Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yea, internally consistent bad arguments are still bad arguments.
I'm wondering if someone has a rational proof for god's existence, and no-one does. Not in this thread.
The point is that the arguments are not internally inconsistent, which is why they are valid, oh he who doesn't understand logic. Like I said, if I am wrong feel free to prove it by citing the rules of logic that prove me wrong. Since this particular thread is bout logical proofs of the existence of god, and the arguments are internally consistent, you are left in the untenable position of claiming that a valid argument is invalid. If you actually understood logic you wouldn't make that claim.
Would you like me to explain how you can actually refute those arguments, or would the fact that I know something you don't destroy your universe?
Yes, the premise has to be true for the argument to be valid.
The premise can be false and the logic valid, but not the argument. The argument cannot be valid if its premises are false.
Nothing is a concept because it's not proven to exist, physically. I'll defer to physicists on that one, not a fuckin windbag.
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.
No shit, sherlock.
Are you retarded.Yes, the premise has to be true for the argument to be valid.
The premise can be false and the logic valid, but not the argument. The argument cannot be valid if its premises are false.
Nothing is a concept because it's not proven to exist, physically. I'll defer to physicists on that one, not a fuckin windbag.
Since you refuse to even attempt to back up your argument by citing the rules of logic that show you are right I will cite them to prove you are wrong.
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
Funny, nothing in there about the premises having to be true.
Now, just to show you how nice I can be to idiots, I will use the same cite I just used to explain the argument you should be using.
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.
Validity and Soundness Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
In other words, there are tow conditions that need to be met for an argument to be true. It has to be valid, and sound. It is possible for an argument to be valid, but unsound, AKA, not true.
I told you I knew how to refute arguments based on the fact that a premise is false, didn't I? You should have taken advantage of my offer to show you instead of repeating your display of ignorance.
As for nothing, that would depend on how you define it, not your insistence that it has not been proven to exist. The simple fact is that if nothing did not exist we would not need the number zero to work mathematical calculations of the universe. I know that is probably something that you don't understand given humans innate abhorrence for the very thought of there being nothing, but that does not mean it does not exist.
Yea, - I think you need to umm.....study harder.
The bolded should advise you why.
It probably won't, you're a windbag. A blow hard. We know. It's ok.
Also, to refute "those arguments," you'll have to point me to which the fuck arguments you're talking about, jackass.
No, it's just a throwing the hands up in the air because you're a hopeless fucking moron. That's what that was.No shit, sherlock.
Wow, an admission you are wrong, amazing.
Your link said exactly what my post said, just in different terms.Yea, - I think you need to umm.....study harder.
The bolded should advise you why.
It probably won't, you're a windbag. A blow hard. We know. It's ok.
Also, to refute "those arguments," you'll have to point me to which the fuck arguments you're talking about, jackass.
Think away.
Unlike you, I actually provided a scholarly link to explain why I am right, all you can to is think you are right. Somehow, that doesn't impress me.
But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing. .
"Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
This fails because A is not yet proven.
I think what you are missing is that A does not need to be proven. It needs to be accepted as a given. That is why it is being called axiomatic. We are to accept it as self-evident because it is being presented by (how was that put now? oh yes) our betters. The very fact that we don't accept it is proof we just aren't very bright.
Are you retarded.
This is from my post:
"The premise can be false and the logic valid,"
God damn shut the fuck up. seven million god damns, shut the fuck up.
You're such a whiney priss over literal fucking minutia. Try saying something for once.
Your link said exactly what my post said, just in different terms.
The bolded parts of your post that I bolded are the exact OPPOSITE of what you linked, numb nuts.
Are you retarded.
This is from my post:
"The premise can be false and the logic valid,"
God damn shut the fuck up. seven million god damns, shut the fuck up.
You're such a whiney priss over literal fucking minutia. Try saying something for once.
Yet you insisted that the argument ws not valid because the premise, according to you, was false. When I pointed out that that statement was wrong, you insisted I did not know what I was talking about, and should go back to school. Now you are claiming that you agreed with me all along.
Can I ask you something? If you knew I was right why were you arguing I was wrong?
You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing. .
"Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
This fails because A is not yet proven.
I think what you are missing is that A does not need to be proven. It needs to be accepted as a given. That is why it is being called axiomatic. We are to accept it as self-evident because it is being presented by (how was that put now? oh yes) our betters. The very fact that we don't accept it is proof we just aren't very bright.
And of course you foolishly wrote this before I showed that G.T. was bloviating about something that had nothing to do with what I said, isn't that right Mr. I-won't-acknowledge-my-error-regarding-the-full-connotations-of-the-concept-of-objectivity-because-I'm-a-dishonest-litte-shit. It's axiomatic that YOU can't explain HOW something could come from nothing. Period. End of thought. What logically follows from that utterly destroys the crap you've been bloviating all over this thread.
That's what you're avoiding. That's what all these angels dancing on your pinhead are all about. I'm looking right through you.
OP said:Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
link? ^
God's existence in the minds and hearts of the vast majority of human beings on this planet is undeniable.
Therefore, God exists, even if only as an inspiration...
Can I ask you something?
Can you prove the existence of god?
If not, hop up off of my nuts.
Right, so instead (and even though you knew the intent of the thread) of actually proving the existence of god, you're using semantics like an asshole.Can I ask you something?
Can you prove the existence of god?
If not, hop up off of my nuts.
If I use logic I can prove the existence of anything you can think of.
Do they? Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
1. That something comes from nothing?
2. Or that something comes from something?
Do they? Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
1. That something comes from nothing?
2. Or that something comes from something?
Precisely. These are the angels dancing on their pinheads as if they were telling us something--or is it nothing?--we don't grasp.
Obviously, the way in which I expressed the thought (" . . . can't explain how . . . ") demonstrates that I'm well aware of the concept of nothing and of both the philosophical and scientific ramifications. Zoom! Right over their heads.
At a glance we grasp what they seem to think is so important. What we have here are people making baby talk about the obvious as if it were profound. In the meantime, we have these same people bloviating that the existence of the universe, which presumably is something as opposed to nothing, is not evidence for of an eternally existent, uncaused cause, a necessary conclusion if we are to grant any credence to human logic and do anything practical in philosophy or science.
