjective though. Matters of taste and all that jazz.

Why are the parentheses necessary in this case? That's another thing that makes such a formula really ugly. Off topic, I know, but since you brought it up, I though I'd ask.

As Hegel suggests, in The Phenomenology of Spirit, the history of philosophy is like the maturing of a plant. We wouldn't say that the fruit refutes the flower, or that the flower refutes the seed. I believe the same can be said about science. In its contemporary version, it's the end product of a history in which its roots were deeply interwoven with matters of theology, whether we like it or not. It is what it is — Arcane Sandwich

my intention with the OP in this thread isn't to settle every single issue there is to settle in Christian philosophy, or in non-Christian philosophy. I'm just planting some seeds here. Don't expect to harvest the fruits as soon as the seeds have been planted. It would be unrealistic to do so. One of the plants will die, or perhaps both of them will die. In that case, what I planted may serve as nutrients for the germination and maturing of better seeds (i.e., better arguments, both Christian and non-Christian). — Arcane Sandwich

Considering the preceding Hegelian thesis, I have decided to update the OP of this Thread. I will incorporate a slightly modified version of 's argument, and I will offer a corresponding non-Christian argument. His original argument is this one:

P1: The Bible and traditions of the Church and its saints are revealed truth.
P2: The Bible and the traditions say Jesus is God.
C: Therefore, Jesus is God. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The modified version is this one:

(FTI4) If it is a revealed truth that Jesus is God, then Jesus is God.
(FTI5) It is a revealed truth that Jesus is God.
(FTI6) So, Jesus is God.

The structure of this argument is the following one:

(FTI4) r → q
(FTI5) r
(FTI6) q

The corresponding non-Christian argument is this one:

(ATI4) If it is not a revealed truth that Jesus is God, then Jesus is not God.
(ATI5) It is not a revealed truth that Jesus is God.
(ATI6) So, Jesus is not God.

It has the following structure:

(ATI4) ¬r → ¬q
(ATI5) ¬r
(ATI6) ¬q

Both arguments have, once again, the logical structure of a modus ponens.

What about the "hate" though? — Metaphysician Undercover

Here's a song that talks about that:

Ideally you'd want to have an argument that is as short as possible, as far as the number of premises go. When I see a lengthy argument, the first thing that I try to determine is if it can be shortened. Sometimes that's not possible, but it's something to keep in mind.

By the way, what do you think of the other half of the argument in OP? — MoK

I'll leave that to you : )

The Tree Proof Generator which I linked before is a great place for getting your feet wet as far as symbolic logic goes. It supports propositional logic, first-order predicate logic, and it also has modal operators (should you need them). Just mess around with it for a few hours, you'll learn symbolic logic much faster this way, than just doing textbook exercises.

I meant persuaded, since you are being so precise. Is it logic’s business to persuade? — Fire Ologist

No, it isn't. We've been over this in this thread, and I've already said my piece about it. The concept of persuasion belongs to rhetoric, not to logic:

The way I see it, the qualities of being persuasive and compelling are rhetorical qualities, not logical ones. An argument can be unpersuasive and uncompelling and yet it can still be both valid and sound. Conversely, a formal fallacy can be both persuasive and compelling, and yet it would not be valid nor sound. — Arcane Sandwich

I don’t see it as making any converts. — Fire Ologist

It's not logic's business to make converts.

I don't like AI art.

Let's look at the logical structure of both arguments that figure in the OP:

The Christian argument
(FTI1) p → q
(FTI2) p
(FTI3) q

The non-Christian argument
(ATI1) ¬p → ¬q
(ATI2) ¬p
(ATI3) ¬q

Clearly, ATI1 is not tautological, it's contingent. If it was tautological, it could never be false. But it can indeed be false, if ¬p happens to be true and ¬q happens to be false.

So rejecting FTI1 denotes a belief: "It seems possible to me that this world has a God and that that God is not the same as Jesus".
Rejecting ATI1 denotes a belief: "It seems possible to me that this world contains a man Jesus but no God". Actually it denotes no belief at all since it collapses to a tautology, which I explain at the end of this post — andrewk

To deny FTI1 entails asserting the following: "God exists, and Jesus is not God".
To deny ATI1 entails asserting the following: "God does not exist, and Jesus is God."

It's not possible to deny both of those premises, since their antecedents (p and ¬p) contradict each other, and to deny both premises is to say that both antecedents are true (and that both consequents are false).

I think the trouble started with casual talk of "denying premises" or premises being "False".
Premises, being part of Theory, are not True or False. Consider Euclid's parallel postulate (postulate being a synonym of premise). By accepting it, we get one sort of geometry, by rejecting it, we allow a range of alternative geometries. — andrewk

I've already spoken about non-Euclidean geometries . Their pioneers did indeed deny Euclid's fifth postulate, in order to see if a contradiction followed from its negation together with the other postulates.

Strictly speaking one does not deny premises.
One either accepts them or rejects them, that's all. — andrewk

I disagree. See the entry on Ordinary Objects at the SEP, for example. Korman has no problem using the word "deny" for denying the different premises of the arguments against ordinary objects.

We see from this version that ATI1 is a tautology because if any predicate at all, call it P, is True for every object in the actual world, then it is True for any particular object in the actual world, such as J.
So we can replace ATI1 by any Tautology such as J=J. — andrewk

False. ATI1 has the following logical structure "if not p, then not q". That is not a tautology, it's a contingent proposition. It can be true or false. A tautology is always true, and a contradiction is always false.

This muddle shows the advisability of following Kant's advice that "existence is not a predicate" (although I don't think he ever said it in exactly those terms).
There is no predicate for "exists" so we need to use predicates about attributes, like OM3C, instead. — andrewk

False. Mario Bunge, as well as other philosophers, use the predicate letter "E" as an existence predicate, in order to symbolize the property of existence. Predicates and properties are not the same thing. Predicates, like "E", are linguistic. Properties, like existence, are ontological.

In conclusion, my dear Moliere, I uphold your right to reject both premises but, having now discovered that ATI1 is a tautology, humbly suggest that there's no harm in accepting that one (which leads nowhere). — andrewk

To deny both FTI1 and ATI1 is to contradict yourself, since you would be saying "p and not p", since those are the antecedents. ATI1 is not a tautology, it's a contingent proposition.

What about the warm little pond?? Where was that? :brow: — Wayfarer

Well, there's a hypothesis that says that life started somewhere else. I don't think that's true. But if it is, then no living organism is indigenous to Earth, not even microbes.

So, a question arises, how something which is so real has no independent existence? — Corvus

Good question. I'm not sure what the answer is.

Here's the thing, Australia doesn't exist according to this fine gentleman:



You're living in a fairy tale.

Stop stealing my , please.

It's a weird thing, isn't it? We take time for granted in our everyday lives, yet when we think about it, it doesn't make sense.

Why is that a problem? For anyone who believes in God? Why would a Christian philosopher who believed they could prove the existence of God fall short if they didn’t show that the God they allegedly proved existed was named Jesus? — Fire Ologist

Speaking in general, if you can't prove that God is Jesus Christ, then you're not a Christian philosopher, you're just a philosopher who happens to be a Christian. The same goes for other faiths. If you can't prove that God is Allah, then you're not an Islamic philosopher, you're just a philosopher that happens to be a Muslim.

Aquinas called all of his writings straw. I would be happy to argue with Descartes and Anselm about the shortcomings of their arguments. — Fire Ologist

So would I, but I would do so while recognizing their merits at the same time. For all I know, they are not necessarily wrong in their attempt to prove, using logic, that God exists.

Although, I find the God of all the philosophers to be a hollow shell of a stick figure on a blackboard used to fill in a “x” in some attempt at a logical proposition. Maybe if they could take it far enough to give it some real flesh, as a proof that God who is Jesus exists, maybe I’d see God there at all for once. — Fire Ologist

I've had religious experiences under the influence of psychoactive drugs. I've already said my piece about this a while back in this thread.

I have never been impressed about arguments that demonstrate God’s existence is necessary. — Fire Ologist

It's not logic's business to impress anyone, just as it's not math's business to impress anyone.

Well, I can't perceive it. Where is it? If I look at a clock, that's not time itself, that's just an instrument that we use to measure this "thing" that we call "time". What I perceive is limited to my five senses. I don't have an extra sense, a sixth sense, that perceives times. All I perceive are colors, sounds, aromas, tastes, and tactile feelings. I don't know what time "feels like", I don't have an organ that gives me that information.

I don’t like any of the arguments for the existence of God. They all hit me as if they are rigging the conclusion by rigging the premises. They all contain elements that need not be accepted and so the conclusion that God exists need not be accepted and so it’s no proof for the existence of God. — Fire Ologist

Then your quarrel is not with me, it's with Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, and other philosophers that have offered logical proofs for the existence of God.

Sorry folks, faith and the grace of divine revelation are the only basis for the assertion that God exists. — Fire Ologist

Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, and others would disagree with that statement. For Aquinas specifically, reason and faith are harmonious, not mutually exclusive.

So basically, I should never have wasted your time if you, like Anselm, think we can discuss proofs of the existence of God and by extension, the nature of Jesus from logic. — Fire Ologist

You're not wasting my time. You're saying some things, and I'm saying some things in response.

Perhaps you'll find the following somewhat useful for assessing the merits (or lack thereof) of the OP:

The way I see it, the "problem" (if it can be called that) with Anselm's argument is that it's too generic: it doesn't manage to conclude that God is Jesus Christ, and this is exactly what I would expect from a Christian philosopher. In other words, proving that God exists is only half of the problem. The other half is proving that God is Christ.

For example, a Muslim philosopher wouldn't try to refute Anselm's argument. Why would he? He believes in God just as much as Anselm does. It that sense, he would accept the argument in question. And so would a Jewish philosopher, and so would a monotheist Pagan philosopher.

If we don't specify who God is (Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, the Rainbow Serpent, etc.) then every theist can accept Anselm's argument, no matter what the details of their religion are. — Arcane Sandwich

Can you summarize your point again to see if this conversation can really go any further? Not my point (I don’t know what an argument is) - what is your point about Jesus again? — Fire Ologist

I find it odd that Christian philosophers only offer arguments for the conclusion that God exists, while not offering any arguments for the conclusion that Jesus is God. Why would you resort to logic in the former case but not the latter? Is there any reason that warrants this differential treatment? — Arcane Sandwich

You still don't get it. — Arcane Sandwich


So you are saying if we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs.

Got it. — Fire Ologist

When did I say that?

If you want to talk about logical form, why bring up such a distraction as “God” and “Jesus” to do it? — Fire Ologist

Here's my reply to that question:

it's not an either/or type of deal. — Arcane Sandwich

If you are trying to talk about God and Jesus it looks to me you are saying that because God exists, God is Jesus, but God doesn’t exist. — Fire Ologist

That sounds like nonsense to me, what you just said there. Could you elaborate on that point, specifically?

Your point is you have no point, like speaking with me, someone who just doesn’t get it. I’m sensing a pattern. — Fire Ologist

Is that like sixth sense?

Are you talking to tell me we have enough apples to feed five people who want apples to eat, or are you demonstrating math? If math, you don’t need to use apples. You could use rocks, or Gods to form your argument, so you are not talking about apples at all. If five people want to eat, then the apples may be of interest. — Fire Ologist

Has it occurred to you that math and logic are sciences (or tools, if you prefer) that we use to talk about anything that we want, including apples as well as God? Shorter: it's not an either/or type of deal.

No, you just assert it as a premise - “Jesus is identical to God.” — Fire Ologist

False. I didn't assert it as a premise. I concluded it.

You said “if God exists, Jesus is identical to God.” — Fire Ologist

Which, being a conditional statement ("if p, then q") is not the same thing as asserting that Jesus is identical to God ("q", from "if p, then q" and "p"). Now I'm beginning to wonder if you know what a proposition is.

You could have said “if apples exist, Jesus is identical to God.” There is no logical connection between God existing and zGod being identical to Jesus. You just define God as identical to Jesus, create a condition “if God exists” then assert this condition is met and restate your definition. Great logical form - wholly unconvincing of what God or Jesus means or whether anyone should entertain whether God or Jesus exists. — Fire Ologist

It is indeed a great logical form, it's called modus ponens. It has nothing to do with convincing anyone of anything, because the concept of convincing is foreign to the formal sciences.

If unicorns exist, unicorns are identical with single horned horses.
Unicorns exist.
Therefore unicorns are identical with single horned horses.

I think I have the modus ponens right here. — Fire Ologist

Indeed you do. And it's an easy argument to reject. I'll simply deny the second premise. So, your argument, while valid, is unsound. And that means that it fails. My Christian argument, by contrast, cannot be rejected as easily as yours. Why not? Because no one would argue for your second premise, while there are indeed philosophers that argue for the second premise of my Christian argument, such as Anselm and Aquinas.

But have I said anything at all about reality, about horses, about horns, about unicorns? Why would replacing unicorns with God, and single horned horse with Jesus would I think I’ve proven anything about anything, except how modus ponens works? — Fire Ologist

You still don't get it.

if I didn’t know what an argument was, how could I recognize that you are right about affirming the consequent — Fire Ologist

Because technically speaking, I'm not right. It's an instance of affirming the consequent if we read your example in a charitable way. If we instead read it literally, then it's another type of formal fallacy, a non sequitur, to be more precise. The structure of your example is actually the following one:

1) If p, then q
2) r
3) Therefore, p.

Do you really think that? — Fire Ologist

Who cares what I think? My thoughts (about anything) shouldn't matter to you, in any way.

Anselm was trying to show how it can be rationally concluded that God exists. — Fire Ologist

I'm showing how it can be rationally concluded that Jesus is God, and in another argument, I'm showing how it can be rationally concluded that Jesus is not God. Both arguments are valid. But they can't both be sound (though both of them can be unsound).

I love the effort, but all analysis of his arguments are discussions of logic, not about God. — Fire Ologist

So if I tell you that three apples plus two apples equals five apples, am I talking about numbers or apples?

Do you think you can conclude Jesus is God because of your argument? — Fire Ologist

I already concluded it, in my Christian argument. And I already concluded that Jesus is not God, in my non-Christian argument. They can't both be sound. One of them must be unsound, if not both.

If I was trying to rationally prove to you that my father exists, do you think you would know anything about my father? — Fire Ologist

Please explain how that is relevant.

So does this thread really have anything to do with God? Or Jesus? — Fire Ologist

Of course it does.

Sure. You could probably also read it as: "There is a unique x, such that x is the evening star; there is a unique y, such that y is the morning star, and x is identical to y".

I just don't like how it looks with the operator at both sides of the "=" sign, but whatever floats your boat. I'm not shaming your "logical kinks", if that's even a thing.

Then we can write (ιxEx=ιyMy). — Banno

That looks ugly as hell.

So do you want to talk about logic, or about whether Jesus is God?

If you want to talk about logic, you could have said many other things for “p” and “q.” But since you said God and Jesus I assumed you wanted to talk about God. — Fire Ologist

So when Anselm offers his logical proof for the existence of God, does he want to talk about logic or God, in your view?

If you want to talk about logic, then sure “if unicorns exist, that single-horned horse is equal to a unicorn; that single-horned horse exists; therefore, unicorns exist.” — Fire Ologist

No, that's a fallacy. Here is what you're saying:

1) if unicorns exist, that single-horned horse is equal to a unicorn
2) that single-horned horse exists
3) therefore, unicorns exist.

And here is its structure:

1) If p, then q
2) q
3) Therefore, p

That's not an argument, that's a formal fallacy called affirming the consequent.

So I stand by what I said earlier: you don't seem to understand what an argument is. I say that as objectively and as respectfully as possible.

But if you were trying to show what it who God or Jesus actually is, you didn’t argue them, you merely asserted and equated them, like I just did with a single-horned horse and a unicorn. — Fire Ologist

Not quite, because what I offered has the structure of a modus ponens, while your example is a formal fallacy.

Well, first you have to show God, or else Jesus won't have the possibility of being God. — PoeticUniverse

Is there a specific premise that you're denying, or do I have to do the work for you in that sense?

I am sure I won't be able to convince anyone about Jesus or God through argument. — Fire Ologist

I'm not seeking to convince anyone of anything. You would do well to assume less about other people, if you believe in Christian virtues as much as you suggest that you do.

Way hot out of the gate. — Fire Ologist

Well, if you can't take the heat, you're under no obligation to stay in the kitchen.

I didn't mean to insult you. — Fire Ologist

I don't care if you meant to insult me or not. We're trying to do a bit of logic here, and logic is a formal science.

Your argument basically just gave a definition "God is identical to Jesus." You don't move anywhere from that. You asserted that God exists, and asserted that God is identical to Jesus. Nothing else was operating in the argument to move from the assertions to some other conclusion. You basically just said "God is Jesus." So I said, that's not an argument. — Fire Ologist

Understand that both of my arguments have the structure of a modus ponens. That is what makes them arguments. You can keep digging your heels in and saying that they're not arguments, even though they are. I'll spell it out for you:

1) If p, then q.
2) p.
3) Therefore, q.

That is indeed an argument.

Again, I love how people think about these things and post here. I'm not trying to discourage anything. But if you want a good conversation, on this forum, God is very often a non-starter. — Fire Ologist

I don't care if God is a non-starter or not, as far as topics of conversation go. Would you tell a mathematician that God is a non-starter if said person claimed that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit should be counted using the number 3?

I assume all people have this problem — Fire Ologist

Well, there's your problem.

it's the same conversation Heraclitus and Parmenides and Hume and Descartes and Hegel, and Kant, and Nietzsche and Quine, and people here today have been trying to address. — Fire Ologist

The OP of this thread has nothing to do with those philosophers.

You jump way to hard and fast into the personal. — Fire Ologist

In which comment, and in what way, did I jump into the personal? Consider the fact that, throughout this thread, I've already been accused of:

1) Religious bigotry
2) Disrespect
3) Sectarianism
4) Toying with others
5) Amusing myself
6) Straw-manning
7) Uselessness

Etc. With that in mind, I believe I've been quite tolerant, given that my reaction to all of the above was simply to deny such charges and to ask for further elaborations from my accusers. Some of them didn't even have the good grace, or the basic decency, to recognize that their accusations didn't hold up under scrutiny.

And what do you want me to say? — Fire Ologist

Say whatever you want. I'll probably say something back. It depends on what you say. Such is the nature of a dialogue.

So what does that have to do with the thesis that either Jesus is God or Jesus is not God?

:up:

If.....God is identical to Jesus....God is identical to Jesus.

That's not an argument. Nothing to digest there. — Fire Ologist

You don't seem to understand what an argument is. An argument is a list of premises that deductively entail a conclusion. That is exactly what a modus ponens is.

"If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs." - Larry Fine.

That's a better argument — Fire Ologist

What makes it better?

Philosophers have a problem clarifying whether a cat on a matt is really two things, or a thing at all. — Fire Ologist

I don't have that problem. It's a bit presumptuous of you to assume that I do.

This post will go nowhere illuminating. — Fire Ologist

That's not the objective of my OP, if that's what you're referring to.

It is very difficult to discuss God in any empirical, critical, scientific manner, especially in a forum where many people have no inclination to entertain the notion of "God" seriously. — Fire Ologist

Then why would I say something like the following?

I'm open to the idea that God might exist, and that Jesus might be God. — Arcane Sandwich

Show that God is the Block Universe and we are inside God. — PoeticUniverse

Why would I want to show that?

I disagree with this. We're all adults here. Let's learn to roll with the punches. — frank

Should this forum allow the use of the N-word then, in your view?

In your new version, you say:

P1) God exists
D1) The act of creation is defined as an act of creating the creation from nothing
P2) The creation exists
C1) Therefore, there is a situation in which the creation does not exist (from D1 and P2)
C2) Therefore, there is a situation in which God only exists (from P1 and C1) — MoK

Whereas I think that something like the following would work better:

P1) God exists.
P2) If so, then the act of creation can be defined as an act of creating the creation from nothing.
C1) So, the act of creation can be defined as an act of creation the creation from nothing.
P3) If so, then there is a situation in which the creation does not exist.
P4) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists.
C2) So, there is a situation in which only God exists.

Why does this other version work better? Because it now it can be formalized using propositional logic, like so:

P1) p
P2) p → q
C1) ∴ q
P3) q → r
P4) r → s
C2) ∴ s

Here's the tree proof. Basically, your argument just needed the use of conditionals (if, then), symbolized by "→". My only objection here, from a strategic (not logical) standpoint, is that you're giving your detractors way too many premises to deny. Think of it like this: why would you give them so many potential targets? Additionally, an argument with less premises is more parsimonious, and parsimony is arguably a good thing.