Reply With Quote
Showing himself would be fine
What do you consider proof?
Showing himself would be fine
any sort of positive evidence... the lack of evidence for another theory doesn't cut it. the existence of a god isn't necessarily a default condition that needs to be refuted
Thought can.
Until it is perceived or received by someone it doesn't exist.
Not anymore ridiculous than claiming something doesn't exist without proof of non-existence.
It isn't spaghetti monsters fault that you can't comprehend it the proof. Maybe you need to become smarter to see it.
Wrong again.
Thought is dependent on a physical mind conduct it.
No synapses, no thought.
And then what?
there is concrete proof that Bible god does not exist.
If there is some other "creator" out there, then since he hasn't shown himself, he isn't worth any serious time debating his existence/non existence.
i.e. no debate.
Spaghetti monster is fiction.It isn't spaghetti monsters fault that you can't comprehend it the proof. Maybe you need to become smarter to see it.
Just like Zeus. Just like Bible God.
And then I have my proof.
Am I going too fast?
now you can die happy?
actually you could have said so on page 3Am I going too fast?
First, theism and evolution aren't incompatible. I believe in both with no reservations. Second, catchy phrases like the one you used are why I said what I said. I think atheists are so caught up in empiricism (the thing that got us away from religious thinking), that they ignore other aspects of critical reasoning. I am not trying to insult atheists when saying that. But I just feel most don't actually care to really think about the god issue anymore. That's fine by me, but it's not a validation of their stance.
Russell's teapot isn't a proof; it's an argument. It's not surprising you don't know the difference. I agree with Russel's point of view on the burden of proof and haven't once argued against it, at least not in the sense you believe I do. My challenge is that you don't know what it means, and I believe that because you are using it when I've never disputed it.
Bro, 'categorical' does NOT mean, "of categories". You just directly misunderstood what the words mean, and yet you still keep trying to use that term. As for your actual argument, there's nothing to acknowledge about it. Your point is that things aren't black and white, which is a nothing statement. We all know some things are on a continuum, but direct opposites aren't.As for the categorical imperative, you wikied the definition and posted it. The wrote entry about moral obligation. My response which you ignored was that you are describing the conclusion as used by Kant found from google where as I was talking about the process by which the conclusion was drawn. I have been trying to talk about categories that don't have basis in the objective world as meaningless for inferring characteristics to anything else. It comes to the very crux of the a priori debate; you cannot even acknowledge it yet I am clueless?
First off, throwing a quote out there and expecting it to do work for you is a fallacy, as I have told you before. A point is not stronger because a certain person makes it.I have cited Nietzshes arguments here but let Fred speak for himself; its like he is speaking through time to you:
Second, what the does that have to do with anything? Seriously, I've read it about a half-dozen times, and I can't figure out why you posted it.
An atheist. That's why it has an 'a' in front of it. I didn't make up that distinction; it's part of the language we share. Nietzsche seems to be arguing about a noumenon/phenomenon distinction rather than a intension/extension distinction. If he's arguing against Kantism in that quote, that's definitely the direction he's going in.What is the an hesis of a theist? What he says about things need to "have truth within themselves" and not of what we make of them goes directly to what I have been talking about objective semantics. All you do is make up words without meaning: your boxes, boxboy.
You don't seem to know what you're talking about. I can't argue with you when you don't understand anyone's arguments. Hence why you think you've been making good points, while everyone else is just scratching their heads at your posts. For example, you cite Nietzsche (again, committing a fallacy by hiding behind his words) and tell me to argue against it, but the quote you cite has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Why should I argue against it?You don't even argue this you just say that I don't know what I am talking about or that I cannot read or other flailing. You are a coward.
And then you come with this . First, I never claimed to give a "proof" of god -- if I had one, I would not have this at ude of "to each their own". I would be more like most of us are with the evolution-deniers. Second, it doesn't matter who came up with what proofs. You don't seem to get that the validity of arguments doesn't depend on the source of those arguments. Moreover, I had no idea who came up with prima causa, as you call it. I've never cared who shares my viewpoint, and neither should you.If you don't want to reveal your religion that is fine but as long as you continue to cite your two proofs on god and the the threat made by christian philosophers then it is pretty obvious what is what.
Dude, I was actually good at math in school. I'm sorry that you think bringing up things I learned as a sop re in high school is somehow over my head, but your wrong. More importantly, all those things do is highlight my point that infinity is not an actual number.As for infinity you can continue to handwave at notation like a ty teacher all you like but I spoke of much more than that. Again I am not interested in getting caught up in your bull . I get your arguments and they are at best described as superficial. You need a box or you get confused though; i get it. Read the stuff about convergence, infinite series, geometric ratios, and infintesimals and try again. Then perhaps you can try and tell me what I don't know about again.
Obviously. That's the point. Most of what you're saying has had nothing to do with what I've been talking about. You just bring them up and expect me to address them anyway.What I will say in the mean time is that there are physical manifestations of the infinite in geometric ratios, physics, Euler's work and all other manner of thing. There is very good reason to believe that some things are infinite. You just ignore that and talk about notation from precalculus. There are many forms of infinite that have nothing to do with what you are talking about as I said before.
I said at the beginning that I didn't find the wager compelling. I've also said that my particular metaphysical outlook is considered atheistic in the scope of the wager, and that as a result, I gain no benefit from arguing for it. If you read that and aren't able to get what I said, that's not my problem.As for the pascal threat I get that you don't stand by any argument you make; that is besides the point of my message.
No, you're still holding an egg.
And when you have a thought, what happens to it?
You stated earlier that you cannot prove the non-existence of spaghetti monster. Now spaghetti monster is fiction?
In one hand, you're holding an egg. In the other hand, you're not holding the second egg.
You changed "an egg" to "the second egg" ergo moving the goal posts.
The second egg is still "an egg".
A square cannot be a circle.
So is the first and it's the one you're holding, you cannot be not holding an egg if you're holding an egg, but you be holding an egg even if you're not holding other eggs. You can say there is an egg you are not holding, but that's not the same as saying you're not holding an egg as "an egg" doesn't define the other egg specifically.
There is also an egg you are not holding. "An" doesn't necessarily mean that there is only one egg.
X = Whats in your hand
Y = an egg
X=Y
You cannot say X=Y and X/=Y at the same time.
You can say there's an egg you aren't holding, but not that you're not holding an egg. You added "another".
Your take is illogical
I added another because I was not limited to the concept of only by the original statement. There will always be an egg you are not holding because you can't hold all the eggs.
I think what you're saying is the equivalent to people saying, "Every NBA player isn't a seven-footer," when they mean, "Not every NBA player is a seven-footer."
1) DMC's statement in formal logic (but in English words and not symbols) is: There exists an egg that has the quality of you holding it.
2) The appropriate negation of that statement is: There does NOT exist an egg that has the quality of you holding it.
3) Your statement is: There exists an egg that does NOT have the quality of you holding it.
DMC's point seems to be that you can't have 1) and 2) at the same time. And that's true. Your point seems to be that you can have 1) and 3) at the same time, which is also true. But that does nothing to negate what DMC said.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions