If your reasoning is provably flawed in other areas, how are you so sure that this assessment is correct?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 07-08-2014 at 03:57 PM.
Not really. The bible is as provably false and immoral as the Q'uran, or any other religion.
There are plenty of cultures and religions that deserve no respect whatsoever, as some of the deeply rooted "values" stem from supers ious nonsense.
Sorry to snatch your victim status from you.
Wrong, you are defining a paradox as being irrational, and that is not the definition of a paradox.
par·a·dox
noun \ˈper-ə-ˌdäks, ˈpa-rə-\
: something (such as a situation) that is made up of two opposite things and that seems impossible but is actually true or possible
: someone who does two things that seem to be opposite to each other or who has qualities that are opposite
: a statement that seems to say two opposite things but that may be true
Full Definition of PARADOX
1
: a tenet contrary to received opinion
2
a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
3
: one (as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly contradictory qualities or phases
They said the same thing about wireless in the 1800s
don't ridicule something your limited mind can't process.
More reading comp fail.
smh Dartmouth
they said the same thing about Santa Claus
Do you even understand English, much less reading comprehension?
Apparently not.
How about sticking somewhat to the topic for a change, if you are capable.
Not quite. The dictionary will not save you here.
I said that paradoxes have the quality of being irrational, because they are logically invalid arguments.
How do you know what the God you are asserting exists is undefinable?
I wasn't asking the dictionary or anything else to "save" me from anything.
But you making an open ended statement that paradoxes have the quality of being irrational is not true, there is no factual basis for that.
But you now also say that they are logically invalid arguments. I only agree with this statement if they are indeed used to support an argument, something of which I never did.
I only agreed God can be a paradox.
My original statement was that God cannot be defined. There is no paradox in that statement.
I believe you are reaching. But I give you the benefit of the doubt.
It certainly is nothing that should be made fun of by me.
However a God believing troll would crucify you.
Proof of liver. We need proof of liver to continue negotiations.
I'm done discussing this topic with you.Do you even understand English, much less reading comprehension?
Apparently not.
How about sticking somewhat to the topic for a change, if you are capable.
I'm only here to mock your logic and reading comp failures.
Then go mock yourself.
That is more your speed.
Unless you are a glutton for more punishment to get owned and melt down some more.
And SBM and Rob do a pretty good job of that to you, not just my doing.
Otherwise stick to the topic.
Or you could try your hand upstairs again and get put in your place there too.
Makes no difference to me, you are your own worst enemy, all I do is expose you making a fool of yourself.
Oh look. The rubber/glue comeback.
Only magna laude grads from Dartmouth know how to wield this weapon.
Gee, how novel.
That doesn't really answer my question.How do you know what the God you are asserting exists is undefinable?
How do you know that the God you are asserting exists is undefinable?
There is, but I don't think you are fully aware of the exact context that I am using.
Do you understand the difference between a valid and an invalid argument? A sound and an unsound one? These terms have very precise, non-dictionary usages when it comes to construction of arguments.
You are attempting to use common term for paradox, which you demonstrated through simply using a stock dictionary definition.
When I am referring to a paradox as being irrational, it is in the context of logical thinking.
"The definition of God is that God is undefined".
"This statement is false"
"If there is an exception to every rule, then every rule must have at least one exception; the exception to this one being that it has no exception."
An invalid argument is, by definition, irrational and/or illogical.
If a paradox is an invalid argument, then it is irrational.
You might want to read a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity
Lastly, you have asserted repeatedly, that "God exists". Your assertion, your burden of proof, something you have decidedly shirked at every opportunity.
Do you understand that when you make this claim, you have a burden of proof to support it?
He says he graduated magna laude from Dartmouth.
He's in that rare high green, high red, high blue zone.
Because no one has ever been able to define Him in totality.
He, as you say, is a paradox.
IMHO we humans barely even scratch the surface when it comes to describing and explaining and defining this en y in a comprehensible understandable way, and it would be the epitome of egotistical arrogance in the extreme to even try, skirting the boundaries of hubris.
You ask for the impossible IMHO.
I cannot give you the answer you want.
All I can do is give advice, and that is to look inside yourself for the answer because no one outside of you can give it to you.
If that is not good enough for you, then I cannot help you.
What you need to understand and accept is that it is not a matter of whether I want to or not, it is a matter of that I can not.
Providing evidence of something that exists is possible.
Is it possible that the inability to logically define something indicates that thing doesn't really exist?
What proof of this undefined thing do you have that causes you to assert its existence?
Leaving all the BS aside in order to sincerely answer your latest question, yes, it is possible that the inability to logically define something indicates that thing doesn't really exist. This is why in youth I was an atheist for a while.
Yet the paradox is that it can also exist even though it may not be definable logically. That is not the same as saying it is illogical however. It just means it is a paradox and undefinable at this point in time. One premise does not as a necessity follow another.
Your other question is easier to answer. And that is, I have no definable proof, pure and simple.
My faith that God exists is a very very "subjective" thing that came about through "inner" revelations that happened over time and during introspective periods of my life.
This is why I always caution to those looking for proof, to quit looking up in the sky or around yourself, but rather look within yourself because that is where you will find and know God for yourself.
This is also another reason God cannot be proved, it lies within each individual and will be made known to each in God's own way.
This is the best I can give you. I have my own "inner" proof gifted to me, that no one can give to you, but God Himself. And I am thankful and unshakable.
The adage, look and ye shall find, is the truth if you are "sincerely" seeking the existence of God and not just goofing and spoofing around. It will be made known to you.
Who said there is no Santa? In fact there are 1000s of them on every city block durting xmas You need photos?
Bravo, you are still the pro!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
