Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 10:14 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Proof A=A
#41
RE: Proof A=A
(February 28, 2010 at 4:34 pm)Watson Wrote: WC, what Christian God are you talking about? The one I'm acquainted with is in no way vague or lacking in attributes which can be defined. In fact, there are such simple ways of defining him I find it amusing you call any possible God 'complex', bbecause in reality, God is very simple.
Once again, simple or complex, it all depends upon your definition of said God concept.


(February 28, 2010 at 4:42 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: @ cake: The ontology is certainly not contradictory - you gave an example and I linked you to explanations of why that was not so. Now you're repeating the accusation. Again with the blind assertions.
For the last time, I'm responding to your claim about logic. Yes you provided me with a link and the findings of the thread's arguments from every premise resulted in a paradox, congratulations.


Quote:I see no evidence for. Do you? Please avail us all of your unique revelation or STFU
No what you said was we require supernatural methods of detection for finding god, therefore we cannot know. You've identified your "theory for god", then demonstrated that it makes no predictions, or that the predictions it does make cannot ever be wrong, even if the theory is false. That is an outlandish assertion, and if you don't mind me saying, a rather arrogant claim that tells us an awful lot about your position.

I am bored and tired so I'll ask you one last time, how do you know logic cannot refute logically impossible concepts insupportable by evidence, (not logically unknowable or improbable) such as god?
Reply
#42
RE: Proof A=A
But the difference is, that the idea of God being simple is based upon an observation of God in reality, not upon a concept within the mind.
Reply
#43
RE: Proof A=A
(February 28, 2010 at 5:25 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: For the last time, I'm responding to your claim about logic. Yes you provided me with a link and the findings of the thread's arguments from every premise resulted in a paradox, congratulations.

If you read the link you'd see how it proved the fallacy you're making.

(February 28, 2010 at 5:25 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: No what you said was we require supernatural methods of detection for finding god, therefore we cannot know. You've identified your "theory for god", then demonstrated that it makes no predictions, or that the predictions it does make cannot ever be wrong, even if the theory is false. That is an outlandish assertion, and if you don't mind me saying, a rather arrogant claim that tells us an awful lot about your position.

I am bored and tired so I'll ask you one last time, how do you know logic cannot refute logically impossible concepts insupportable by evidence, (not logically unknowable or improbable) such as god?

What I gave was an explanation to your previous question of why you can't prove or disprove god. See that link again to see the preposterous nature of your question.

All the time you're asking me to give YOU evidence of why this unsupportable claim of yours cannot be. How about just once you produce the goods?
Reply
#44
RE: Proof A=A
Welsh Cake Wrote:I am bored and tired so I'll ask you one last time, how do you know logic cannot refute logically impossible concepts insupportable by evidence, (not logically unknowable or improbable) such as god?

You asked a question that contradicts itself... and you expect an answer to it?

Watson Wrote:But the difference is, that the idea of God being simple is based upon an observation of God in reality, not upon a concept within the mind.

What observation of "God" have you made in 'reality'? If "God" was a part of 'observable reality' then we would have scientific evidence for 'his?' existence.

Also... if you can think about "God" then 'he?' is a concept ('within the mind' seems redundant much?).
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#45
RE: Proof A=A
(February 28, 2010 at 5:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If you read the link you'd see how it proved the fallacy you're making.
Then explain the Christian doctrine of the Trinity that teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead, and yet God is still God, the ONE true God and there is no other like him?

God is male, a father, yet is also spiritual?

You're looking in the wrong places for logical fallacies mate. Simply pointing out God as an impossible concept isn't a fallacy by its own merit.


Quote:What I gave was an explanation to your previous question of why you can't prove or disprove god. See that link again to see the preposterous nature of your question.
So it all boils down to you thinking that the concept of the Christian God is a logically unknowable entity rather than opposed to being a logically impossible entity, am I right? Some clarification is all I ask.


(March 1, 2010 at 4:27 am)Saerules Wrote: You asked a question that contradicts itself... and you expect an answer to it?
Crossing out half of someone else's response usually tends to have that effect.
Reply
#46
RE: Proof A=A
Welsh Cake Wrote:Crossing out half of someone else's response usually tends to have that effect.

Not when the half crossed out is grammatically irrelevant to your question.

Example: Was the blue candy you ate the other day delicious?
Was the blue candy you ate the other day delicious?
Was the candy delicious?

^ Was exactly what i did. If you didn't mean to ask the following, then perhaps you should rephrase it?

Welsh cake fixed so it can be understood with ease Wrote:how do you know logic cannot refute logically impossible concepts such as god?

(I could have also crossed out the 'such as god', as it is utterly irrelevant to the question of "How do you know logic cannot refute logically impossible concepts?"... but I felt it could be easily enough understood.)

My question, now that you understand where it is coming from... is why did you even ask that question? If logic cannot refute logically impossible concepts (Read: concepts logic has already refuted)... then the concepts weren't logically impossible to begin with. If logic can (which if you are already considering logically impossible concepts it must be true that it does)... then your entire question was rhetorical and pointless.

Hence I asked:

Saerules Wrote:You asked a question that contradicts itself... and you expect an answer to it?

As far as the rest of your sentence was concerned (those being:
WC Wrote:I am bored and tired so I'll ask you one last time,
^Unnecessary, and
WC Wrote:insupportable by evidence, (not logically unknowable or improbable)
^Unrelated to what logic can refute, thus irrelevant to the question.)

It was completely unnecessary and if you were trying to make a further point with those words, please do rephrase them into something that we can actually answer. Smile
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#47
RE: Proof A=A
(March 2, 2010 at 4:22 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Then explain the Christian doctrine of the Trinity that teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead, and yet God is still God, the ONE true God and there is no other like him?

God is male, a father, yet is also spiritual?

You're looking in the wrong places for logical fallacies mate. Simply pointing out God as an impossible concept isn't a fallacy by its own merit.

This seems to be another diversion. The trinity is something that needs to be taken on faith, as it isn't explainable through logic. God is also a woman - the creator.

(March 2, 2010 at 4:22 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: So it all boils down to you thinking that the concept of the Christian God is a logically unknowable entity rather than opposed to being a logically impossible entity, am I right? Some clarification is all I ask.

An answer at all is all I ask Dead Horse

God isn't logically impossible, or we'd be able to dismiss God like you do. We cannot know for sure if God is. We cannot know everything about him. That isn't to say he is completely unknowable. Assuming 'God' we can logically deduce outcomes. That's what the bible is, and that's what lived Christianity is.
Reply
#48
RE: Proof A=A
fr0d0, I've been meaning to ask you a question for a while.

How can you make the claim that we cannot, in time, prove or disprove God's existence through scientific means?

It seems like an argument from ignorance.
Reply
#49
RE: Proof A=A
(March 2, 2010 at 10:53 pm)tavarish Wrote: fr0d0, I've been meaning to ask you a question for a while.

How can you make the claim that we cannot, in time, prove or disprove God's existence through scientific means?

It seems like an argument from ignorance.
It's not an argument from ignorance at all. Science only covers the empirical realm; it can (and never will) have anything to say about the supernatural, given that the supernatural doesn't follow natural laws, and therefore cannot be reasonably tested or even observed.

What scientific experiment would prove or disprove God's existent anyway?
Reply
#50
RE: Proof A=A
(March 3, 2010 at 4:48 am)Tiberius Wrote:
(March 2, 2010 at 10:53 pm)tavarish Wrote: fr0d0, I've been meaning to ask you a question for a while.

How can you make the claim that we cannot, in time, prove or disprove God's existence through scientific means?

It seems like an argument from ignorance.
It's not an argument from ignorance at all. Science only covers the empirical realm; it can (and never will) have anything to say about the supernatural, given that the supernatural doesn't follow natural laws, and therefore cannot be reasonably tested or even observed.

What scientific experiment would prove or disprove God's existent anyway?

Sure it is. Science, at the present moment, cannot prove or disprove God, but what guarantee is that of any future developments or experiments? A hundred years ago, we did not understand DNA, but now we fully utilize it. The same for flight. Why not a more detailed explanation that can encompass and prove or disprove a creator? The sheer fact that fr0d0 says it cannot be disproven using scientific means is assigning properties to this entity. How can we know that one day these properties cannot be tested?

It seems like it's an argument that says "Because I can't see a way in which this will be possible, it will never be possible", which is an argument from ignorance.
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)