Argument for God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2013, 09:00 AM
RE: Argument for God
I has a ice cream and gum drop sundae that's made of Mt Everest.

YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT I DON'T!!!!!!!!

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bbeljefe's post
03-04-2013, 09:03 AM
RE: Argument for God
Quote:Yeah, right. Bring on the problem and watch how fast I throw it back in your face.

You evade. And I think you can see how many replies I have to scan through. Answer the simple stupid question or don’t.

Bullshit. The reason you aren't responding is because this is going to be a word game, and you don't want me to defeat your argument. The problem is, EGO, that you tend to be intellectually dishonest when you "Try out" an argument. You never answer the specific questions that one poses in order to figure out how the argument works.

My prediction:

This is a word game argument that hinges on one thing: Concepts exist. If Concepts are a thing, and things exist. The concept of God exists. Therefore the concept of God exists. You see, the problem is that he is trying to push the fact that because the Concept of God exists, we atheists are wrong.

This is wrong because there is a difference, and a huge one, on the concept existing, and the actual God existing.

Also, I have this deep seated feeling that he is going to use a definition of thing (something which exists) and then he is going to ask if God is a thing, and of we say yes, by his definition, which he avoided defining in the first place, we have "admitted" God's existence.

In short, I see either Ego not having the brain cells to differentiate between a concept and a corporal being, or he is going to use a word game.

The instant He avoided answering my questions is the instant I knew that this argument was something that is going to be tedious.

If it manages to convince you guys, please forward it to me via PM.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Atothetheist's post
03-04-2013, 09:04 AM
RE: Argument for God
Egor is conflating the concept of a thing and the thing itself. It's an equivocation fallacy.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 09:08 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 07:41 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 07:35 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I prefer the ice cream and gumdrops concept better, UNthink your blueberry Mt. Everest immediately! Damn troublemaker...Dodgy
No! You can't unthink what's already been thunk.

But I'll compromise. How about it's made of ice cream with a pile of blueberries at its peak?

Depends, what kind of ice cream are we talking about?


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 09:10 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:08 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 07:41 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  No! You can't unthink what's already been thunk.

But I'll compromise. How about it's made of ice cream with a pile of blueberries at its peak?

Depends, what kind of ice cream are we talking about?
Well, Full Circle put his foot down and demanded that it be cookies n' cream ice cream.....

[Image: 21omssh.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 09:12 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:10 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:08 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Depends, what kind of ice cream are we talking about?
Well, Full Circle put his foot down and demanded that it be cookies n' cream ice cream.....

Cause he's a poopyhead. Everybody knows... it's coffee ice cream. Java chip, to be precise. Dumbass. Angry

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 09:12 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:10 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:08 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Depends, what kind of ice cream are we talking about?
Well, Full Circle put his foot down and demanded that it be cookies n' cream ice cream.....

Eww. I would be far more accepting of anything more interesting than that.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 09:14 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:12 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:10 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  Well, Full Circle put his foot down and demanded that it be cookies n' cream ice cream.....

Cause he's a poopyhead. Everybody knows... it's coffee ice cream. Java chip, to be precise. Dumbass. Angry

No. The personal relationship with my Cappuchino Chip Mount Everest is stronger than your satanic perversion of my Holy Mout.

Freeze in Siberia, you Java Heretic.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
03-04-2013, 09:20 AM
RE: Argument for God
Woah, woah, woah....
Shut the front door! -Nathan Fillion, Castle

If Mt Everest's peak is covered in blueberries, the only logical ice cream flavor is lemon!
Everyone knows blueberries and lemons pair well together.

[Image: 21omssh.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 09:21 AM
RE: Argument for God
Are things either real or not real?
Is this world an either or world?

No. In quantum mechanics there is sort of an in-between. Electrons for example can be waves and particles at the same time. You can describe their location as probability waves. So It can be true and false at the same time that they are at location x. Look at the double slit experiment for instance. As soon as you observe electrons, their wave functions collapse and they become particles with a distinct location. This is the physics of the very small. Where quantum mechanics theoretically goes macro is for instance is the thought experiment of Schrödingers cat. You imagine a cat being placed in a box with a container of poison. The container with poison opens when a radioactive substance decays. It does so with a certain probability per time period. So after a certain time period from the outside the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. Only after opening the box the cat is dead or is alive.

Now if you apply this idea to the concept of a god:
God defined as something unobservable is not being observed and never will be, can be considered as true and false at the same time. However! It will always stay an in-between and never turn true or false! Electrons can be observed. Cats can be observed. The wave functions collapse and become distinct when they are being observed.
So all concepts that cannot be falsified, cannot be true!
They also cannot be false. But the same thing applies to any unprovable/unfalsifiable concept you can name. An anti-god for instance that cancels out a god. Sorry, stupid idea, but i needed a stupid example Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Joh's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: