Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 5 Votes - 1.8 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-04-2013, 04:23 PM
RE: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
I do think he's headed for Descartes, but he didn't get there yet.

Let's give the guy the opportunity to surprise us.

Nonsense is nonsense, but the history of nonsense is a very important science.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Abdul Alhazred's post
28-04-2013, 04:32 PM
RE: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
Congratulations Egor in trying to use your argument to prove the existence of a god you have infact done the exact opposite. Thumbsup

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 04:46 PM
RE: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
(28-04-2013 04:21 PM)Abdul Alhazred Wrote:  
(28-04-2013 04:12 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Am I missing something, here? How can a logical argument be premised upon that which is unreal? Is there some philosophy I need to study Consider

He hasn't got to the end of his logical chain yet.

Does it even matter? And! I wuz already a meanie... Blush

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 04:50 PM
RE: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
(28-04-2013 04:32 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Congratulations Egor in trying to use your argument to prove the existence of a god you have infact done the exact opposite. Thumbsup

Is that why he started a second thread with the same title and content?

The sun rises in the West and the bird shits on the coffeetable.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 04:56 PM
RE: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
(28-04-2013 04:50 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(28-04-2013 04:32 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Congratulations Egor in trying to use your argument to prove the existence of a god you have infact done the exact opposite. Thumbsup

Is that why he started a second thread with the same title and content?

That was a glitch.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 04:59 PM
RE: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
(28-04-2013 04:56 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(28-04-2013 04:50 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Is that why he started a second thread with the same title and content?

That was a glitch.

That's a super odd glitch. But strange this do happen.

The sun rises in the West and the bird shits on the coffeetable.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 08:21 PM
 
RE: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
(28-04-2013 03:30 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  1. If something is unreal, it cannot support something that is real.
2. Perception proves its reality.
3. The perception of something unreal is either illusion or hallucination.

fail....

P2 and P3 contradict each other, and do not provide a means for showing what is being perceived as true or false. These perceptions have to undergo a test.

2 and 3 dont' contradict one another. P2 is just like Descartes' "I think therefore I am." P3 is a very simple statement that anything unreal that is perceived must either be an illusion or halluciantion to the "perceiver." I would think both P2 and P3 are self-evident.

Quote:P1 fails because there were and are many theories that have been incorrect but have great utility.

An incorrect theory is not an "unreal" theory. Please read these axioms and take a moment to think about them before replying.

Let's say that you see the illusion of water on the desert floor, a mirage. A mirage can't support the growth of a real tree. If you see a unicorn (which is a convenient term for something that isn't real), the horn on the unicorn can't be real and the rest of the unicorn be an illusion. The coat on the hallucination of a poodle, can't be real hair.

These first axioms are very simple axioms. They really don't require a lot of thought or argument, in my opinion.
Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 08:26 PM
RE: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
this is so pointless...

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 08:30 PM
RE: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
...and boring

"Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.” ~ Ambrose Bierce
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's." - Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 08:49 PM
RE: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
(28-04-2013 08:21 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(28-04-2013 03:30 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  1. If something is unreal, it cannot support something that is real.
2. Perception proves its reality.
3. The perception of something unreal is either illusion or hallucination.

fail....

P2 and P3 contradict each other, and do not provide a means for showing what is being perceived as true or false. These perceptions have to undergo a test.

2 and 3 dont' contradict one another. P2 is just like Descartes' "I think therefore I am." P3 is a very simple statement that anything unreal that is perceived must either be an illusion or halluciantion to the "perceiver." I would think both P2 and P3 are self-evident.

Quote:P1 fails because there were and are many theories that have been incorrect but have great utility.

An incorrect theory is not an "unreal" theory. Please read these axioms and take a moment to think about them before replying.

Let's say that you see the illusion of water on the desert floor, a mirage. A mirage can't support the growth of a real tree. If you see a unicorn (which is a convenient term for something that isn't real), the horn on the unicorn can't be real and the rest of the unicorn be an illusion. The coat on the hallucination of a poodle, can't be real hair.

These first axioms are very simple axioms. They really don't require a lot of thought or argument, in my opinion.
[/quote]

If you say so.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: