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.
MDR, I just figured out what the problem is. None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
MDR, I just figured out what the problem is. None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion. The conclusion is true if the two statements are true. That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true. This is a syllogistic argument:
All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
My dog is a human being.
Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
This is pretty much the argument being presented. What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true. I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient. Garbage in.... garbage out.
not empirically in the sense you suggest, but you can try to prove it
let's see you replicate it from the 'beginning'
Of course it is."Agnosticism is the only rational disposition within current human knowledge" is merely an opinion.
MDR, I just figured out what the problem is. None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion. The conclusion is true if the two statements are true. That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true. This is a syllogistic argument:
All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
My dog is a human being.
Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
This is pretty much the argument being presented. What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true. I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient. Garbage in.... garbage out.
Implication in detail
Clearly you can build a valid argument from true premises, and arrive at a true conclusion. You can also build a valid argument from false premises, and arrive at a false conclusion.
The tricky part is that you can start with false premises, proceed via valid inference, and reach a true conclusion. For example:
Premise: All fish live in the ocean
Premise: Sea otters are fish
Conclusion: Therefore sea otters live in the ocean
There's one thing you can't do, though: start from true premises, proceed via valid deductive inference, and reach a false conclusion.
We can summarize these results as a "truth table" for implication. The symbol "=>" denotes implication; "A" is the premise, "B" the conclusion. "T" and "F" represent true and false respectively.
Truth Table for Implication Premise Conclusion Inference
A B A => B
false false true
false true true
true false false
true true true
If the premises are false and the inference valid, the conclusion can be true or false. (Lines 1 and 2.)
If the premises are true and the conclusion false, the inference must be invalid. (Line 3.)
If the premises are true and the inference valid, the conclusion must be true. (Line 4.)
So the fact that an argument is valid doesn't necessarily mean that its conclusion holds--it may have started from false premises.
How is it evidence?
Also....there are absolutes with or without god, for example a knower absolutely knows that it is not all knowing, or is all knowing.
The contrary is impossible.
Is "Everything must come/evolve/develop from something" provable?
And thank you for the most reasonable explanation in this thread.
Your last sentence is the exact essence of why life existing is not smoking gun proof of god, which was his real point.not empirically in the sense you suggest, but you can try to prove it
let's see you replicate it from the 'beginning'
On the contrary, it is completely empirical. The mere fact that people can look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion from it does not mean it is not evidence, it just proves people can think for themselves.
For example, the issue of transitional fossils in evolution. Many scientists confidently point to actual examples of these types of fossils, yet people who have a problem with evolution look at the same fossils and see something different. Does that mean the fossils are not empirical? Only in the minds of people who do not understand the term.
Life exists, it is empirical evidence of something. That neither validates, or invalidates, the claim that life has an external cause.
The why was the last sentence.Also....there are absolutes with or without god, for example a knower absolutely knows that it is not all knowing, or is all knowing.
The contrary is impossible.
Why?
Of course it is.
Not one human being has solved the puzzle to a provable degree of our origins.
That is not an opinion. Life would be far different if that puzzle were cracked, by ANYone.
I accept evidence, I don't accept that there's proof.Of course it is.
Not one human being has solved the puzzle to a provable degree of our origins.
That is not an opinion. Life would be far different if that puzzle were cracked, by ANYone.
The fact that you refuse to accept evidence of something is not proof that the evidence does not exist. If it worked that way the creationists would have wiped out the theory of evolution by now.
Your last sentence is the exact essence of why life existing is not smoking gun proof of god, which was his real point.
The why was the last sentence.
You cannot be an all knowing knower if you don't KNOW you're all knowing, because if you didn't know THAT, you're NOT ALL KNOWING.
its axiomatic.
Its absolute.
Well, no.Your last sentence is the exact essence of why life existing is not smoking gun proof of god, which was his real point.
If that was his real point he would not be saying that the evidence that exists is open to interpretation, not that it doesn't exist at all, which is the beef I have with him.
Feel free to keep demonstrating your ignorance by misrepresenting what other people are saying.
The why was the last sentence.
You cannot be an all knowing knower if you don't KNOW you're all knowing, because if you didn't know THAT, you're NOT ALL KNOWING.
its axiomatic.
Its absolute.
In other words, you are bloviating.
That is the word you use when someone says something that is fundamentally unprovable, yet they declare it to be an absolute proof, isn't it?
I accept evidence, I don't accept that there's proof.
Big difference, and also the 'evidence' in discussion is debatable in terms of what its evidence OF.
Also you wasted your time with this post because i do not assert that god doesnt exist.
Well, no.
No, not at all.
I'm not bloviating because I have both a logical and a rational proof which is irrefutable.
When I say another is bloviating, its because they are asserting something that has infinite other explanations making their bloviation fall short as a proof.
If I'm bloviating, let me know the other possibilities: how can an all knower not know whether or not they're all knowing......when not knowing THAT necessarily MEANS they're not all knowing.
Come on contrarian. If I'm bloviating, fill me in on another possibility there.
