(July 6, 2015 at 2:13 pm)Cato Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 1:04 pm)pool Wrote: X=5;
Y=X;
It is proven that X was not initially 5 but rather non-existent.
What is the value of Y now?

(I reduced my idea to something that is THAT SIMPLE.I can't make it anymore simple!)

Try this:

1. A theist is a person that believes in god.
2. The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury are people.
3. The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury believe in god.
4. The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury exist.
5. Theists exist.

Get it now?

Your logic is flawless.It is by no means flawed.

Try this:

1. Theism gave birth to Theists.
2. Theism is wrong.
3. Theists do not exist.

Bear with me,it is the same as:

1. A woman gave birth to a child in 1999.
2. I travel back to time in 1998 and kill the woman.
3. The child doesn't exist.

Also,I don't mean it in the literal sense when i say "exist" Cato.
I didn't mean that if theism is wrong the theists living around us would simply dissappear.(I apologize for my english.)
What i meant was that theists wouldn't really be theists if theism didn't exist.They'd be something else but definitely not theists.

(July 6, 2015 at 2:25 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: Stupid as he is he does raise some interesting philosophical questions. These questions though, difficult as they are at first sight, they can and were resolved already by proeminent philosophers. I would suggest that pool studied philosophy of language first and foremost. That is, if he is not too lazy to do so.

The guy doesn't even understand simple concepts, I don't think moving on to prominent philosophers is going to help.

(July 6, 2015 at 2:28 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: The guy doesn't even understand simple concepts, I don't think moving on to prominent philosophers is going to help.

If we could  make this guy see reason though, just imagine the possibilities. We would have the atheist's stone(otherwise called the elixir of rationality) at our fingertips.  

(July 6, 2015 at 2:27 pm)pool Wrote: What i meant was that theists wouldn't really be theists if theism didn't exist.They'd be something else but definitely not theists.

But theism and theists do exist, as I have demonstrated. Wishing otherwise doesn't make this any less of a fact.

Conclusions deduced from conditional premises (if I had a time machine or if theists didn't exist) are worthless musings when the conditional premises are known to be untrue.

(July 6, 2015 at 2:15 pm)pool Wrote: According to Your logic.Not my logic.
It's okay,it happens.

There is no such thing as "Your logic or my logic". There is only logic.


Logic is a formal method of evaluating the validity and soundness of an argument.

(July 6, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 2:15 pm)pool Wrote: According to Your logic.Not my logic.
It's okay,it happens.

There is no such thing as "Your logic or my logic". There is only logic.


Logic is a formal method of evaluating the validity and soundness of an argument.

But when i am coding i can arrive at the result using my logic and another person can arrive at the same result using their logic.

---

(July 6, 2015 at 2:42 pm)Cato Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 2:27 pm)pool Wrote: What i meant was that theists wouldn't really be theists if theism didn't exist.They'd be something else but definitely not theists.

But theism and theists do exist, as I have demonstrated. Wishing otherwise doesn't make this any less of a fact.

Conclusions deduced from conditional premises (if I had a time machine or if theists didn't exist) are worthless musings when the conditional premises are known to be untrue.

But Theism is like a huge building built up without the base.
Why is it wrong for me to consider it as non-existent?

(July 6, 2015 at 2:27 pm)pool Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 2:13 pm)Cato Wrote: Try this:

1. A theist is a person that believes in god.
2. The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury are people.
3. The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury believe in god.
4. The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury exist.
5. Theists exist.

Get it now?

Your logic is flawless.It is by no means flawed.

Try this:

1. Theism gave birth to Theists.
2. Theism is wrong.
3. Theists do not exist.

Bear with me,it is the same as:

1. A woman gave birth to a child in 1999.
2. I travel back to time in 1998 and kill the woman.
3. The child doesn't exist.

Also,I don't mean it in the literal sense when i say "exist" Cato.
I didn't mean that if theism is wrong the theists living around us would simply dissappear.(I apologize for my english.)
What i meant was that theists wouldn't really be theists if theism didn't exist.They'd be something else but definitely not theists.

1. Theism gave birth to Theists.- No, theism is just a label we put on people who believe in gods, its not an entity that started birthing people.
2. Theism is wrong.- Have you reviewed all versions of gods and disproven every single one?
3. Theists do not exist.- Yes people who believe in god exist

1. A woman gave birth to a child in 1999.
2. I travel back to time in 1998 and kill the woman.- This is not real life, it's the plot from terminator.
3. The child doesn't exist.

