Workable systems of god

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by universaldistress, May 14, 2011.

  1. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    And why are not hemorrhoids called 'assteroids'?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Yes, for I will be opening the Church of the Near-Nothing of God. A large vacuum will suck everyone in and empty their pockets. Should have a large cult following within a day or two.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    The only source would be nonexistence.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Nope: try reading some of the threads.

    Ah, you mean if you ignore the bits you don't like then god becomes logically valid.

    So god is scientifically invalid but he isn't?
    Is this an example of how you [mis/ab]use "logic"?
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2011
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    People are doing this anyway, implicitly, when replying to the other side.

    You can see how much theism an atheist understands by watching how he replies to theists.

    And you can see how much atheism a theist understands by watching how he replies to atheists.

    The two are mostly behaving like they are from different universes, they are not having a conversation, they are merely talking at eachother, not to eachother.
     
  9. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,811
    and is thus not at a moments notice. Perhaps misunderstanding of this phrase is where the issue lies... as an asteroid generally spends quite a while travelling, whereas I was referring to the inability of the universe to just add mass, with no need for asteroids travelling etc.

    To make it clearer, I'm talking about if, say, the Earth suddenly got twice as massive with no external input (asteroids).
     
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,811
    And if you start with the ridiculous you just come across as ridiculous. Better, surely, to make your point succinctly?
    So you can fly unaided? You can travel back in time? You can suddenly speak every language on the planet?
    Impressive.
    When you speak either I'll let you know.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. deathrhapsody Registered Member

    Messages:
    31
    May I request your definition of "Logic"?
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Sure.
    Try here for starters.

    Although "my definition" (and asking for it) is not relevant: like I said - try reading some of the threads here that have shown that God is NOT logically valid.
    Or maybe you think you can show otherwise.
     
  13. deathrhapsody Registered Member

    Messages:
    31
    Dear Sir, I'm not requesting a Wikipedia page.
    I'm requesting your definition of "Logic".
     
  14. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Dawkins' argument... the universe is a really improbable thing, so a deity would have to be even more improbable.
    Still not entirely impossible.
     
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    I'm not a sir.
    Why is my definition relevant?
    But, for the record, I agree with entirely with the Wiki page. Try reading it.
    And then try explaining why you can't answer a simple question, or why you think god is logically valid.
     
  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Please show how you arrive at this supposition.
    As a simple refutation: you personally tend to start with something ridiculous and never manage to arrive anywhere. How does that help?

    :roflmao:
     
  17. deathrhapsody Registered Member

    Messages:
    31
    I'm requesting your definition for I believe you have this idea that there is only one kind of Logic and contradictory Logic cannot exist. As I am avoiding making unjustified conclusion, therefore I am requesting your definition first.

    Regardless, Descartes' Ontological argument is logically valid and sound.
     
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Which part of "I agree with the Wiki page" did you not understand?

    I see you haven't taken my advice and read any of the threads. This argument, and many similar, have been show to NOT be sound/ valid. Both here on Sci and in the "real world". (Leibniz, for example).
     
  19. deathrhapsody Registered Member

    Messages:
    31
    I must ask first - not valid under which Logic?
     
  20. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Well, since you appear to be so fond of asking questions, how about you answer one.
    You have claimed that it is valid, logically.
    So which system of logic are you using?
     
  21. deathrhapsody Registered Member

    Messages:
    31
    Cartesian Dualism
     
  22. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Does it rely on (per the definition I have already agreed with from Wiki) "the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning."?
    If so, it's logic. And, as already stated, Leibniz, among others, has shown that it is faulty.
    But if you think you can defend it go ahead.
    Although I suggest you take my advice and check previous threads first, just so you don't go repeating the same tired old arguments.
     

Share This Page