(January 8, 2013 at 7:24 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(January 8, 2013 at 6:57 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I like it, its creative and silly, and so is fun. without getting drawn into fancy words for philosophical concepts which i,m ill equiped to use I can say there appears to me the possability of a problem with....

the first statement as if we are allowed to imagine is there a limit to what we can imagine? some may be able to that you could have a creator of the creator of a universe which would be a greater achievement that the first statement and this could go on forever as has been pointed out in other contexts on other threads.

the statement 5. is interesting as its close to what a singularity is to many people who can't understand how something called a singularity can have no volume and yet be seen to exist.

You are not understanding the reason behind Gaskin's parody of the Ontological Argument.

The Ontological Argument is fallacious. In other words it is not logically valid. When a syllogism is not logically valid, it means that the premises do not support the conclusion.

The parody is an attempt to show just how inane the Ontological Argument is, It is not mean as a valid argument itself.

Quote:without getting drawn into fancy words for philosophical concepts which i,m ill equiped to use

You REALLY should read some books on basic logic. Especially since you continue to bring up so many of these failed philosophical arguments.

So far you've used the Cosmological Argument and the Ontological Argument, yet you don't understand them, and more importantly, you don't understand why they fail.

This is exactly why you are too dependent on this ->

Quote:All true but he seems someone in tune with my mental processes just on a higher level so for me I need to read.

The reason why logic and science are so effective is because they DON'T count on your personal mental processes. The human mind is way too susceptible to confirmation bias, misinterpretations, prejudices, etc.

Common sense is very often wrong.

I did understand the point, I was just playing about with the proof itself, I hadn't realised my arguement was this Ontological arguement and took your word for it and that as it had been dealt with elsewhere and I don't have sufficient time to see how at moment. I just accepted your statement. I apologise if you thought otherwise. As far as proofs go in relation to GOD i have stated it clearly before that no one can ever prove or disprove so every proof to me is just a game with words and ideas that we go on endlessly until we cease to exist or GOD shows himself. Should the later happen I can't believe He will be bothering with proofs.

(January 8, 2013 at 7:40 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: As far as proofs go in relation to GOD i have stated it clearly before that no one can ever prove or disprove

You're right. It is technically always possible for an idea to be fact regardless of what conclusion logic and reason makes us arrive at. But using logic to determine probability is different. It is how a rational person develops their opinions (most of the time, at least). It is why I am an atheist- I do not claim that it is impossible for a deity to exist, I just realize that it is extremely improbable and that I am better off as an atheist.

(January 8, 2013 at 7:48 pm)Surtr Wrote:

(January 8, 2013 at 7:40 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: As far as proofs go in relation to GOD i have stated it clearly before that no one can ever prove or disprove

You're right. It is technically always possible for an idea to be fact regardless of what conclusion logic and reason makes us arrive at. But using logic to determine probability is different. It is how a rational person develops their opinions (most of the time, at least). It is why I am an atheist- I do not claim that it is impossible for a deity to exist, I just realize that it is extremely improbable and that I am better off as an atheist.

I have always argued with Theists that very point that I can understand why Athiest's can logically hold their view and we have to accept that but it doesn't mean we can't change their mind maybe not on a collective level but maybe at an individual level. And it does'nt mean that Theist are devoid of intelligence or logic to reach their position unless you take it as default that logic is the ultimate tool of the intellect and ultimately the only arbiter of truth.

(January 8, 2013 at 7:54 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: unless you take it as default that logic is the ultimate tool of the intellect and ultimately the only arbiter of truth.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. By logic I meant determining whether something is possible, determining whether it can be observed, whether the evidence for it backs it firmly, whether there are any unanswerable problems with it, etc.

(January 8, 2013 at 7:40 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: As far as proofs go in relation to GOD i have stated it clearly before that no one can ever prove or disprove so every proof to me is just a game with words and ideas that we go on endlessly until we cease to exist or GOD shows himself. Should the later happen I can't believe He will be bothering with proofs.

Still don't understand the entire 'burden of proof' thingy, I see.

Burden of proof is not dependent on opinion or wishful thinking. It is always very easy to determine where burden of proof lies. And it is NOT with those of us that don't believe your claim that a god exists that have the burden of proof.

To reiterate, a book on basic logic would be very helpful for you.

(January 8, 2013 at 7:57 pm)Surtr Wrote:

(January 8, 2013 at 7:54 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: unless you take it as default that logic is the ultimate tool of the intellect and ultimately the only arbiter of truth.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. By logic I meant determining whether something is possible, determining whether it can be observed, whether the evidence for it backs it firmly, whether there are any unanswerable problems with it, etc.

i'm in agreement with you ; just rambled on bit

---

(January 8, 2013 at 8:04 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(January 8, 2013 at 7:40 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: As far as proofs go in relation to GOD i have stated it clearly before that no one can ever prove or disprove so every proof to me is just a game with words and ideas that we go on endlessly until we cease to exist or GOD shows himself. Should the later happen I can't believe He will be bothering with proofs.

Still don't understand the entire 'burden of proof' thingy, I see.

Burden of proof is not dependent on opinion or wishful thinking. It is always very easy to determine where burden of proof lies. And it is NOT with those of us that don't believe your claim that a god exists that have the burden of proof.

To reiterate, a book on basic logic would be very helpful for you.

understand does not equal accept. A book on logic would be useful if the strength of my position rested there, but as this is as much a personal exploration of the subject even though I am sharing it with you on the forum, I rather read what applies to my needs first as no amount of logic will work with you guys in my opinion based on the fact that both positions are unprovable and I don't accept the burden of proof. I understand and accept that others find my position to be some or all of the following untolerable, illogical,stubborn, foolish, hypocritical and any number of more derogative terms but it is my position.

(January 8, 2013 at 7:54 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I have always argued with Theists that very point that I can understand why Athiest's can logically hold their view and we have to accept that

Yes, because logic does not support the existence of a god. Nice of you to see that.

Quote:but it doesn't mean we can't change their mind maybe not on a collective level but maybe at an individual level.

How would you change our mind if we specifically said that we require demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic to support our beliefs, without providing us with reasoned argument, valid logic or demonstrable evidence?

Quote:And it does'nt mean that Theist are devoid of intelligence or logic to reach their position unless you take it as default that logic is the ultimate tool of the intellect and ultimately the only arbiter of truth.

What other method, besides demonstrable evidence and valid logic, do you feel is the best at determining whether something is true (or at least likely to be true)?

When someone makes extraordinary claims (alien abductions, Bigfoot, Jinn, vodoo, etc, etc) , what heuristic do you apply to them to determine their likelihood of being true? I'm willing to bet it is the same one we use when someone makes the claim that a god exists.

Quote:understand does not equal accept.

If you are making a claim that a god exists, you have the burden of proof. There is no argument about that.

If you are not making this claim, then why are you here?

Quote:A book on logic would be useful if the strength of my position rested there, but as this is as much a personal exploration of the subject even though I am sharing it with you on the forum

So, why are you here then? If you are not attempting to convince us of your position, why waste your time?

You have to understand by now, that atheists will not accept a claim unless accompanied by demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic (none of which you've provided). So, what is your purpose here?

I can't believe you are here to learn (hopefully you will anyway), because you continue to post the same fallacious stuff repeatedly, yet never once that I've seen, actually attempted to understand any of the fallacies you have been guilty of.

Quote:I rather read what applies to my needs first as no amount of logic will work with you guys in my opinion based on the fact that both positions are unprovable and I don't accept the burden of proof.

You have not once used logic.

Logic is a formal method of analyzing arguments and claims. Logic is not what 'sounds right to you'. Logic is very specific method.

There is no such thing as 'my logic' or 'your logic', there is only 'logic'.

Terms like: major premise, minor premise, conclusion, syllogism, fallacy, law of noncontradiction, etc, have exact meanings. they are not open to interpretation.

Quote: I understand and accept that others find my position to be some or all of the following untolerable, illogical,stubborn, foolish, hypocritical and any number of more derogative terms but it is my position.

None of these terms are derogatory, if they describe your view accurately.

(January 8, 2013 at 8:17 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(January 8, 2013 at 7:54 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I have always argued with Theists that very point that I can understand why Athiest's can logically hold their view and we have to accept that

Yes, because logic does not support the existence of a god. Nice of you to see that.

Quote:but it doesn't mean we can't change their mind maybe not on a collective level but maybe at an individual level.

How would you change the mind of a person that requires demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic to support our beliefs, without valid logic or demonstrable evidence?

Quote:And it does'nt mean that Theist are devoid of intelligence or logic to reach their position unless you take it as default that logic is the ultimate tool of the intellect and ultimately the only arbiter of truth.

What other method, besides demonstrable evidence and valid logic, do you feel is the best at determining whether something is true (or at least likely to be true)?

When someone makes extraordinary claims (alien abductions, Bigfoot, Jinn, vodoo, etc, etc) , what algorithm do you apply to them to determine its likelihood of being true? I'm willing to bet it is the same as we use when someone makes the claim that a god exists.

I by myself have no other method, but of course I can hold within the framework of my own system that I can pray the The Holy Spirit allows them to be open to persuasion and that being human logic will not be all they would understand and what would be the tipping point I don't know maybe just seeing that it may have some value in their life at another level be it emotional or psychological and through experience of that value being realised they come to believe as I do without the over riding need for proofs. Not everything needs to be proved true or false and depending on the situation then use appropriate tools.

Please use punctuation. That alone would add so much more clarity to your arguments.

(January 8, 2013 at 8:49 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: Please use punctuation. That alone would add so much more clarity to your arguments.

True.