{Bold mine}

(July 6, 2015 at 2:51 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 2:27 pm)pool Wrote: Your logic is flawless.It is by no means flawed.

Try this:

1. Theism gave birth to Theists.
2. Theism is wrong.
3. Theists do not exist.

Bear with me,it is the same as:

1. A woman gave birth to a child in 1999.
2. I travel back to time in 1998 and kill the woman.
3. The child doesn't exist.

Also,I don't mean it in the literal sense when i say "exist" Cato.
I didn't mean that if theism is wrong the theists living around us would simply dissappear.(I apologize for my english.)
What i meant was that theists wouldn't really be theists if theism didn't exist.They'd be something else but definitely not theists.

1. Theism gave birth to Theists.- No, theism is just a label we put on people who believe in gods, its not an entity that started birthing people.
2. Theism is wrong.- Have you reviewed all versions of gods and disproven every single one?
3. Theists do not exist.- Yes people who believe in god exist

1. A woman gave birth to a child in 1999.
2. I travel back to time in 1998 and kill the woman.- This is not real life, it's the plot from terminator.
3. The child doesn't exist.

{Bold mine}

1. Theism gave birth to Theists.- No, theism is just a label we put on people who believe in gods, its not an entity that started birthing people. We don't put the label "theism" on people,we put the label "theists" on people.(I meant this as an analogy - sorry for not pointing it out.)
2. Theism is wrong.- Have you reviewed all versions of gods and disproven every single one? Has any of the religion following these hundreds of gods provided with any consistent definition of a god?
3. Theists do not exist.- Yes people who believe in god exist And yet nobody knows what god is.How can they believe in god when they don't even know what god is?They only think they believe in god,they don't.So real theists do not exists,theists that "think" they follow theism only exist.

1. A woman gave birth to a child in 1999.
2. I travel back to time in 1998 and kill the woman.- This is not real life, it's the plot from terminator. My aim was to demonstrate a concept.Not to prove time travel.
3. The child doesn't exist.

(July 6, 2015 at 2:48 pm)pool Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: There is no such thing as "Your logic or my logic". There is only logic.


Logic is a formal method of evaluating the validity and soundness of an argument.

But when i am coding i can arrive at the result using my logic and another person can arrive at the same result using their logic.

Coding is not the same as formal logic, as applied to arguments and existentialist claims. 

---

Quote:But Theism is like a huge building built up without the base.
Why is it wrong for me to consider it as non-existent?

Because if is provable that theism does exist.

Do you know the definition of 'theism'?

Here it is: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures

Are there not people that believe in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures?

(July 6, 2015 at 3:01 pm)pool Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 2:51 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: 1. Theism gave birth to Theists.- No, theism is just a label we put on people who believe in gods, its not an entity that started birthing people.
2. Theism is wrong.- Have you reviewed all versions of gods and disproven every single one?
3. Theists do not exist.- Yes people who believe in god exist

1. A woman gave birth to a child in 1999.
2. I travel back to time in 1998 and kill the woman.- This is not real life, it's the plot from terminator.
3. The child doesn't exist.

{Bold mine}

1. Theism gave birth to Theists.- No, theism is just a label we put on people who believe in gods, its not an entity that started birthing people. We don't put the label "theism" on people,we put the label "theists" on people.(I meant this as an analogy - sorry for not pointing it out.)
2. Theism is wrong.- Have you reviewed all versions of gods and disproven every single one? Has any of the religion following these hundreds of gods provided with any consistent definition of a god?
3. Theists do not exist.- Yes people who believe in god exist And yet nobody knows what god is.How can they believe in god when they don't even know what god is?They only think they believe in god,they don't.So real theists do not exists,theists that "think" they follow theism only exist.

1. A woman gave birth to a child in 1999.
2. I travel back to time in 1998 and kill the woman.- This is not real life, it's the plot from terminator. My aim was to demonstrate a concept.Not to prove time travel.
3. The child doesn't exist.

Yes religions have provided definitions of god, it doesn't have to be consistent with other religions because they believe in different gods. Also their are probably as many versions of god as there are minds so unless you have conclusively proved each one wrong, you can not say that god does not exist. Whether or not you agree with the definition is irrelevant to the validity of the belief held by the person, you can not tell someone what to believe.

I realize you weren't trying to prove time travel, but I don't know what your example is supposed to show?