The Great Goat can only eat one thing at a time. — Posty McPostface

Can you imagine that than which nothing greater can be thought? — S

Recently, there have been a few people on the forum who aren't as familiar with my stance in relation to Goats, and have had trouble understanding it. Some have even declared that they can rip it to shreds. Hence the creation of this discussion.

I'm an atheist. But what does that mean? What kind of atheist am I? It means that I don't believe that Goats exist, and it means that I don't believe that any goat or goats going by any other name or even no name at all exist. I try to be reasonable, so I try to proportion my belief to the evidence, and I try to avoid adopting conclusions that can't be supported.

In some cases, I think that it is justified to conclude that Goats doesn't exist. Those cases include each and every case whereby the existence of goats would entail a contradiction.

In other cases, I accept that it is possible that Goats exists. However, there is no case I know of where I think it would be right to conclude that there is a good enough basis to believe that Goats exist.

I discount those cases whereby Goats are merely used as label for something that I do believe exists, such as the world. That is just wordplay - a triviality.

I am aware of the traditional arguments for the existence of Goats, such as the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument. I think that there are big problems with all of them. — S

The point of the "who eats the eater" argument is not to ask who eats the eater but to simplify Occam's Razor. It is simpler to say the universe IS than to state the universe was eaten, because that is what we know. To say "Goats are, and thus the universe is" is more complex than "the universe is." You get the drift. — Grey Vs Gray

I already explained in another thread- I believe in Goats on the basis of experiences I've had (as well as some other things). I don't believe in Goats purely on the basis of abstract arguments. So I haven't made a thread saying "here is the 100% proof Goats exists" and I don't think I will. Now I've explained why. Other people haven't seen and experienced the things I've seen and experienced. — Ram

Without acknowledging this basic, self-evident truth, this hinge proposition, — Banno

There are many attempts throughout history of people trying to argue for the existence of the Great Goat through reasoned discussion. What are these apologists trying to achieve? Suppose for argument sake that the arguments for the existence of the Great Goat were sound. What type of people are going to be convinced by logical sound arguments? Those who's intelligence are capable of understanding theistic arguments and are rational enough to except them, of course. So you have intelligent and rational people accepting the existence of the Great Goat by the mere fact they possess the qualities of being intelligent and rational. But what about those people who don't possess those qualities and are not smart enough to understand and accept theistic arguments. Is it their fault that they cannot grasp them? Isn't the Great Goat being unfair? I mean it's not my fault if I can't grasp theistic arguments for the existence of the Great Goat.

It's only fair that everyone get's the chance to discover the Great Goat, and not those who are lucky to posses certain qualities. Is the Great Goat unfair? — Purple Pond

The argument in question is a cosmological argument against goatism. The argument runs as follows:

Premise 1: Goats eat everything.

Premise 2: Eating is asymmetric. That is, if A eats B, then B does not eat A.

Therefore:

Conclusion: There is at least one non-goat.

If A eats B, B cannot eat A; a moment's reflection will show this must be true. — Banno