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.
It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?
Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a yes or no?
That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.
It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
1. Do we exist? YES!
2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!
3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
To #4, no.
To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.
It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?
Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a yes or no?
That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.
It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
1. Do we exist? YES!
2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!
3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
To #4, no.
To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.
It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
1. Do we exist? YES!
2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!
3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?
Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a yes or no?
That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.
It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
1. Do we exist? YES!
2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!
3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
To #4, no.
To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.
Go away. I'm not responding to any more of your argumentless bullshit! You've already the five things. You couldn't overthrow MPTA. Nobody can with classical without affirming it. Shut up!
It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
1. Do we exist? YES!
2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!
3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
1. Do we exist? YES!
2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!
3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
Boring! Endlessly quibbling about the facts. Never getting to real ideas. Phony claims. Phony logic.
Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?
Are all atheists liars?
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
1. Do we exist? YES!
2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!
3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
Boring! Endlessly quibbling about the facts. Never getting to real ideas. Phony claims. Phony logic.
Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?
Are all atheists liars?
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?
Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a yes or no?
That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.
It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
1. Do we exist? YES!
2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!
3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
To #4, no.
To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.
Go away. I'm not responding to any more of your argumentless bullshit! You've already the five things. You couldn't overthrow MPTA. Nobody can with classical without affirming it. Shut up!
"youve already the five things"
like you guys have a tick.
No, the five things you guys have dishonestly changed, and what you think logically follows from them doesn't.
MPTA is overthrown as being a naked assertion and viciously circular. And saying such doesn't affirm it. You keep saying that, but you can't say why. It's because you can't show that absolute knowledge requires a mind to ground it. And until you can, it is not logical to use it as a premise.
And again on the five things - you're being dishonest and so is Justin.
I said that an all knowing knower would know that it's all knowing. by definition.
I did not say:
*an all knowing knower exists
*god would BE an all knowing knower
*an all knowing knower, if one did exist, would be the creator
You then change my comment from "an all knowing knower would know its all knowing" - - - - - to "the divine potentiality is necessarily the supreme being of all creation" - - - - - which COMPLETELY CHANGES what you keep saying "I conceded to." #1 - IT ASSERTS AN ALL KNOWING KNOWER IS NECESSARY FOR KNOWLEDGE TO BE GROUNDED OR ABSOLUTE. I HAPPEN TO DISAGREE WITH THAT, BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN LOGICALLY DEMONSTRATED AND THE OPPOSITE IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE, AND SO IT'S TAKING A LIBERTY TO SAY THAT IT MUST BE. HENCE MPTA SUCKS A FAT COCK.
sO LONG AS YOU AND YOUR MINION CONTINUE YOUR DISHONESTY, I WILL CONTINUE TO POINT IT OUT.
exactlyIt's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
1. Do we exist? YES!
2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!
3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
Boring! Endlessly quibbling about the facts. Never getting to real ideas. Phony claims. Phony logic.
Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?
Are all atheists liars?
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Bullshit is the right call. I thought you guys were discussion an argument for the existence of god. Turns out you're just trying to control word definitions. Orwell would be impressed.
OK so let's talk about the message in the Bible in terms of the development of human awareness and consciousness to reach maturity where there is collective harmony and peace.
Do you follow at least these interpretations that are very loose and general
1. the idea that Adam and Eve represent when man became self aware
and discovered free will and making choices so there are positive and negative consequences
and that past generations can affect future generations, or some variation of that theme.
I've seen this interpreted as shame about sex, or the karma that comes from eating meat
and corrupted our spirit, or the shift in trends from egalitarian to women being dominated by men
(and even that was interpreted two ways, one as a spiritual trend to replace matriarchal
society with patriarchal systems that dominate today,
and another interpretation was that economically men who hunted meat began to be
valued greater than the women and workers who gathered grains and vegetables,
so this dominance of man was economic and split people into classes to cause the downfall of human equality
and to keep women/workers subservient while the patriarchal leaders rule and monopolize the wealth)
what is your take on the symbolism of Adam and Eve and downfall of humanity?
is it EGO? ie become aware of our own will and desire in competition with other people or tribes
is it related to sex and gender?
is it class and economic or political dominance?
You're like a petulant child who has been scolded for bad behavior and sent to his room for a time out.It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?
Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a yes or no?
That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.
It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
1. Do we exist? YES!
2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!
3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
To #4, no.
To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.
Go away. I'm not responding to any more of your argumentless bullshit! You've already acknowledge the five things. You couldn't overthrow the MPTA. Nobody can with classical logic without affirming it. Shut up!
It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
1. Do we exist? YES!
2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!
3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
Boring! Endlessly quibbling about the facts. Never getting to real ideas. Phony claims. Phony logic.
Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?
Are all atheists liars?
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
LOL! Justin.
You're like a petulant child who has been scolded for bad behavior and sent to his room for a time out.It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?
Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a yes or no?
That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.
It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
1. Do we exist? YES!
2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!
3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
To #4, no.
To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.
Go away. I'm not responding to any more of your argumentless bullshit! You've already acknowledge the five things. You couldn't overthrow the MPTA. Nobody can with classical logic without affirming it. Shut up!
justin is reduced to dogshit commentary, he's been added to ignore.
Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is. She thinks Hollie's a genius. How stupid is that? Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.
exactlyIt's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
1. Do we exist? YES!
2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!
3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
Boring! Endlessly quibbling about the facts. Never getting to real ideas. Phony claims. Phony logic.
Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?
Are all atheists liars?
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Bullshit is the right call. I thought you guys were discussion an argument for the existence of god. Turns out you're just trying to control word definitions. Orwell would be impressed.
"we cant prove god in the ultimate sense but we can prove god logically!!!"
derp derp derp
it advances nothing except ego, and it's also based on very shaky ground masquerading as intelligence.
exactlyIt's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
1. Do we exist? YES!
2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!
3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
Boring! Endlessly quibbling about the facts. Never getting to real ideas. Phony claims. Phony logic.
Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?
Are all atheists liars?
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Bullshit is the right call. I thought you guys were discussion an argument for the existence of god. Turns out you're just trying to control word definitions. Orwell would be impressed.
"we cant prove god in the ultimate sense but we can prove god logically!!!"
derp derp derp
it advances nothing except ego, and it's also based on very shaky ground masquerading as intelligence.
What a liar. You admitted your argument against is failed. What a liar. It's buried on the thread, so now he's starting all over.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Morons who go in circles. you idiots never get to any real ideas.
Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is. She thinks Hollie's a genius. How stupid is that? Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.
So, the five points thing was just an attempt to "disprove" atheism? With the assumption that doing so would "prove" theism, and thus function as a proof of God?
