(July 6, 2015 at 3:02 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

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

That definition of theism only covers the characteristics of a non-religious god because theism itself is not religion.This definition falls apart because it cannot define all the religious gods.And religion is a subset of theism.

(July 6, 2015 at 3:12 pm)pool Wrote: That definition of theism only covers the characteristics of a non-religious god because theism itself is not religion.This definition falls apart because it cannot define all the religious gods.

Whaaaaa...?

Listen, you're perfectly welcome to have your own idiosyncratic definitions of things.  Just don't expect other people to use them, or understand them, or understand why you're using them, or argue about them, or have infinite patience when it comes to parsing them.

(July 6, 2015 at 3:12 pm)pool Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 3:02 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Coding is not the same as formal logic, as applied to arguments and existentialist claims. 

---

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?

That definition of theism only covers the characteristics of a non-religious god because theism itself is not religion.This definition falls apart because it cannot define all the religious gods.And religion is a subset of theism.

There is no necessity to define all gods in order to understand that people with specified god beliefs fall under the heading of 'theist'.

Theism is a huge category, under which, the belief in many gods fall.

(July 6, 2015 at 3:17 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 3:12 pm)pool Wrote: That definition of theism only covers the characteristics of a non-religious god because theism itself is not religion.This definition falls apart because it cannot define all the religious gods.And religion is a subset of theism.

There is no necessity to define all gods in order to understand that people with specified god beliefs fall under the heading of 'theist'.

Theism is a huge category, under which, the belief in many gods fall.

But if a set X is supposed to have only natural numbers and if a non-natural number belongs to X,that is,is an element of X.
Doesn't that mean that the definition of X is wrong?

Why do you imply that all the elements doesn't have to be natural numbers and the description of the set X as the set that consists of natural numbers would still hold in the event that an element x of X is identified as not a natural number?

(July 6, 2015 at 3:22 pm)pool Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 3:17 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: There is no necessity to define all gods in order to understand that people with specified god beliefs fall under the heading of 'theist'.

Theism is a huge category, under which, the belief in many gods fall.

But if a set X is supposed to have only natural numbers and if a non-natural number belongs to X,that is,is an element of X.
Doesn't that mean that the definition of X is wrong?

Why do you imply that all the elements doesn't have to be natural numbers and the description of the set X as the set that consists of natural numbers would still hold in the event that a element x of X is identified as not a natural number?

Your arguments are nonsense.   You attempt metaphors that are clearly inapt.

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

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

THAT'S THEIR FUCKING PROBLEM, NOT OURS!!!

Do you get it now? Have I emphasised it enough for you?

(July 6, 2015 at 2:48 pm)pool Wrote: 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 it exists, demonstrably so.






Theism exists regardless of the validity of theistic claims.

(July 6, 2015 at 3:22 pm)pool Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 3:17 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: There is no necessity to define all gods in order to understand that people with specified god beliefs fall under the heading of 'theist'.

Theism is a huge category, under which, the belief in many gods fall.

But if a set X is supposed to have only natural numbers and if a non-natural number belongs to X,that is,is an element of X.
Doesn't that mean that the definition of X is wrong?

Why do you imply that all the elements doesn't have to be natural numbers and the description of the set X as the set that consists of natural numbers would still hold in the event that a element x of X is identified as not a natural number?

This is mental masturbation. In real science the best way we have to obtain knowledge, is not through thought exercises, but taking an idea, collecting data, basing that method on prior established method, setting up control groups and testing and falsifying it, then handing your findings over to peers to see if they come up with the same conclusions.

No credible scientist I would call credible will ever or should ever claim to know everything. But we do not lose anything by giving up on bad claims. We actually retard progress by clinging to the past. Science as a method isn't out to prop up personal bias. It is a tool you use and when used properly, you go where the evidence leads, not where you want it to go.

It makes much more sense from what I know about evolution, and human history and our species notoriously flawed perceptions, that humans merely make up god claims.

(July 6, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 3:01 pm)pool Wrote: And yet nobody knows what god is.How can they believe in god when they don't even know what god is?

THAT'S THEIR FUCKING PROBLEM, NOT OURS!!!

Do you get it now? Have I emphasised it enough for you?

Of course its their problem.I agree.
But eventually it becomes your problem too.
Because if theism is senseless then atheism is also senseless because atheism's existence relies on the claim made by theism that god exists and yet nobody knows what god is.How can they believe in god when they don't even know what god is?

Its like an infinitely long snake that is swallowing its own tail.

I don't care how they choose to define what they call their god. It has no bearing on me whatsoever.