On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2015, 02:24 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 02:16 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 01:37 PM)Free Wrote:  Perhaps you need to understand something about rationalization.

Whenever anyone says that something is "possible" it must be demonstrated with evidence as actually being possible. All too often ordinary everyday people use the word "possible" as in "anything's possible" in a loose manner.

The truth of the matter is that not anything is possible. When we look at the very definition of the word, we see the following:

pos·si·ble
ˈpäsəb(ə)l/
adjective
1.
able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something.

For something to be possible, then something must exist to make it a possibility. All too often we see theists on here who have no idea how far reaching the word "possible" actually is, and to what extent it entails.

Now, you say that the existence of God is possible. Okay, but now you need to show me why the existence of God is possible.

That is the entire point of my argument. I am not trying to decieve you, but rather only lead you to understand why me and other atheists/rationalists/secularists rationalize the existence or non existence of all things, and not just God.

So think about your answer to my question and get back to me.

Why is the existence of God a possibility?

I never said the existence of god is possible. I don't believe that it is possible for a god to exist. I also don't believe it's impossible. I don't know whether it is possible or not.

If you don't believe it is possible for god to exist, well then ...

Welcome to Atheism 7.0

If you don't believe it is impossible for god to exist, well then ...

Welcome to Theism 1.0

Do you see the problem?

Do you understand that if you do not accept the belief that God is impossible- which means you reject any claims that the existence of God is impossible- that it necessarily implies that you accept the possibility that God does exist?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 02:33 PM (This post was last modified: 20-08-2015 02:45 PM by Stevil.)
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 02:24 PM)Free Wrote:  If you don't believe it is possible for god to exist, well then ...

Welcome to Atheism 7.0

If you don't believe it is impossible for god to exist, well then ...

Welcome to Theism 1.0

Do you see the problem?

Do you understand that if you do not accept the belief that God is impossible- which means you reject any claims that the existence of God is impossible- that it necessarily implies that you accept the possibility that God does exist?
To come up with this logic you have to be completely fucked in the head!

Matt doesn't believe in the possibility of god and also Matt doesn't believe in the impossibility of god, so Free put him as both an atheist 7 and a theist 1 which violates the law of contradiction.

Free, your ability to grasp logic is almost non existent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
20-08-2015, 02:37 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 02:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  My item 1 has nothing to do with your ideas of what a "garage dragon" is.

I never said it did. I merely pointed out that you are leaving out one necessary option, and that is the option that the garage dragon claim falls under.

(20-08-2015 02:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  And honestly your own option 4 is the same thing as as option 2
2. I accept your claim is valid, I have falsified it which means your conclusion is false.

It isn't.

"A equals not-A" is invalid. It is a contradiction. There is no situation, ever, where it could be true.

But of course, this doesn't really matter. Your constant games with different ways of responding to claims are all irrelevant. It's just you trying to avoid responding to the main point of the scenario, because you know that you can't. You've backed yourself into a corner, and all you can do at this point is play for time.

The only thing that matters is how you respond to a self-contradictory claim - in other words, your answer to the question:

What is the difference between a garage dragon and no dragon at all?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 02:43 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 02:37 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It isn't.

"A equals not-A" is invalid. It is a contradiction. There is no situation, ever, where it could be true.
OK, lets see if there is an option four.

We have a premise
A equals notA

How does this help us determine the validity of the claim or the conclusion?

Lets say we have
Premise: A equals notA
Conclusion: therefore notA

We would have to take the stance that since the claim is illogical that the claim is invalid. We would also have to take the stance that the claim being invalid doesn't help us determine the validity or even the falsehood of the conclusion therefore we have to go with my option 3 which is:
"3. Your claim is invalid, I cannot assess your conclusion."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 03:04 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 02:18 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Your example has no evidence and no plausibility, only an assumption.

Perhaps I should trace my steps back a bit, to the initial confusion, and try again.
Quote:“No, either we have evidence (direct or in-direct) for the existence of these substances and they are therefore likely/plausible to exist, or they are deemed non-existient until such time as actual evidence demonstrates plausibility”

This seems to be a false dichotomy.

A persons position can be he doesn’t know whether something exists or not, just like I don’t know if you have an American car or not. I don’t assume you don’t have one, based on my lack of evidence. It makes as much sense to default to the position that you don’t have an American car, as it would be to default to “non-existent” regarding other substances in the universe that have not been discovered yet.

I don’t know whether there is or not. If I assumed other substances were non-existent, it would be based on a belief that the substance we currently have evidence for, is all there is.

Quote:Liars like you and other theists, Why do you think I am on an atheist forum you dishonest twit?

If you really want me to answer that question, than sure. You're here to find a venue to take out your personal frustrations on, duh. I’m assuming your life is occupied by a variety of theists, perhaps your father, family, former acquaintances, and it’s likely that whatever feelings you assign to them, are being projected on to other theists. I’m not sure how else to interpret your maladaptive behavior.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 02:43 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 02:37 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It isn't.

"A equals not-A" is invalid. It is a contradiction. There is no situation, ever, where it could be true.

OK, lets see if there is an option four.

We have a premise
A equals notA

How does this help us determine the validity of the claim or the conclusion?

Do you understand what the term "valid" means?

(20-08-2015 02:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Lets say we have
Premise: A equals notA
Conclusion: therefore notA

That is not at all what I said. Beyond that, it isn't in any way a coherent form for a logical argument to take. I have absolutely no idea what you think that you are arguing for at this point, because it certainly isn't anything to do with actual logic.

Do you understand that it is possible for statements - such as "A equals not-A" - to be valid or invalid? Do you understand that "A equals not-A" is invalid? Do you understand that the only possible truth value for the statement "A equals not-A" is false?

Do you understand that answering the question "What is the difference between a garage dragon and no dragon at all?" with anything other than "there is no difference" is equal to saying "A equals not-A"?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 03:09 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 02:33 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 02:24 PM)Free Wrote:  If you don't believe it is possible for god to exist, well then ...

Welcome to Atheism 7.0

If you don't believe it is impossible for god to exist, well then ...

Welcome to Theism 1.0

Do you see the problem?

Do you understand that if you do not accept the belief that God is impossible- which means you reject any claims that the existence of God is impossible- that it necessarily implies that you accept the possibility that God does exist?
To come up with this logic you have to be completely fucked in the head!

Matt doesn't believe in the possibility of god

Can't you fucking read? Here are his very own words:

Quote:I don't believe that it is possible for a god to exist.

Quote:I also don't believe it's impossible.

Quote:I don't know whether it is possible or not.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid836564

Now, if he was trying to say anything different, he should have made it more clear and far less confusing because his very own words clearly states what he doesn't believe.

He is using contradicting statements when he says he doesn't believe it's possible for god to exist, and then says he doesn't believe it is impossible.

He would have been better off articulating himself better by saying something to the effect of "I have no beliefs or disbeliefs regarding the possible or impossible existence of God," if that was his intended meaning.

But that is not what his words say.


Quote:and also Matt doesn't believe in the impossibility of god, so Free put him as both an atheist 7 and a theist 1 which violates the law of contradiction.

His very own words put him there. If he can't properly articulate himself, why is that my problem?

Quote:Free, your ability to grasp logic is almost non existent.

Your ability to be totally stupid is completely existent.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 03:12 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 02:16 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I never said the existence of god is possible. I don't believe that it is possible for a god to exist. I also don't believe it's impossible. I don't know whether it is possible or not.

If this is the case, it seems you're among the few that honestly just lack a belief.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 03:18 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 03:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 02:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Lets say we have
Premise: A equals notA
Conclusion: therefore notA

That is not at all what I said. Beyond that, it isn't in any way a coherent form for a logical argument to take. I have absolutely no idea what you think that you are arguing for at this point, because it certainly isn't anything to do with actual logic.

Do you understand that it is possible for statements - such as "A equals not-A" - to be valid or invalid? Do you understand that "A equals not-A" is invalid? Do you understand that the only possible truth value for the statement "A equals not-A" is false?
What the fuck are you on about?

I've agreed that A = not A is invalid and shown that if this is a premise in the claim then this premise cannot be used to help substatiate or negate the conclusion.

Do you agree with this? Or is your option 4 different to that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 03:20 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 02:24 PM)Free Wrote:  Do you understand that if you do not accept the belief that God is impossible- which means you reject any claims that the existence of God is impossible- that it necessarily implies that you accept the possibility that God does exist?

It doesn't follow that if you don't accept the belief that God is impossible, that this means you reject it.

I may not accept your claim because I don't understand it, or where to even begin to decipher whether it as accurate or not. If we approached a blind man, trying to convince him that the apple he's eating is red, he might not accept that it is, since he's not able to see it himself, and doesn't know what red is, but this doesn't mean that he's rejecting the apple being red.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: