My proofs for Islam

[LadyForCamus]

We'll talk tomorrow. Good night!

I think that is a threat, LfC.  Perhaps you should call the police?

“Hello officer.  There’s this guy...he won’t stop talking about perception!  Oh, the humanity!”  

[The Grand Nudger]

Anyways, we've discussed this argument endlessly.  It's been clarified and can be summarized in two premises:

If God doesn't exist or see us exactly as we are, we are an illusion.
We aren't an illusion.

A few additional thoughts. I think there might be some equivocating going on here with the use of the word “illusion”; not that fixing the problem is going to save your argument from its larger flaws, but I think it’s worth noting.

In the first premise you seem to be insinuating that if a god doesn’t exist, then this notion of a perfect, objective self would be illusory to us. But, in the second premise (we are not an illusion) you seem to be talking about our very existence as beings not being an illusion; as in, ‘we do in fact exist, therefore we are not an illusion.’  Almost everyone here disputes the former, but I can’t imagine very many people disagreeing with the latter. That can appear sneaky. You have to be clear about what you mean when you choose words to use in an argument, because things like this can come across as dishonest.

The argument, clearly articulated in the most generous possible light...is "if God doesn't exist, we don't exist.  We do exist, therefore god."

[Mystic]

Anyways, we've discussed this argument endlessly.  It's been clarified and can be summarized in two premises:

If God doesn't exist or see us exactly as we are, we are an illusion.
We aren't an illusion.

A few additional thoughts. I think there might be some equivocating going on here with the use of the word “illusion”; not that fixing the problem is going to save your argument from its larger flaws, but I think it’s worth noting.

In the first premise you seem to be insinuating that if a god doesn’t exist, then this notion of a perfect, objective self would be illusory to us. But, in the second premise (we are not an illusion) you seem to be talking about our very existence as beings not being an illusion; as in, ‘we do in fact exist, therefore we are not an illusion.’  Almost everyone here disputes the former, but I can’t imagine very many people disagreeing with the latter. That can appear sneaky. You have to be clear about what you mean when you choose words to use in an argument, because things like this can come across as dishonest.

What is meant in the 2nd premise has to be exactly what is meant in the first premise by illusion or else the argument is non-sequitur.  Of course, I've elaborated this argument in detail in the past, and so I just wanted to summarize it to show it is a valid argument. The two premises have been discussed many times.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a non sequitur even if you maintained consistency between the two, lol.

[Mystic]

It's a non sequitur even if you maintained consistency between the two, lol.

bro, do you sleep? Do you go off the forums ever? It's Sunday, you got to sleep in bro.

[TwoKnives99]

A few additional thoughts. I think there might be some equivocating going on here with the use of the word “illusion”; not that fixing the problem is going to save your argument from its larger flaws, but I think it’s worth noting.

In the first premise you seem to be insinuating that if a god doesn’t exist, then this notion of a perfect, objective self would be illusory to us. But, in the second premise (we are not an illusion) you seem to be talking about our very existence as beings not being an illusion; as in, ‘we do in fact exist, therefore we are not an illusion.’  Almost everyone here disputes the former, but I can’t imagine very many people disagreeing with the latter. That can appear sneaky. You have to be clear about what you mean when you choose words to use in an argument, because things like this can come across as dishonest.

What is meant in the 2nd premise has to be exactly what is meant in the first premise by illusion or else the argument is non-sequitur.  Of course, I've elaborated this argument in detail in the past, and so I just wanted to summarize it to show it is a valid argument. The two premises have been discussed many times.

As Gae Bolga said, what you are saying is, essentially:

if God doesn't exist, we don't exist.  We do exist, therefore god. 
Let me ask you this, Why does our existence necessitate the existence of God, in your belief?

[Mystic]

What is meant in the 2nd premise has to be exactly what is meant in the first premise by illusion or else the argument is non-sequitur.  Of course, I've elaborated this argument in detail in the past, and so I just wanted to summarize it to show it is a valid argument. The two premises have been discussed many times.

As Gae Bolga said, what you are saying is, essentially:

if God doesn't exist, we don't exist.  We do exist, therefore god. 
Let me ask you this, Why does our existence necessitate the existence of God, in your belief?

Absolute perception is the only thing that can see our true accurate reality and if we don't have that, we have nothing to work with to estimate or come near to in accuracy in valuing, and I will elaborate this more as I go through other arguments for God.  I don't agree with how Gae Bolga summarized my argument though.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a non sequitur even if you maintained consistency between the two, lol.

bro, do you sleep? Do you go off the forums ever? It's Sunday, you got to sleep in bro.

Unfortunately, no...you see...a bunch of nutjobs used to go boom and make things go boom in my general vicinity with some regularity.  Makes it difficult to keep ones eyes closed for any length of time, lol.

All on the instruction of the moongod and their witchdoctors, ofc.  

Meanwhile, your argument remains a nonseq.

---

Absolute perception is the only thing that can see our true accurate reality and if we don't have that, we have nothing to work with to estimate or come near to in accuracy in valuing,

Then we have nothing to work with to estimate or come near to accuracy in valuing.  So what?   

There's your trouble.  You invoke the possibility, which is itself a thoroughly false claim..but then cannot find a way to rule it out in any case (a stunning failure seeing as how it's false on it's face, huh?..lol), and it's truth or falsehood won't lead to moongods regardless.

I could even more accurately express your argument if I wasn't being generous..as I was before. "I can't find a way around this terrible thing I wish weren't true. Therefore gods". While you may reject this summary, you're in good company in thinking this way. Many of the things people believe about gods boils down to a bandaid for their fears. This much, at least, is common and thoroughly normal. It's understandable, even...and I find myself very sympathetic even though the entire process is a-rational and silly.

[Mystic]

What's the implicit premise? In Logic and Philosophy, they teach to look for implicit premises, because human communication and language is not how logicians speak.

[GrandizerII]

It's a non sequitur even if you maintained consistency between the two, lol.

bro, do you sleep? Do you go off the forums ever? It's Sunday, you got to sleep in bro.

Sleep? What's that?