Why I look forward to death.
Forums › General Discussion › Why I look forward to death.-
It is not supposed to be "perfect." What gave you that idea?
-
Ojibwe wrote:
So for whatever reason, you could be wrong about anything you claim to know, using scientific method or notIt is not supposed to be "perfect." What gave you that idea?
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
"Truth exists, therefore God" has zero to do with science.Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Are you presupposing science personified.Look out! It's a pre-suppositionalist science debate!
Science is testing verifiable claims to build a consensus of knowledge. Science has no truth. Only bodies of Knowlege, all of which are subject to revision by new testing.
What presuppositionalism does is take abstract terms like "Truth" from logic theory and assigns different meanings to them.
1+1=2 is true. In logic, truth means nothing more than that.
What do you mean by "Truth", and why does 1+1=2 require God?
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
Right. That leaves the door open for further investigation. Declaring something "Truth," with a capital T, closes any opportunity for learning.Ojibwe wrote:
So for whatever reason, you could be wrong about anything you claim to know, using scientific method or notIt is not supposed to be "perfect." What gave you that idea?
-
Let's look at logic for a moment.
"A is A"
Two concepts that are the same equal one another. This is a logical truth.
What if god now says that "A is not A"? Does that make it a new truth?
The significance of a miraculous god that created all concepts is that the laws of nature, physics, and logic are as god defines or redefines them. They are not absolute.
God invalidates the logic you are attempting to use against us. With god, absolute truth cannot exist. Without god, it can.
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Nope not my position.☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
"Truth exists, therefore God" has zero to do with science.Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Are you presupposing science personified.Look out! It's a pre-suppositionalist science debate!
Science is testing verifiable claims to build a consensus of knowledge. Science has no truth. Only bodies of Knowlege, all of which are subject to revision by new testing.
What presuppositionalism does is take abstract terms like "Truth" from logic theory and assigns different meanings to them.
1+1=2 is true. In logic, truth means nothing more than that.
What do you mean by "Truth", and why does 1+1=2 require God?
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
A is A is a conceptual reality. Requires a mind to make it valid seeing it is a "axiom" or absolute truth statement. If we are dealing with the law of proper inference here you would have to "assume" the validity of your reasoning to come up with such a claim.Let's look at logic for a moment.
"A is A"
Two concepts that are the same equal one another. This is a logical truth.
What if god now says that "A is not A"? Does that make it a new truth?
The significance of a miraculous
God
You refer to the law of identity which states that;
it is what it is and its not what its not.
God does not contradict the laws of logic because they are mere reflections of His nature. (Which you will condescendingly mock and make un warranted criticisms about).
Im not interested if you have learned about presup before but it sounds like you havent been challenged by one either.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
Is that absolutely true? And is it possible that sound we just heard was a door shutting?☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
Right. That leaves the door open for further investigation. Declaring something "Truth," with a capital T, closes any opportunity for learning.Ojibwe wrote:
So for whatever reason, you could be wrong about anything you claim to know, using scientific method or notIt is not supposed to be "perfect." What gave you that idea?
-
Does logic exist without god? Yes. It was invented by ancient Greeks that had other gods to pretend with. It does not exist without a mind to understand it, like any other conceptual language, but it does not require god.
Does absolute truth exist without god? Yes. A rock without god is a rock. True. Absolutely. I'd bet my life on it. I assume this to be true, yes. Absolutely.
Is morality universal? Morality is not even universal in the bible, let alone across cultures. Morality is a social evolution and it varies from culture to culture. It does not exist without a culture to consider it. There is only empathy in the individual, and both exist without god.
These things are self evident, easily observed, tested, plausible, and verifiable. That's what science does.
(I know I'm jumping the gun a bit.. Just trying to skip ahead a bit faster in your program, that's all.)
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
I know you don't do the science thing... But what about the rest?Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Nope not my position.☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
"Truth exists, therefore God" has zero to do with science.Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Are you presupposing science personified.Look out! It's a pre-suppositionalist science debate!
Science is testing verifiable claims to build a consensus of knowledge. Science has no truth. Only bodies of Knowlege, all of which are subject to revision by new testing.
What presuppositionalism does is take abstract terms like "Truth" from logic theory and assigns different meanings to them.
1+1=2 is true. In logic, truth means nothing more than that.
What do you mean by "Truth", and why does 1+1=2 require God?
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Brown, all you got is "is and ought... "It should be this way". No where in your ramblings did you even address why anyone should trust your word on anything.A
Is
)
First of all You are confusing the essence with the description for the laws of logic. Saying it was invented is not a argument. They exist wither you like it or not.
I understand that you dont "believe" (arbitrarily) you need God to believe "A=A, but thats not what im saying. God is a necessary pre condition for intelligibility when applying the laws of logic. You assume a world that God is your Creator.
We are speaking of logic not morality, so id like to stick to one thing at a time before you spin your wheels to oblivion.
There was nothing scientific about your case above in fact it just begged the question.
Now brown is it possible for you to be wrong about anything you claim to know?
-
Begging the question is the core feature presup Christian apologetics. Belief in an unsubstantiated claim of god is also at the top. Circular logic will happen as well, but we aren't there yet. Are you seriously trying to pin those on me? I'd like to believe you aren't intentionally doing this.
I make no claim. I merely ask you to prove yours, and I've yet to see anyone satisfactorily demonstrate anything more than a feeling that one or more god(s) exist(s).
After you prove here for the first time ever that your wild claims of magic invisible space aliens are based on reality, I'd like to then hear how you are certain it isn't Zeus instead of YHWH.
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
The burden of proof lies with the persecution =PBegging the question is the core feature presup Christian apologetics. Belief in an unsubstantiated claim of god is also at the top. Circular logic will happen as well, but we aren't there yet. Are you seriously trying to pin those on me? I'd like to believe you aren't intentionally doing this.
I make no claim. I merely ask you to prove yours, and I've yet to see anyone satisfactorily demonstrate anything more than a feeling that one or more god(s) exist(s).
After you prove here for the first time ever that your wild claims of magic invisible space aliens are based on reality, I'd like to then hear how you are certain it isn't Zeus instead of YHWH.
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
Neither the irony nor the colander are lost on me!gunstreet grrl wrote:
Humanist church near you. Check them out. Atheist faithful to atheismOriginality wrote:
Looked this up. This is frickin genius. I'm in. Who am I kidding, I was always in 😂gunstreet grrl wrote:
The flying spaghetti monsterOriginality wrote:
What is pastafarianism? I think I have been a disciple without even knowing it...?I like pastafarianism. Other than that, you die, you rot, buh bye.
🙏🍝👍
Emphasis on PASTAfarianism. The big people in the religion get to wear colanders on their heads in passport and drivers license pictures lol. -
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proofBrown🎵Note😲 wrote:
The burden of proof lies with the persecution =PBegging the question is the core feature presup Christian apologetics. Belief in an unsubstantiated claim of god is also at the top. Circular logic will happen as well, but we aren't there yet. Are you seriously trying to pin those on me? I'd like to believe you aren't intentionally doing this.
I make no claim. I merely ask you to prove yours, and I've yet to see anyone satisfactorily demonstrate anything more than a feeling that one or more god(s) exist(s).
After you prove here for the first time ever that your wild claims of magic invisible space aliens are based on reality, I'd like to then hear how you are certain it isn't Zeus instead of YHWH.
False.
-
The Christians answer the question but we arent even there yet. Scripture teaches that the "fool says in his heart there is no God." The bible also teaches you know this God personally and because of the love of your sin you will continue to suppress the truth in unrightiousness.
Circular reasoning is going to occur because we are dealing with parodoxies and axioms. Im simply asking you how you can account for non contengent conceptual laws without begging the question about the validity of your own reasoning.
Im intentionally asking you a question to move on to further this discussion. I havent pinned anything on you yet.
Id like to stick with the topic at hand instead of moving from one issue to the next. I know you can try to make your case by carpet burning assertions all in one response but lets just keep it simple for the audiance so they can keep up with the argument.
Now, brown is it possible that you can be wrong about anything you claim to know?
-
Sigh. Let's follow the script, then we can discuss the fallacies involved.
Yes. I can be wrong about anything.
-
The very first question is loaded. Plurium interrogationum. Bifurcation. Non sequitur. Red herring. Moving on.
-
Before we continue with this game, would you please state your premise? It is admittedly hard to pin down your errors when all I can do is assume where you are leading me.
-
This is no game. Perhaps you believe you are in one but that is irrelavant.
Before you spin your wheels again and click your heels that you've won some sort of argument by carpet burning fallacies and issues, lets get back to the problem.
Im simply asking you how you can account for non contengent conceptual laws without begging the question about the validity of your own reasoning.
You have admitted by your own agreement that in fact yes "i can be wrong about anything i claim to know", would it not follow that you can no longer make "truth" statements when you could be wrong about that as well.
Before you start listing all the fallacies under the sun, think about what you just agreed to and then answer me this.
If you can be wrong about anything you claim to know, in what possablity can you vaildate anything baised upon your own reasoning least you beg the question?
-
I make the assumption that objective reality exists, though it cannot be proven.
I would ask you the same question. It does not follow that the logical uncertainty of my own perception indicates yours is any more certain. Assuming your premise is the existence of a god, how exactly does this argue toward it?
-
★MΛΥΗΞΜ★ wrote:
Your right, you have the right to be the way you are in how you believe. Mockery got the other thief on the cross eternal damnation. If it makes you feel bigger as a person to mock, I am willing to suffer for Christ.Ey dark magician feel free to post your spiritual beliefs, so I can mock them accordingly. Also, make sure you ask your dog where his spirit will be going
😂😭😂
WHY DONT YOU JUST SAY I DONT KNOW!!!!!!
Damn entitled human beings. -
"Im simply asking you how you can account for non contengent conceptual laws without begging the question about the validity of your own reasoning."
You make the assumption that objective morality exists but that is just special pleading since you are figurtively speaking, reaching out for that which you can not account for. My question to you would be "why"?
we both live in the same reality. We both use non contengent laws of logic, we both look both ways before walking into the street. You make absolute statements like "i follow laws" or "thats a fallacy". When you agreed that you could be wrong about anything you claimed to know, you have given up knowledge.
The point is, that is completely irrational to continue and say "i have assumptions" when in fact you dont live that way.
You do know things yet you rather choose absurdity.Im not arguing towards the concept of God, that is not my position. We never argue to God and yes i said "we".
-
I don't believe objective morality exists. I see no evidence of it.
Logic, morality, science... They are all conceptual languages that exist only in our minds. They are based on observed properties of objective reality. This does not require a god.
I see no reason whatsoever to believe that a supernatural being exists, much less one specific version of god prescribed by one of thousands of religions.
Religion is a psychological construct, and it does not seem to exist in objective reality.
-
That I choose to live in absurdity... I choose to live in reality. I can't help it if reality seems absurd to you. To me, unsubstantiated claims of omnipotent omnipresent space beings is absurdity.
-
What's absurd about it though? I never really understood why people act like its so crazy of an idea. Not talking about you brown but people cling to the idea that if it can't be proven by man then it must not exist. Aside from the possibility of a god I don't feel like humans are the greatest beings alive. Yes I am referring to extraterrestrial life. I'm sure there's life out there somewheres that's superior to us. Some people though speak as though humans are the greatest and the words of those gifted with the knowledge of science call all the shots and shouldn't be questioned. Once again brown I'm not speakin of you I'm basically just having a rant to myself xD
-
I did not say it must not exist.
The best way to phrase it seems to be:
"If there is no evidence for it, I will not assume it to be true."
On top of that, the more outlandish the unsubstantiated claim is, the less likely it is to be considered probable.
And on top of that, when simple explanations for the belief in supernatural beings come to light, it's even more unlikely to be true that the more extreme claim of the Hebrew god who loves the smell of burnt animal flesh actually exists.
I'm paraphrasing here, but:
Cult vs. Religion
In every cult, there is someone at the top that knows it is a scam.
In every religion, that person has died without a confidant.
-
I remember you affirming that you could be wrong about anything you claimed to know is true. Could you be wrong about atheism?
Its not a matter of evidence, its a matter of belief. You live by what you do know, not by what you dont.
The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and do not require a mind for its validity, that isnt the same as them "only existing in our minds" because they are agreed upon and non contingent.
The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples' minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory. So you are simply just wrong.
And you are entitled to your opinion about not needing God for anything, i understand that already and you dont need to repeat yourself.
I merely stated "our" position earlier. God is a necessary pre condition for intelligibility. The proof lies within your assumption of these abstract laws.
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
That I choose to live in absurdity... I choose to live in reality. I can't help it if reality seems absurd to you. To me, unsubstantiated claims of omnipotent omnipresent space beings is absurdity.
Yes it is absurd to reason based upon your own reasoning and then make truth statements when you could be wrong about anything you claim to know. You rather choose absurdity and the bible teaches that you will do that as well.
-
I'll say it again.
The laws of logic are conceptual. They require a human mind to exist. They are based on human observations of the properties of the universe. The same goes for morality. That we can collectively agree on approximate standards of logic and morality does not require the existence of concepts beyond human thought.
You have yet to prove that god is a necessary precondition for intelligibility. I assume this is your premise?
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC