The circular argumentation revisited
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-08-2016, 11:34 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 09:39 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 06:51 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  to throw the entirety of science into the same category?
Yes, the circular reasoning could be not a fallacy. See: "the temperature is that what the thermometer measures, and the thermometer shows the temperature."

The same way in Creationism: "The living objects exist, because God thinks so, and the God exists, because He is very first life in history."

Did you understand any of what I actually wrote? Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 04:36 AM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 11:34 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Did you understand any of what I actually wrote? Dodgy
I have negative reputation: so, I am bad boy now. "Bad boy, bad boy, what you gonna do? What you gonna do, when they come for you?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 04:59 AM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 07:04 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 12:29 PM)theBorg Wrote:  The atheists prefer to be called "humans", not "gods".

Which are these atheists of whom you speak?

Someone really needs to start a band called "The atheists" ...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
11-08-2016, 06:05 AM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 09:46 PM)theBorg Wrote:  Are you the German leader Angela Merkel?


Indeed I am. The avatar gave it away didn't it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
11-08-2016, 06:09 AM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2016 06:19 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 09:53 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 09:49 PM)theBorg Wrote:  The time is a thing.

"Thingness" is not a property that is easy to measure.

One property of a thing though is that there is a boundary between it and something else.

An omnipresent, omnipotent or omniscient god does not by definition have this boundary. Therefore such a god is no one thing, or to be more concise, nothing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
11-08-2016, 07:21 AM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 09:46 PM)theBorg Wrote:  Please read my papers in top scientific journals: use name Dmitri Martila in Google search.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dmitri_Martila

https://translate.google.com/#en/et/The%...at%20good.

Quote:Põhjus, miks me ei saa aru, mida sa räägid, sest sa kirjutad kõik eesti ja seejärel kasutades google translate teisendada need inglise. Google translate lihtsalt ei ole nii hea.

Quote:The reason we do not understand what you are saying is because you are typing everything in Estonian and then using google translate to convert it into English. Google translate just isn't that good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 09:05 AM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 06:09 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  One property of a thing though is that there is a boundary
The love, the walking, taking medicine is also the thing. "What thing are you doing?" I am writing. "Are you doing some-thing?" I am looking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 09:21 AM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 09:05 AM)theBorg Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 06:09 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  One property of a thing though is that there is a boundary
The love, the walking, taking medicine is also the thing. "What thing are you doing?" I am writing. "Are you doing some-thing?" I am looking.

If you are walking you are not standing still, or hopping, or sitting down etc. You cannot be doing any of the above actions if you are also dead.

Therefore any one thing, whether abstract, an action or something physical has a boundary.

If your god has no boundary then he is no one thing, he is nothing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 09:40 AM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 04:36 AM)theBorg Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 11:34 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Did you understand any of what I actually wrote? Dodgy
I have negative reputation: so, I am bad boy now. "Bad boy, bad boy, what you gonna do? What you gonna do, when they come for you?"

So you're just trolling us?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 11:10 AM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 09:21 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Therefore any one thing, whether abstract, an action or something physical has a boundary. If your god has no boundary then he is no one thing, he is nothing.
State it by the standard paradox: "can God create the stone, which He can not lift?"
As you feel, this is absurd. The absurd tries to eat our brain out. Therefore, one must fight for own sanity. The way is following: "The God can do all, except to harm Himself."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: