Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by TruthSeeker, Oct 22, 2007.
it also says lacking sense or sound reasoning kind of what your doing right now
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yeah, it has mutiple definitions, like lots of words
I'm the only one who does make sense
not multiple definitions merely one complex one you don't have very good reading comprehension do you?
this is what multiple defs look like
tank (plural tanks)
1. A container for liquids or gases, typically with a volume of several cubic metres.
2. A armoured fighting vehicle, armed with a gun and moving on caterpillar tracks. For details see the Wikipedia article on "tank".
3. (Australian and Indian English), a reservoir or dam.
4. (American SouthWest English, esp Texas), a large metal container, usually placed near a wind-driven water pump, in an animal pen or field. By extension a small pond for the same purpose.
5. (slang) a very muscular and physically intense person
6. In USA scuba divers' usage, a compressed air or gas cylinder.
7. In online and offline role-playing games, a character designed primarily around damage absorption with offensive power as a close secondary consideration.
8. For uses as a name, see tank in Wikipedia.
Yeah use a different dictionary not wiktionary and you get multiple definitions...for instance:
l·log·i·cal /ɪˈlɒdʒɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-loj-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
not logical; contrary to or disregardful of the rules of logic; unreasoning: an illogical reply.
[Origin: 1580–90; il-2 + logical]
true but you never said anything about another dictionary you just said it had multiple defs
so checkmate right back at you
God is a spirit or you might say a universal mind. Existing outside of the physical world means something is not subject to the laws of entropy. The mind of men exists, but not in the physical world. Thoughts, emotions etc. exist but not in the physical world. They are connected to the physical body, however, by the aura energy field. The mind existing outside of the physical world is a designer. The mind of God did not need to be designed therefore. Not being in the physical world, the law of entropy don't apply.
That's the point. :bugeye:
Looks like you lack an ability to understand sillogism....
So if God is something which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning, and silence is not logical nor illogical, then......... it follows that...
God is silence
You are clearly confused. You think that if A is opposite of B then if not A then B. This is binary thinking. Think of a gradient.
Ok, but that implies a significant level of complexity, correct?
Not relevant, the issue of entropy was not something I raised. Neither does it address your assertion that complexity requires a designer.
Please explain then that when neurosurgeons probe the brain or examine brain damaged patients that they discover a direct correlation between mental abilities (mind and emotions) and the physical brain? The conclusion is inescapable that the mind and emotions are entirely dependent on normal physical brain function.
So if your brain is removed you’d still be able to think and have emotions, right? Clearly your point is nonsense.
Total fantasy. But still doesn’t address your assertion that complexity requires a designer.
Entropy is not an issue here as far as I am concerned, it is irrelevant to your claim.
Whether such a designer is in the physical world or not it still represents a significant level of complexity. Your assertion is that anything complex needs a designer. So I repeat who designed the designer? And who designed the designer of the designer, etc?
You should be able to see that your assertion that complexity needs a designer leads to an impossible infinite series requiring an increasingly more complex designer at each stage. Once you accept this then you should also be able to comprehend that at some point complexity must have arisen naturally from simpler components before intelligence could have occurred.
You guys are making this more complicated then necessary. Again, you are trying to express something intangible and beyond reason with logic. That is a futile exercise.
Think of silence, for a moment. Just silence your minds. When logic and absurdity ceases, God is all that is going to be left.
God is silence, because silence, though existing, is intangible and beyond reason. :itold:
No you are the confused one, even your example used "Most Rimnars..", your example is not analogous, its BY DEFINITION, it has nothing to do with A and B Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, it has to with A and A, not A and B
It has to do with a meaning of a word...obviously, there is no A and B only A
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No what you just stated is illogical, "if God cannot be proven or disproven and silence is not logical nor illogical, then it indicates nothing about God's existence"
What you just stated is a non-sequitur logical fallacy, "it does not folow"
You obviously missed the entire discussion.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Let me spoon feed this to you.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
1) God is something which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning
- You cannot prove God by means of logical reasoning
- You cannot disprove God by means of logical reasoning
If you cannot prove nor disprove God by means of logical reasoning, it follows that you cannot use logic in order to prove nor disprove God.
If you cannot use logic, then what CAN you use?
If you use illogical reasoning to prove or disprove God, your argument will be meaningless, therefore, it follows that you cannot use illogical reasoning in order to prove or disprove God.
If you cannot use a logical nor an illogical reasoning in order to prove or disprove God, it follows that you must use something which is not logical nor illogical.
2) Silence is not logical nor illogical
Therefore, one must use silence in order to define God.
If one uses silence in order to define God, it follows that the only conclusion possible from silence is silence itself.
If silence is the only conclusion possible for the question of the definition of God, then it follows that the definition of God must be silence.
If the definition of God is silence, then God is silence.
You see... since you cannot use a logical nor an illogical argument, then it follows that you must use silence in order to prove and define God!
"The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The name is the mother of the ten thousand things."
Tao Te Ching, Chapter 1
If you name God or you try to explain God through logical reasoning, you automatically lose track of God.
Uhm...your whole argument is illogical...its non-sequitur, the fact that silence is not illogical nor logical has no connection to the existence of God (non-sequitur)
Also God can be proven or disproven, but its unverifiable currently, so thats the reaosn that it cannot be
You can use logical reasoning to refute arguments
Yes, but then my argument still stands. IF God IS able to interact with us it is in principle possible to proof his existence through logical reasoning. I am not saying it will ever be done in that case only that it is possible.
You are obviously not acquainted with logic. You cannot prove a negative, so you cannot disprove God. Besides, you completely missed the whole point of the argument. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Putting it as simple as possible:
Proof = not logical nor illogical.
Silence = not logical nor illogical
Proof = Silence
Now I not only spoon fed it to you, I also chewed it for you....! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, it is YOU who are not acquainted with logic, you're using logical fallcies to show you know that you're acquainted with logic Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Also you don't have to disprove God you just have to show evidnece of absence and make it unlikely
FOR THE LAST F***IN TIME THIS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY (look it up) WHY THE F*** DO YOU KEEP POSTING IT? You can't say proof = silence based on those things, its illogical...
You can't use a logical fallacy to pretend you know what logic is Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
1. All A are C
2. All B are C
3. All A are B
You only proved that YOU ARE NOT ACQUAINTED WITH LOGIC
Separate names with a comma.