Argument for God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2013, 08:25 AM
RE: Argument for God
Crap, Egor forgot to take his meds again and is back.

The binary qualification for a thing existing is flawed from the start. Are concepts/ideas/fiction things? That depends on what you are trying to accomplish with asking for a simple yes/no answer.

Ruling out concepts, a thing can't exist if their doing so falls outside the natural laws and limitations of the universe.

However, this thread is going nowhere at the speed of PJ's run the gauntlet embarrassment.

At the risk of being off-topic, Egor- When you talk to god have you ever asked him why he has chosen you and only you to be his new messenger? Have you tried to suggest to him that perhaps on a planet of multiple billions that maybe more than one messenger may be more efficient. Shit, maybe one per continent would be a vast improvement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 08:45 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 08:05 AM)Full Circle 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?

Nice try infidel! This is exactly why atheists will never have the upper hand...we can't even agree on the concept of WTF Mt. Everest is made of...Big Grin

Fine, ice cream and blueberrys...BUT it has to be Cookies 'n Cream ice cream, I insist!

See how well that works? Dodgy

Arguing abstract concepts leads to abstraction. Besides, there ain't no "Mount Everest." All that exists beyond my environment is my Gwynnies. Big Grin

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 08:51 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 12:10 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(02-04-2013 07:10 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  For the most part, no. There is a limited set of things for which we have confirmed either existence or non-existence, and for these things existence is strictly either/or. But for the unconfirmed items, which are multitude, I take the Schrodinger-Cat attitude. Their existence or non-existence is undefined and NOT an either/or state. This undefined state will continue until sufficient observation to confirm the state of their existence is made.

Really? So are you saying that only observed things exist?

I'm saying that only things that that have been directly or indirectly observed can be said to exist. (Similarly, we can observe non-existence if we do it right; I can observe that no apple exists in my hand at this moment, for example.)

Unobserved things (or hypothetical things, if that qualifier is needed to cut off quibbling about whether a thing is a thing if it doesn't exist) can be seen as in a state of existing and not-existing at the same time. To say that only observed things exist is to neglect half of this dual-state of unobserved things. But we can say that only observed things ONLY exist, and only things observed to be nonexistent are ONLY nonexistent.

I am an antipistevist. That's like an antipastovist, only with epistemic responsibility instead of bruschetta.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
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?


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

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: 2yn33ti.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

living word
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.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: