RE: How can you be an atheist?!
September 25, 2011 at 1:14 am
(This post was last modified: September 25, 2011 at 1:15 am by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
(September 24, 2011 at 9:53 pm)IATIA Wrote:(September 24, 2011 at 8:32 am)Happy Forever Wrote: How can you deny The Creator and you yourself is a clear evidence of His omnipotence, omnicience and greatness?
Because it is scientifically and logically impossible for a god to exist!
Let's not get carried away with hyperbole old thing. You have just made two positive claims and attracted the burden of proof. IE you have given your self the obligation to prove your claims. Lots of luck;I'm pretty sure both claims are untrue:
Science does not deal in certainties,and as far as I know has not yet managed to falsify the existence of gods.
Logical does not mean true in principle.
ANY proposition is logically possible.
All arguments in formal logic begin with "IF A ---". For the sake of argument the premise is presumed to be true. Hence a logical inference (conclusion) may be valid but untrue. Perhaps the most common example in daily life is the syllogism.
An agnostic atheist, I make no clams, asserting only "I do not believe in gods due to lack of credible evidence". I need prove or disprove nothing. That honour belongs to those making the claims, pro or contra.
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
The full article is worth reading
Quote:A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός – syllogismos – "conclusion," "inference") or logical appeal is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form, i.e. categorical proposition.
Quote:Basic structure
A categorical syllogism consists of three parts: the major premise, the minor premise and the conclusion.
Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical proposition contains two categorical terms.[2] In Aristotle, each of the premises is in the form "All A are B," "Some A are B", "No A are B" or "Some A are not B", where "A" is one term and "B" is another. "All A are B," and "No A are B" are termed universal propositions; "Some A are B" and "Some A are not B" are termed particular propositions. More modern logicians allow some variation. Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion: in a major premise, this is the major term (i.e., the predicate of the conclusion); in a minor premise, it is the minor term (the subject) of the conclusion. For example:
Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: All Greeks are men.
Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.
Each of the three distinct terms represents a category. In the above example, "men," "mortal," and "Greeks." "Mortal" is the major term; "Greeks", the minor term. The premises also have one term in common with each other, which is known as the middle term; in this example, "man." Both of the premises are universal, as is the conclusion.
Major premise: All mortals die.
Minor premise: Some men are mortals.
Conclusion: Some men die.
Here, the major term is "die", the minor term is "men," and the middle term is "mortals". The major premise is universal; the minor premise and the conclusion are particular.
A sorites is a form of argument in which a series of incomplete syllogisms is so arranged that the predicate of each premise forms the subject of the next until the subject of the first is joined with the predicate of the last in the conclusion. For example, if one argues that a given number of grains of sand does not make a heap and that an additional grain does not either, then to conclude that no additional amount of sand will make a heap is to construct a sorites argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism