- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 30 2011,16:23) Sorry, you get zero points for not answering the question of your logical fallacy in that previous paragraph. How am I arguing from ignorance? In regards to genetic fallacy, that can only come into existence because of your logically fallacious assertion of the existence of the subject of your discourse, for which the negative assertion is just as valid.
I have made the argument that I cannot know whether any gods exist or not, and that is true for you too so I'm glad you brought it up. By the way, saying there is no god is a “rational and logical” position, just as islam is “rational and logical” based on an indefensible premise. I don't make a premise in this case that there is no god then derive non-existence of gods, I take an empirical view that since there is no unambiguous evidence for any god that it is reasonable to rationally (but provisionally) conclude there is no such thing. That view is easily destroyed by empirical evidence to the contrary, but there isn't any. So much for abrahamic mythology being something you could reasonably call “true”.
I see in your last statement you are making more assertions about the god you cannot know exists, and another about whether humans consist of anything more than “physical being”.
Assert, assert, assert. That's all you've got.
Stuart
If you admit “you” cannot know whether God exists how can you surmise from what you admit you cannot know what someone else cannot know?In-fact if someone can know something how would that conclude that others can also know the same information?
Not all people can see or hear and some can't taste or even feel or smell, your response please.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 31 2011,09:23) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 30 2011,16:23) Sorry, you get zero points for not answering the question of your logical fallacy in that previous paragraph. How am I arguing from ignorance? In regards to genetic fallacy, that can only come into existence because of your logically fallacious assertion of the existence of the subject of your discourse, for which the negative assertion is just as valid.
I have made the argument that I cannot know whether any gods exist or not, and that is true for you too so I'm glad you brought it up. By the way, saying there is no god is a “rational and logical” position, just as islam is “rational and logical” based on an indefensible premise. I don't make a premise in this case that there is no god then derive non-existence of gods, I take an empirical view that since there is no unambiguous evidence for any god that it is reasonable to rationally (but provisionally) conclude there is no such thing. That view is easily destroyed by empirical evidence to the contrary, but there isn't any. So much for abrahamic mythology being something you could reasonably call “true”.
I see in your last statement you are making more assertions about the god you cannot know exists, and another about whether humans consist of anything more than “physical being”.
Assert, assert, assert. That's all you've got.
Stuart
If you admit “you” cannot know whether God exists how can you surmise from what you admit you cannot know what someone else cannot know?In-fact if someone can know something how would that conclude that others can also know the same information?
Not all people can see or hear and some can't taste or even feel or smell, your response please.
OK, I know you are wrong. There are no gods.Respond please.
Stuart
Quote (karmarie @ Mar. 31 2011,08:32) Stuart, it depends what your view and belief in God is.Try seeing God in a different way. Think of all the things love is.
So you are asking me to forget all about Judeo-christian scripture?That would mean I would have to invent your god from scratch in my own head.
I imagine a god that is a petulant monster with a taste for human blood and disregard for justice. All the things love is are completely the antithesis of this god's actions and intents.
Hang on, do you see the mistake I made there? I let Judeo-christian mythological writing get in the way of me inventing the god you hoped I would.
No matter how you invent them, gods make miserable Imaginary Friends, and imaginary friends are for children. Saul of Tarsus gave us one useful piece of advice in Corinthians: leave the things of childhood behind you.
Although it looks like he was unable to follow his own advice.
Stuart
Stuart, once I did look at scripture and think how awfull.
Now I see it as God who loves, and love can be seen in many ways. It's just the way you see it Stuart.
Quote Hang on, do you see the mistake I made there? I let Judeo-christian mythological writing get in the way of me inventing the god you hoped I would.
So continue with it. Where were you?Hi Stu,
How are you doing today? Well and good I hope. Let me ask you something. Do you believe you can get something for nothing?Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (karmarie @ Mar. 31 2011,19:09) Stuart, once I did look at scripture and think how awfull.
And now?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 31 2011,16:53) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 31 2011,09:23) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 30 2011,16:23) Sorry, you get zero points for not answering the question of your logical fallacy in that previous paragraph. How am I arguing from ignorance? In regards to genetic fallacy, that can only come into existence because of your logically fallacious assertion of the existence of the subject of your discourse, for which the negative assertion is just as valid.
I have made the argument that I cannot know whether any gods exist or not, and that is true for you too so I'm glad you brought it up. By the way, saying there is no god is a “rational and logical” position, just as islam is “rational and logical” based on an indefensible premise. I don't make a premise in this case that there is no god then derive non-existence of gods, I take an empirical view that since there is no unambiguous evidence for any god that it is reasonable to rationally (but provisionally) conclude there is no such thing. That view is easily destroyed by empirical evidence to the contrary, but there isn't any. So much for abrahamic mythology being something you could reasonably call “true”.
I see in your last statement you are making more assertions about the god you cannot know exists, and another about whether humans consist of anything more than “physical being”.
Assert, assert, assert. That's all you've got.
Stuart
If you admit “you” cannot know whether God exists how can you surmise from what you admit you cannot know what someone else cannot know?In-fact if someone can know something how would that conclude that others can also know the same information?
Not all people can see or hear and some can't taste or even feel or smell, your response please.
OK, I know you are wrong. There are no gods.Respond please.
Stuart
So now you say you “Do Know”? You said before that you cannot know, which is it? Please respond.Quote (bodhitharta @ April 01 2011,07:12) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 31 2011,16:53) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 31 2011,09:23) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 30 2011,16:23) Sorry, you get zero points for not answering the question of your logical fallacy in that previous paragraph. How am I arguing from ignorance? In regards to genetic fallacy, that can only come into existence because of your logically fallacious assertion of the existence of the subject of your discourse, for which the negative assertion is just as valid.
I have made the argument that I cannot know whether any gods exist or not, and that is true for you too so I'm glad you brought it up. By the way, saying there is no god is a “rational and logical” position, just as islam is “rational and logical” based on an indefensible premise. I don't make a premise in this case that there is no god then derive non-existence of gods, I take an empirical view that since there is no unambiguous evidence for any god that it is reasonable to rationally (but provisionally) conclude there is no such thing. That view is easily destroyed by empirical evidence to the contrary, but there isn't any. So much for abrahamic mythology being something you could reasonably call “true”.
I see in your last statement you are making more assertions about the god you cannot know exists, and another about whether humans consist of anything more than “physical being”.
Assert, assert, assert. That's all you've got.
Stuart
If you admit “you” cannot know whether God exists how can you surmise from what you admit you cannot know what someone else cannot know?In-fact if someone can know something how would that conclude that others can also know the same information?
Not all people can see or hear and some can't taste or even feel or smell, your response please.
OK, I know you are wrong. There are no gods.Respond please.
Stuart
So now you say you “Do Know”? You said before that you cannot know, which is it? Please respond.
I know you are wrong, and actually there are no gods. Please respond to that before we return to what I actually said.Stuart
Stuart, there is a God. Think Stuart. What would God be?
I hope that's making sense, it's been a long day.
Quote (karmarie @ April 01 2011,21:03) Stuart, there is a God. Think Stuart. What would God be? I hope that's making sense, it's been a long day.
A god would be that thing which created the universe in the most impressive way possible, ie from the situation of not even existing.A god that had to exist in order to create the universe would not be the most impressive possible being.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 01 2011,15:54) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 01 2011,07:12) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 31 2011,16:53) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 31 2011,09:23) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 30 2011,16:23) Sorry, you get zero points for not answering the question of your logical fallacy in that previous paragraph. How am I arguing from ignorance? In regards to genetic fallacy, that can only come into existence because of your logically fallacious assertion of the existence of the subject of your discourse, for which the negative assertion is just as valid.
I have made the argument that I cannot know whether any gods exist or not, and that is true for you too so I'm glad you brought it up. By the way, saying there is no god is a “rational and logical” position, just as islam is “rational and logical” based on an indefensible premise. I don't make a premise in this case that there is no god then derive non-existence of gods, I take an empirical view that since there is no unambiguous evidence for any god that it is reasonable to rationally (but provisionally) conclude there is no such thing. That view is easily destroyed by empirical evidence to the contrary, but there isn't any. So much for abrahamic mythology being something you could reasonably call “true”.
I see in your last statement you are making more assertions about the god you cannot know exists, and another about whether humans consist of anything more than “physical being”.
Assert, assert, assert. That's all you've got.
Stuart
If you admit “you” cannot know whether God exists how can you surmise from what you admit you cannot know what someone else cannot know?In-fact if someone can know something how would that conclude that others can also know the same information?
Not all people can see or hear and some can't taste or even feel or smell, your response please.
OK, I know you are wrong. There are no gods.Respond please.
Stuart
So now you say you “Do Know”? You said before that you cannot know, which is it? Please respond.
I know you are wrong, and actually there are no gods. Please respond to that before we return to what I actually said.Stuart
So Now you “Can” know?Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,10:51) So now you say you “Do Know”? You said before that you cannot know, which is it? Please respond.[/quote]
I know you are wrong, and actually there are no gods. Please respond to that before we return to what I actually said.Stuart[/quote]
So Now you “Can” know?
If you can know then I can know.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 02 2011,11:38) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,10:51) So now you say you “Do Know”? You said before that you cannot know, which is it? Please respond.
I know you are wrong, and actually there are no gods. Please respond to that before we return to what I actually said.Stuart[/quote]
So Now you “Can” know?[/quote]
If you can know then I can know.Stuart
Then why did you say you cold not know? Also, what makes you think that you have the faculty to know what anyone else can know?Can the blind see or can the deaf here? Use your common sense, The blind cannot see what those who can see nor can the deaf hear what the hearing do.
I see what you do not and hear what you do not and perceive what you do not, we are all only homogenous to a point but somehow you believe that we are all completely homogenous.
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,15:41) Quote (Stu @ April 02 2011,11:38) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 02 2011,10:51) So now you say you “Do Know”? You said before that you cannot know, which is it? Please respond.
I know you are wrong, and actually there are no gods. Please respond to that before we return to what I actually said.Stuart
So Now you “Can” know?[/quote]
If you can know then I can know.Stuart[/quote]
Then why did you say you cold not know? Also, what makes you think that you have the faculty to know what anyone else can know?Can the blind see or can the deaf here? Use your common sense, The blind cannot see what those who can see nor can the deaf hear what the hearing do.
I see what you do not and hear what you do not and perceive what you do not, we are all only homogenous to a point but somehow you believe that we are all completely homogenous.
I didn't claim to know what someone else knew. I just claimed to know that there are no gods. You don't appear to be able to respond to that.The analogy of blindness and deafness is irrelevant, because I am neither. Unless you can say exactly what it is that you can see or hear that I cannot then you have no point to make. The shallow thinking of the religious is ever thus: no explanation is made, just wishful assertion by way of invalid analogy. Anyway, two can play at that game as well. I can just as easily claim that you are blind and deaf to reality. Further, I can show you the scientific research that supports my view. People are notoriously poor at estimating probability, and are overactive in imagining patterns that are not really there, both of which lead to belief in supernatural conspiracy theories. That does not disprove gods, but it does explain the experiences they attribute to Imaginary Friends for which there is no unambiguous evidence.
I said nothing about us being homogeneous, all I said was I know there are no gods. So when you said you knew there were gods all I can conclude is that you are wrong, because there aren't any. I know.
Stuart
Hi Stu,
How are doing today? Well, I hopeQuote (Stu @ April 01 2011,23:08) Quote (karmarie @ April 01 2011,21:03) Stuart, there is a God. Think Stuart. What would God be? I hope that's making sense, it's been a long day.
A god would be that thing which created the universe in the most impressive way possible, ie from the situation of not even existing.A god that had to exist in order to create the universe would not be the most impressive possible being.
Stuart
You know you have a point there. God did not exist in this univers until the moment he created it. Never thought about it like that, but, it makes sense.
Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (Stu @ April 02 2011,02:08) Quote (karmarie @ April 01 2011,21:03) Stuart, there is a God. Think Stuart. What would God be? I hope that's making sense, it's been a long day.
A god would be that thing which created the universe in the most impressive way possible, ie from the situation of not even existing.A god that had to exist in order to create the universe would not be the most impressive possible being.
Stuart
Stuart, I'm pondering. Give me some time.
Yes it makes a certain amount of sense.
Pretty straight forward. This universe could have been formed from a realm of chaos. Without cognizance of God. Therefore from the point-of-view of that which is chaos God doesn't exist.God put his touch of life/spirit to it and all the laws of science that have been discovered so far and laws of science that will be discovered in the future. Until at some point all the athiestic scientists will realize that truth can't be defined by math, logic or observation. That all of science is an act of faith and knowledge gathering based on observations. Then all that wierd stuff about God being truth and love were in the end quite true statements. Love is to Spirit as mass is to gravity. The greater the first, the more latter will show how it's affect to the first. Gravity is merely a dynamic base coat that God uses when painting the tapestry of a universe with his laws and love giving animated life to it with his Spirt.
With Love and Respect,
Wispring
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
