sure, why not?

Are you going to present these arguments one at a time or all at one?

Those goals are not incompatible.   People satisfied by the substandard explanations of the world provided by various religious might be less likely to think or research answers themselves, and are more easily controlled by these organizations.  Keep your subjects dumb, then act in a manner where they think you have all the answers.  (oh, and throw in some promise of menacing punishment to keep dissent and behavior in check)

Done stitching? It's an ugly quilt, but at least you got all the pieces together.

It seems you are out of stunts, gibbon.

Goodbye.

yeah, kinda like the bible.

Give Presup time Brian. He needs more fiber before he can get his information from his anal sphincter...I mean, source.

So would you be interested in debating me?  Tell you what-- I'll just stick to the TAG argument, because that one is my favorite.

I've read the article.

But let's debate it.  Me and you on the debate forum. 

What do you say?

I assumed correctly, you didn't understand me.  And you still wont.  I'm trying to turn a new leaf and not tell you what you are as you'll figure I'm name-calling.  But I'll state one more time nicely, purely for the audience.

AUDIENCE:

TAG is a horrible argument.  TAG is the worst of all theistic arguments.  Anyone who thinks TAG is a good argument is someone you should never waste time talking to, as you are merely talking to yourself.  The person who accepts TAG is not capable of understanding what you are saying, they don't think on the same level as you. 

Audience... case in point...

In less than an hour or so our TAG'r has logically deduced that since I responded in the manner I did, that all atheists here are chickenshits.  As you can see, our TAG'r is not very bright, or capable of logical thought. 

Looking in the mirror?  

You said you read this and want to debate it?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag

All you have to do is make a post in that thread to explain what problems you have with it.  Someone will respond.  Or are you too chickenshit?  Or are you incapable of backing up your claims?  

I've made TAG'rs the laughing stock of RRS on many occasions in the past, I rest on my previous arguments.  If you haven't seen or heard those arguments, search harder.  Assuming I haven't backed it up, is another logical thought blunder.

All of this is for the benefit of the audience, not you.  I don't expect you to get any of it.  I was hoping Presup would join in, he's even dimmer than you.

Wiki says:

Criticisms of the TAG

Several criticisms of the TAG have emerged. One says that TAG is not a distinctive form of argument: this objection claims that the form of the TAG (indirect, transcendental) is really just a reworking of the standard deductive and inductive forms of reasoning; it claims that there is really not much difference between Thomas Aquinas and Cornelius Van Til. John Frame, a student of Van Til, has endorsed this objection.^{[citation needed]}

Another objection of the TAG is that it does not fulfill the necessary prerequisites for an Argument of Proof - that is, to have already proved the foundational premises before the conclusion is made. Any premise that has not been proved, by its very nature, is an assumption. An assumption, by definition, might be wrong. Therefore, an Argument of Proof cannot be based on foundational premises that are assumptions. Every premise must be proven prior to the conclusion being made. TAG is dependant on the foundational premise that "something not conceptual must be physical" yet this notion has not been proved. Therefore, that premise is an assumption. Thus TAG cannot be offered as proof.

Another objection is that the TAG does not provide a uniqueness proof: even if the TAG can prove God's existence, it doesn't prove that of the Christian god—any sufficiently similar god, such as Allah, would do. John Warwick Montgomery presented this objection in the article Once upon an A Priori ..., presented in Van Til's festschrift, Jerusalem and Athens.

Another objection claims that the TAG moves from conceptual necessity to necessary existence. This criticism argues that proving the conceptual necessity of a worldview doesn't establish its ontological reality. In other words: one may need to think about the world in a certain way in order to make sense of one's experience and knowledge, but that doesn't prove that the world actually is that way. David P. Hoover has raised this objection in his article For the Sake of Argument.

Another objection claims that the TAG uses circular reasoning: the TAG assumes, from the beginning, what it intends to establish by its conclusion (namely, the existence of God).

Others suggest that TAG is a variation of the Ontological argument^{[citation needed]}, which was originally employed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 11th century, which abandons standard evidential requirements in favor of employing logic itself to suggest that for something intangible to be recognized, it must exist in some form.

There are your objections.

I do believe I was the first to accept his challenge and was waiting for him/her to present his/her arguments

TAG reduces to something like the cosmological argument - reality has coherence, therefore that requires 'something' to 'give it' that coherent structure. IOW it tries to to use the structure and order of 'reality' as what has to be explained, rather than just 'reality' itself.

But what makes that first principle a sentient, all-powerful being? Surely a coherent reality would be a pre-requisite for such an entity itself to exist?

IOW, as with the cosmological argument, it assumes the only explanation for something is the existence of some thing or principle which already be contingent on that thing or principle, which is greater in some sense than the original thing or principle you are trying to justify, thus leading to an infinite regression.

This is a problem if you assume that the pre-existing entity is 'greater' in some sense than what you are trying to explain.

Whereas if we assume that any form of 'higher' existence or complexity or structure emerges from a lesser existence, from a less ordered, structured, state of existence, we get a convergent regression, in which the totality of an infinite sequence of events does not require infinite extent or duration. Just as the sum of the infinite sequence

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... + 1/(2^n) + ... where n -> infinity is equal to 2.0

Every time we see a tree growing from a tiny seed, a person growing from a single fertilized cell, an avalanche started by loud noise, etc, we see that effects may be far greater, more powerful, more complex, or more sentient than what they start from, so there can no logical objection to emergence.

We still may have a problem of what 'started' the sequence, or why is there basic 'order' in the first place, or where did 'existence' itself 'come from', or did it just always exist? 

Whatever your proposed solution to this, something merely adequate to generate a tiny twitch sufficient to trigger something like a Big Bang event seems by any argument less problematic to start from than an infinite sentient being...

So the cosmological arg. goes from the assumption that 'everything needs a cause' to explain existence by proposing something which violates that rule.

TAG tries to use the existence of order and coherence to assert that some entity which itself has an even higher level of order and coherence preceded it.

Just because we don't know the ultimate reason why an ordered reality exists does not mean that any argument, no matter how deeply flawed, which claims to explain it has to be accepted, in the absence of a something better. Even the various incomplete proposals of String Theory are vastly more coherent and justified than either of these 'just so' stories.

Feel free to provide some sort of counter argument...

There's your problem, you came here to preach, rather than argue your position - you are actually getting more polite and considered responses than you deserve.

Okay.  Let's start a new thread in the debate forum.

That's what I would like to ask you.  Are you backing down?  Maybe you just have some sort of selective reading disorder, because you completely ignored the first post were Cpt_pineapple accepts your challenge.  I am not even the first person to point this out to you.  

No disrespect to Cpt, but I wanted to see if Bob Spence or Brian Sapient would. 

Fascinating. You don't actually have to read or respond to other posters, do you really find other responses that distracting?

I've never felt any problem with other posters, but I guess that's your prerogative, since we do have provision for one-on-one.

Stop talking about how keen your are to argue and just debate already. If you want to debate one person just ignore everyone else.

BTW, Presup, did some one steal your toffee apple?

Not to mention it's a forum for unbelievers, who the fuck would he think would show up to talk to him?

Maybe, that should be a hint.

But if it makes you feel any better, while we may not agree with you at least we don't think you're the immoral spawn of satan and will soon be roasting in a bathtub of aviation fuel while we celebrate on streets paved with gold. 

Nah, likely we'd be banned upon posting