(May 2, 2013 at 4:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Don’t apologize for implying my IQ is above average.

The word "even" qualified my statement. And, if there was any doubt if the shoe fit, there is none now.

Thanks for the VERIFICATION.

Quote:Easy.

P1. If Yahweh exists, Thor does not exist.
P2. Yahweh exists.
C. Therefore, Thor does not exist.

There’s a logical proof that Thor does not exist.

Nice try, but there's a huge hole in your deductions:

Actually video footage (several actually) of Thor is available to anyone and everyone, and another is being made as we speak. He can be seen wielding his powers and inheriting the divine throne.

Since Yahweh cannot co-exist with another god, one can only conclude that Thor, who has actually been caught on tape demonstrating his power and existence, has stomped Yahweh into the divine mud, destroying him or rendering him powerless.

How is that consistent with the powers Yahweh is believed to have? Simple, he never had those powers. If "his work" has proven anything, it's that god tends to think he's much more powerful and effective than he actually is. His work sucks! How powerful could he really be.

At the end of the day, god is just another big shit talker. He says this and that, but when it comes time to back it up, he's either a no show or gets exposed for being overrated in the first place.

Quote:That’s an irrational appeal to ridicule, you’re just not a very rational person are you smax?

I am, when rationale is called for. You have yet to appeal to that side, I admit.

Quote:Do you know what a non-contingent being is? Apparently not.

In completely and baseless theory, yes. In logic, hell no. Neither do you.

But here's your big chance to prove otherwise. Explain how god "just is". And hey, just for the hell of it, try and make reasonable sense.

Quote:…maybe an illogical joke.

Considering the audience I aimed at, it was completely appropriate.

Quote:If you do not believe God exists then do not bother asking such an OFFENSIVE question.

Fixed it for you.

Quote:No, God sustaining Humanity is also a Christian doctrine so the Muslims didn’t “one up” anybody. This thread is about Yahweh, not Allah, so that’s irrelevant to the discussion.

This thread invites all Theistic based delusions, even though yours was the primary aim.

Quote:Once smax granted us the existence of Yahweh this debate was over.

Glad to see that my divine and final authority is recognized!

Bow now you wretch!

Quote:How do you know what other people really are thinking? How is that verifiable?

Actions.

Quote: When it's over, it's over.

Quote:Since you’ve claimed numerous times you only believe in that which is verifiable, how do you verify this claim? Or do you not actually believe it?

Never heard from or ever seen again anyone who's bit the dust.

Not a peep.

Same reason your living for now.

Quote:If people know that there is nothing after death then why would they need to “cover their basis” (it’s really bases, but I didn’t want to misquote you)?

You should stick with typos and spelling errors, because you suck at debating merits.

Once again you need the obvious to be stated and clarified.

Most people do not really believe in god, but they hope. Or, in many cases, they fear there may be a god.

So, just to satisfy the rather ridiculous and petty condition the Bible calls for, they say "Praise Jesus!".

They should say, "better safe than sorry!"

(May 2, 2013 at 4:53 pm)Joel Wrote: I could just as easily say, though:

P1. If Thor exists, Yahweh does not exist.
P2. Thor exists.
C. Therefore, Yahweh does not exist.

You believe that Thor exists? If not then we both agree your syllogism is unsound because Premise 2 is not true.

(May 2, 2013 at 5:44 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 2, 2013 at 4:53 pm)Joel Wrote: I could just as easily say, though:

P1. If Thor exists, Yahweh does not exist.
P2. Thor exists.
C. Therefore, Yahweh does not exist.

You believe that Thor exists? If not then we both agree your syllogism is unsound because Premise 2 is not true.

I don't believe your second premise was true.
Do you see how this works, yet?

Guys, I hate to break it to you, but SW is saying it true.
The thread starts with the premise that a god exists... not just any god, but the Abrahamic god, the one that is.
On that premise, god exists.

You can't then just call out any reasoning on your assumption that god doesn't exist.

Given that... please, just stop posting on this god-forsaken thread.

(May 2, 2013 at 5:41 pm)smax Wrote: The word "even" qualified my statement. And, if there was any doubt if the shoe fit, there is none now.

I realize you’re not very proficient with this English thing, but that’s not how the word “even” is used at all. It means level or equal to, a person with an above average IQ does not have an IQ equal to that of an average person.

Quote:Nice try, but there's a huge hole in your deductions:

This ought to be good.

Quote: Actually video footage (several actually) of Thor is available to anyone and everyone, and another is being made as we speak. He can be seen wielding his powers and inheriting the divine throne.

Deduction trumps induction (videos).

Quote: Since Yahweh cannot co-exist with another god, one can only conclude that Thor, who has actually been caught on tape demonstrating his power and existence, has stomped Yahweh into the divine mud, destroying him or rendering him powerless.

Something that does not exist cannot stomp Yahweh into mud, you’re awfully good at nonsensical hypotheticals aren’t you?

Quote: How is that consistent with the powers Yahweh is believed to have? Simple, he never had those powers. If "his work" has proven anything, it's that god tends to think he's much more powerful and effective than he actually is. His work sucks! How powerful could he really be.

Deduction (God has certain powers) trumps inductions (from what you see you do not think God has those powers).

Quote: At the end of the day, god is just another big shit talker. He says this and that, but when it comes time to back it up, he's either a no show or gets exposed for being overrated in the first place.

That’s funny; God’s existence makes it possible for you to make the statement above. You’re like the little child slapping her father in the face and thinking she is in charge all the while sitting on his lap and being held in his arms.

Quote:I am, when rationale is called for. You have yet to appeal to that side, I admit.

We both know that side of you does not exist, you evidence that fact quite often.

Quote:In completely and baseless theory, yes. In logic, hell no. Neither do you.

Sure I do.

Quote: But here's your big chance to prove otherwise. Explain how god "just is". And hey, just for the hell of it, try and make reasonable sense.

God’s being and existence are not contingent upon anything outside of Himself. That’s rather simple really. You’re the one who asked what caused a being that is by definition uncaused, what a silly question, “Who is married to that bachelor?” lol.

Quote:Fixed it for you.

Be careful…

Quote: Forum Rules

3.Quoting Others Accurately.
When using the quote function to quote other members, you may quote in whole or in part, but do not change the quoted text in any way. Breaking this rule will result in staff intervention. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the misquote(s), you may be warned or banned. Adding to the quoted text for clarification (ie. bolding, numbering, italics, etc.) is okay provided you indicate that the bolding and/or italics are yours and not the quoted member's and provided it doesn't change the meaning of the quoted text.

Quote:Actions.

How do you know their actions are necessarily consistent with what they are really thinking? How is that verifiable?

Quote:
Never heard from or ever seen again anyone who's bit the dust.

How does that prove that they have ceased to exist?

Quote:You should stick with typos and spelling errors, because you suck at debating merits.

Lord knows you give me a lot of material to correct.

Quote: Once again you need the obvious to be stated and clarified.

Once again you do not seem to realize that appealing to that which you think is obvious is logically fallacious. Perhaps you should stick with making typos and misspellings.

Quote: Most people do not really believe in god, but they hope. Or, in many cases, they fear there may be a god.

Again, that’s an assertion. How do you know what most people really believe? Have you witnessed the actions of most people?

Your actions actually indicate that you are the one who really believes that God exists.

(May 2, 2013 at 6:00 pm)Joel Wrote: I don't believe your second premise was true.

So?

Quote: Do you see how this works, yet?

I don’t think you see how it works, if all parties agree upon a premise being false in a discussion that premise does not need to be proven false, we both agree that Thor does not exist so your syllogism was unsound. All parties in this discussion however do not agree that Yahweh does not exist.

(May 2, 2013 at 6:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Guys, I hate to break it to you, but SW is saying it true.
The thread starts with the premise that a god exists... not just any god, but the Abrahamic god, the one that is.
On that premise, god exists.

You can't then just call out any reasoning on your assumption that god doesn't exist.

Given that... please, just stop posting on this god-forsaken thread.

I did not read that part.
My apologies, Statler.

---

Quote:I don’t think you see how it works, if all parties agree upon a premise being false in a discussion that premise does not need to be proven false, we both agree that Thor does not exist so your syllogism was unsound. All parties in this discussion however do not agree that Yahweh does not exist.

Indeed. I skipped parts of the thread, so I ended up talking out of my arse.

(May 2, 2013 at 6:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Guys, I hate to break it to you, but SW is saying it true.
The thread starts with the premise that a god exists... not just any god, but the Abrahamic god, the one that is.
On that premise, god exists.

You can't then just call out any reasoning on your assumption that god doesn't exist.

Given that... please, just stop posting on this god-forsaken thread.

Finally, someone else gets it. Thanks bud.

---

(May 2, 2013 at 6:15 pm)Joel Wrote: I did not read that part.
My apologies, Statler.

---

Do not apologize Joel! I realize it’s difficult to stay up to date on these long threads, but we were still having a good discussion. You’re a standup guy and I have a lot of respect for you.

Nietzsche is dead! The difference is Nietzsche knows it.

---

(May 2, 2013 at 5:41 pm)smax Wrote:

(May 2, 2013 at 4:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Easy.

P1. If Yahweh exists, Thor does not exist.
P2. Yahweh exists.
C. Therefore, Thor does not exist.

There’s a logical proof that Thor does not exist.

Nice try, but there's a huge hole in your deductions:

Who? Logic is a process.

It is lawful to kill Syrians.
Dawkins is a Syrian.
Therefore it is lawful to kill Dawkins.

Logic is ONLY a process. P1 and P2 must be demonstrably and observably correct before there are any "therefores."

(May 2, 2013 at 6:14 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I realize you’re not very proficient with this English thing,

Not a major by any stretch, but good enough to be sure.

Quote:but that’s not how the word “even” is used at all. It means level or equal to, a person with an above average IQ does not have an IQ equal to that of an average person.

You'd have a great point if it weren't for a litte thing people call "context". Look it up, review your analisys, tuck your tail between your legs. You know the routine.

Quote:Deduction trumps induction (videos).

Blah blah blah... you got nothing.

Quote:Something that does not exist cannot stomp Yahweh into mud, you’re awfully good at nonsensical hypotheticals aren’t you?

I've learned a thing or two from you.

Quote:Deduction (God has certain powers) trumps inductions (from what you see you do not think God has those powers).

God is supposed to be flawless, and yet almost everything that he allegedly created is flawed.

Something's gotta give. Not that you would notice.

Quote:That’s funny; God’s existence makes it possible for you to make the statement above.

Is that like self mutilation or something?

Quote:You’re like the little child slapping her father in the face and thinking she is in charge all the while sitting on his lap and being held in his arms.

Sounds like I need a whoopin. And yet I won't get one!

Quote:We both know that side of you does not exist, you evidence that fact quite often.

You just don't have the power to unlock it. For a wizard, you seem quite limited.

Quote:Sure I do.

God’s being and existence are not contingent upon anything outside of Himself. That’s rather simple really. You’re the one who asked what caused a being that is by definition uncaused, what a silly question, “Who is married to that bachelor?” lol.

I guess you missed the part where myself, and most other people on this forum, do not accept that premise.

If I make up a character, and I assign the attribute of unquestioned leader of all people, I suspect many will challenge that attribute, both in word and action.

Try again, and try hard this time. (I'm hoping that wasn't a hard try).

Quote:Be careful…

Quote:

3.Quoting Others Accurately.
When using the quote function to quote other members, you may quote in whole or in part, but do not change the quoted text in any way. Breaking this rule will result in staff intervention. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the misquote(s), you may be warned or banned. Adding to the quoted text for clarification (ie. bolding, numbering, italics, etc.) is okay provided you indicate that the bolding and/or italics are yours and not the quoted member's and provided it doesn't change the meaning of the quoted text.

Quote:Actions.

I assigned myself to the quote. Or, did you not notice that your name is not assigned to the quote in question?

And you claim an above average IQ. As far as I can see, your only real skills are:

Catching typos, questioning definitions ad infinitum, and having great, yet completely ineffective, debating stamina.

You my be beat to hell after 15 rounds, but you'll go the 15 and be ready for more of your own blood!

Quote:How do you know their actions are necessarily consistent with what they are really thinking? How is that verifiable?

Forest Gump said it best:

Quote:Studid is as stupid does

Quote:How does that prove that they have ceased to exist?

They either do or they don't, agreed?

So, with that, which way does the evidence point?

Quote:Once again you do not seem to realize that appealing to that which you think is obvious is logically fallacious. Perhaps you should stick with making typos and misspellings.

If you invent your own methods of interpretation and comminication, of course you are going to struggle to have fluid interaction with people.

I think you like it that way. I almost said I know.

Quote:Again, that’s an assertion. How do you know what most people really believe? Have you witnessed the actions of most people?

I've been around enough religion to see a lot. Most of the religious people I've been around are mostly irreverent. And, considering the "stakes", I'd say that action speaks loud and clear.

But tell yourself whatever you need to.

Quote:Your actions actually indicate that you are the one who really believes that God exists.

You mean like asking him to fix my head on backward. Yeah, that's really the kind of challenge a believer would issue to god!

Are you even trying?

Please say no!

---

(May 2, 2013 at 6:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Guys, I hate to break it to you, but SW is saying it true.
The thread starts with the premise that a god exists... not just any god, but the Abrahamic god, the one that is.
On that premise, god exists.

You can't then just call out any reasoning on your assumption that god doesn't exist.

Given that... please, just stop posting on this god-forsaken thread.

As I said in another thread, I'm new here. I don't know the people that well. But I get the feeling I've done something to offend you. If so, feel free to point it out and I'll address it.

That said, your analysis here is wrong. The question is rhetorical, and is meant to provoke thought.

You may have read bumper stickers that say:

Quote:"I forget, which day did God create all the fossils?"

Would it be your argument that the question itself accepts the existence of god, or are you capable of seeing the irony?

The same thing you seem so offended by in this thread was a trademark of the writings of Mark Twain, who used rhetoric and parody to great effect.

As an example, I offer this:

Quote:Satan hasn't a single salaried helper; the Opposition employ a million.

Might I be so bold as to assume that you and SW have some history here, and that maybe, just maybe, you feel he's gotten the better of you?

Just pure speculation on my part, but you seem quick to bite on his obviously selective logic here, almost as if seeking his approval.

Just an observation. More than willing to accept the possibility that I"m wrong.

(May 2, 2013 at 9:51 pm)smax Wrote:

(May 2, 2013 at 6:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Guys, I hate to break it to you, but SW is saying it true.
The thread starts with the premise that a god exists... not just any god, but the Abrahamic god, the one that is.
On that premise, god exists.

You can't then just call out any reasoning on your assumption that god doesn't exist.

Given that... please, just stop posting on this god-forsaken thread.

As I said in another thread, I'm new here. I don't know the people that well. But I get the feeling I've done something to offend you. If so, feel free to point it out and I'll address it.

Offend me? no, nothing of the sort... I just got tired of reading the same thing over and over again...

(May 2, 2013 at 9:51 pm)smax Wrote: That said, your analysis here is wrong. The question is rhetorical, and is meant to provoke thought.

Last I heard, rhetorical questions didn't get many replies.... this one got over 10 pages of them...
Most of them, theists say "you start off by claiming there is a god, but you then misrepresent the god"
And you reply something like "but there is no god!!!, can't you see it?!"

And then repeat... ad nauseum...

(May 2, 2013 at 9:51 pm)smax Wrote: You may have read bumper stickers that say:

Quote:"I forget, which day did God create all the fossils?"

Would it be your argument that the question itself accepts the existence of god, or are you capable of seeing the irony?

Aye, I see the irony.
The theists, on the other hand, can come up with convoluted ways to make it work.... I've heard of Jesus riding dinos, so there you have one option.

(May 2, 2013 at 9:51 pm)smax Wrote: Might I be so bold as to assume that you and SW have some history here, and that maybe, just maybe, you feel he's gotten the better of you?

Just pure speculation on my part, but you seem quick to bite on his obviously selective logic here, almost as if seeking his approval.

Just an observation. More than willing to accept the possibility that I"m wrong.

From where I stand, both you and SW are equally new here, to me, both are equally anonymous, except that you are here as an atheist, and he is here as a theist.

If there is one thing I've learned in this forum, it's that, if you use the supposition that their god exists, then you better be ready to follow through with their definition of the god, not yours... sometimes, the difference is subtle, but they'll latch on to that difference and keep banging you on the head with it.
Is it worth it?