Time To Start Some Arguing
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc a répondu le Sun 9 Nov, 2003 @ 8:36pm |
 Coolness: 149135 | Let the grammar lessons begin! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» PookStah a répondu le Sun 9 Nov, 2003 @ 8:36pm |
| Coolness: 106235 | lol i just realised that i posted argues instead of arguments.... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» daFTWin a répondu le Sun 9 Nov, 2003 @ 8:39pm |
 Coolness: 276755 | I was gonna correct it but decided something better coulda been said.. goo boozay. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform a répondu le Mon 10 Nov, 2003 @ 1:09am |
 Coolness: 339985 | hmm..
*looks at title* i had my fun, this thread is boring now tho. i really don't care about proving one way or the other, i just hadn't seen any heated arguments on the board in a while. anyway. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX a répondu le Mon 10 Nov, 2003 @ 1:12am |
| Coolness: 66835 | that just makes me laugh |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform a répondu le Mon 10 Nov, 2003 @ 1:22am |
| Coolness: 339985 | ....
i'm sorry, did no one read the title and wonder what i was trying to do? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV a répondu le Mon 10 Nov, 2003 @ 1:32am |
 Coolness: 194345 | *yawn*
after throwing away all the vague mythical mystical stuff, it becomes textbook beginner deductive logic (one of the first examples they'll feed you at uni): what do we need to present a well formed deductive argument whether God exists? a) define God most religions agree god is omnipotent (can do anything). we dont need to continue the definition since this will suffice. b) base a valid statement on a condition in A and see if it checks out. Can God create a stone than God can not lift? Paradox: if yes, then God can not lift the stone. If no, then God can not create a stone. c) We have ourselves a well formed statement: If God is defined as omnipotent, then God can not exist (the only way for a If-Then statement to be true when the conclusion is false, is for the premise to be false). QED |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX a répondu le Mon 10 Nov, 2003 @ 2:01am |
| Coolness: 66835 | Originally posted by ! ZE`EV {C^C} !...
*yawn* after throwing away all the vague mythical mystical stuff, it becomes textbook beginner deductive logic (one of the first examples they'll feed you at uni): what do we need to present a well formed deductive argument whether God exists? a) define God most religions agree god is omnipotent (can do anything). we dont need to continue the definition since this will suffice. b) base a valid statement on a condition in A and see if it checks out. Can God create a stone than God can not lift? Paradox: if yes, then God can not lift the stone. If no, then God can not create a stone. c) We have ourselves a well formed statement: If God is defined as omnipotent, then God can not exist (the only way for a If-Then statement to be true when the conclusion is false, is for the premise to be false). QED Or you can look at greek/roman religion, where their Gods are based on humanity, thus sharing human fallacies. Or look to northern religions where gods are based on nature, and thus inherit nature's fallacies. and of course, your logic is based on the assumption that god is an omnipotent being. If that theory is true and plays into this paradox, then you're awknowledging that God is an existent omnipotent being, otherwise that whole logic schema doesn't make sense. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV a répondu le Mon 10 Nov, 2003 @ 2:18am |
| Coolness: 194345 | yeah but thats why definition is encapsulated in (a). this logic chain (not created by me, as i mentioned they show this as example in university phil course) merely proves using deductive grammar that God, as defined above, can not exist. Anyone who has a different definition can have a different argument.
Even this argument is not really sound although logically valid, since we could go into defining existing and thats majorly deep waters, theres still a few big camps of opinions out there. Alot would argue that God exists for everyone subjectively, since they have a unique idea of what God is to them, and it exists, for them, in their mind at least. Existentialism is not something I wanna get into, lets just leave this at a surface deductive counterproof shall we :) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX a répondu le Mon 10 Nov, 2003 @ 2:23am |
| Coolness: 66835 | there is nothing to get into
You can not prove god does not exist. Its physically, spiritually, mentally impossible. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV a répondu le Mon 10 Nov, 2003 @ 2:39am |
| Coolness: 194345 | thats wordplay. you can prove that God, as defined by most of the major religions in contemporary society (christinity, islam and judaism all agree that God is omnipotent), doesn't exist. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX a répondu le Mon 10 Nov, 2003 @ 2:41am |
| Coolness: 66835 | then prove it.
if put into the logic shema you provided then you are awknowledging that God does exist, otherwise that schema is broken from the very beginning. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV a répondu le Mon 10 Nov, 2003 @ 2:49am |
| Coolness: 194345 | wordplay again.
the argument i provided is impersonal, and is straight textbook. it can apply to ANYTHING. a) defining characteristic of Doohikie: Doohikie is Humphty, and/or is able to perform Bahooch. b) assertion: It is not possible to be Humphty and/or Bahooch can not be performed. (here we can either appeal to an axiom to prove this assertion, or present a 'negating the consequence' argument leading to a paradox, such as with teh God example. Humpty can be eny quality, and Bahooch can be anything.) c) Doohikie can not exist (disclaimer: conventional meaning of the word exist is being used). |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX a répondu le Mon 10 Nov, 2003 @ 6:32am |
| Coolness: 66835 | give a better example than that heh. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc a répondu le Mon 10 Nov, 2003 @ 9:20am |
| Coolness: 149135 | i love God |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah a répondu le Mon 10 Nov, 2003 @ 11:01am |
 Coolness: 121760 | aw everyone's so cute for caring |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV a répondu le Mon 10 Nov, 2003 @ 4:01pm |
| Coolness: 194345 | alex: when lacking argumentation, divert attention eh? :b this was not an example but a schematic and i'm sure you knew that. dont argue man, this isnt even an opinion, its cold hard methodology.
:lol @ sarah's comment |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» ufot a répondu le Mon 10 Nov, 2003 @ 4:27pm |
 Coolness: 93420 | ... here's some frikin methodoligy: prove god exists with some real evidence of him, his actions etc. Do that and I'll eat my own (god approved)frikin hat!
Ufot-god, cause he was so godlike.... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» hayley a répondu le Mon 10 Nov, 2003 @ 4:30pm |
 Coolness: 82965 | but why extol something or someone whose existence IS arguable and inconceivably justifiable? Why impart faith into something whose existence is completely debateable? My intention is by no means to patronize belivers, but i fail to understand how people can give themselves, so readily to such a disputable being.
id much rather believe in myself, and turn to myself or those who surround me when hope is lost or whne in time of need. it seems that much more tangible to seek help from my direct sourroundings...but thtas just me. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» ufot a répondu le Mon 10 Nov, 2003 @ 4:37pm |
| Coolness: 93420 | ... it's the time old tradition of people needing to have faith in something greater then themselves, or anyone else on this silly little planet...makes it easier to forgive and forget, since we are cursed with flaws, by those beautifull gods, we can never be like them, only look upon them for spiritual guidance, etc...
er something like that, religions explain tons of things about our planet, where we came from, where we should be headed, whats wrong, whats right, but if there is one thing I have learned from religions, and I speak in general, is that they really do help some people lead amazing lives, and who knows, without their faiths, maybe things would be worse... Ufot-for donuts, and god said, "no!" |
Time To Start Some Arguing
[ Haut de la page ] |
Poster Une Réponse |
Vous devez être connecté pour soumettre une réponse.
[ Haut de la page ] |
