Magical thinking.

Frank Apisa said:
There is NO valid reason to even use the word.

State your position.

Do any gods exist?
Click to expand...

Define god.

HINT: The only valid response to this question is: I do not know. One can add, "It is my blind guess that a) yeah, at least one god exists...or b) "It is my blind guess that no gods exist."

One can also add, "And I can prove my blind guess to be correct"...but only if one is attempting to add a bit of humor to a sometimes over-serious discussion.
Click to expand...

You don't get to dictate answers. You can assess the validity of the answers after they are given, but it's possible that answers you haven't considered before exist. You are not omniscient.
 
Last edited:
Frank Apisa said:
You use one word to describe something...but it is not YOUR position. It is a word to describe a variety of positions...some antithetical to each other.

If you do not get that...you will see the valid arguments I am making as "arguing semantics"...which is what people on the Internet do when they do not want to argue valid considerations.



I used my first Venn diagram in an argument back in the 1960's. The balance of what you said here is, unfortunately, mostly bullshit.


Unfortunately, more bullshit.



They mean almost nothing...and are virtually useless. That is why atheists go through all that implicit, explicit, strong, weak nonsense.

YOU do not know if any gods exist or not.

I do not know if any gods exist or not.

If you are so enamored of your intelligence and abilities to suppose YOU have done what some of the greatest minds that have ever existed on planet Earth have been unable to do...

...and that you have done it in a rather small, obscure Internet forum...

...fine with me.

I can laugh at stuff like that with the best of people.

If you want to come back to Earth and actually discuss the topic, I would enjoy it. It is an issue I have been discussing in depth for almost 50 years...and never ceases to fascinate me.
Click to expand...

Do you see these positions as disparate?

A person that knows god exists.
A person that believes god exists, but lacks knowledge of its existence.
A person that knows god does not exist.
A person that lacks belief that god exists, and is unaware of the concept of god.
A person that lacks belief that god exists, and is aware of the concept of god.
 
Anarchon said:
Do you see these positions as disparate?

A person that knows god exists.
A person that believes god exists, but lacks knowledge of its existence.
A person that knows god does not exist.
A person that lacks belief that god exists, and is unaware of the concept of god.
A person that lacks belief that god exists, and is aware of the concept of god.
Click to expand...

I see a spiritual path as a personal journey, religion is something altogether different.
 
Anarchon said:
We will continue to use your definitions. Just fill in the blanks...

A ______ knows god exists.
A ______ believes god exists, but lacks knowledge of its existence.
A ______ knows god does not exist.
A ______ lacks belief that god exists, and is unaware of the concept of god.
A ______ lacks belief that god exists, and is aware of the concept of god.
Click to expand...

having difficulty understanding what I posted?......I see no reason to repeat myself.....
 
Anarchon said:
I've already pointed out that what you say are flaws aren't in the premises. You've ignore this. You're wittingly intellectually dishonest. Does your god like liars?

1. Natural entities have a physical effect on the universe.
4. Existence requires objective reality or being.

As explained, premise 1 doesn't claim to preclude the supernatural from being capable of having an effect on the universe. The arguments made in the proof do that. Premise 1 only claims that natural entities have a physical effect on the universe. You have to find fault in that for your claims that the premises are flawed to be true.

Similarly, premise 4 doesn't claim to preclude any entities, be they natural or supernatural from existence. The arguments made in the proof do that. Premise 4 only claims that existence requires objective reality or being Premise 4 only claims that existence requires objective reality or being

You are also free to find fault in any of the arguments of the proof, but understand that they are separate from a "faulty premise."
Click to expand...

since it is not true that only natural entities can have a physical effect on the universe, you cannot exclude all supranatural entities from existence because creation was the result of physical effect........that negates your entire argument......

Premise 4 only claims that existence requires objective reality or being
Click to expand...
the fault is obvious.......that is your conclusion, not your premise.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
since it is not true that only natural entities can have a physical effect on the universe, you cannot exclude all supranatural entities from existence because creation was the result of physical effect........that negates your entire argument......


the fault is obvious.......that is your conclusion, not your premise.......
Click to expand...

You have no fucking clue what my argument is. You said you found a fault in my premise, that you're now saying isn't a premise, but a conclusion. You're floundering.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
having difficulty understanding what I posted?......I see no reason to repeat myself.....
Click to expand...

I'm allowing you to provide the words, since you don't like mine. You haven't defined those categories listed yet. You wouldn't be repeating yourself. That you are now refusing to do so proves you do not care about what the terms are called, as you pretend to. You do not want to acknowledge that these other positions exist, because they make your position much weaker.
 
Anarchon said:
Define god.
Click to expand...

C'mon.

In your #212, you wrote, "I did prove that no gods can exist." You've made that same assertions elsewhere.

And here you are asking for a definition of "god?"

Let's not play games.

Do any gods exist?



You don't get to dictate answers.
Click to expand...

But you are allowed to dictate that I cannot dictate answers???

Are you kidding...or just over-reaching?


You can assess the validity of the answers after they are given, but it's possible that answers you haven't considered before exist.
Click to expand...

You certainly are welcome to disagree with my "hint" and give your reasons why.

Why not give that an attempt...since you actually think you have done what the most brilliant minds ever to exist on planet Earth have attempted and failed to do?

You are not omniscient.
Click to expand...

How do you know that I am not? Or are you guessing?
 
Anarchon said:
I'm allowing you to provide the words, since you don't like mine. You haven't defined those categories listed yet. You wouldn't be repeating yourself. That you are now refusing to do so proves you do not care about what the terms are called, as you pretend to. You do not want to acknowledge that these other positions exist, because they make your position much weaker.
Click to expand...

nothing is weaker than an atheist......
 
Anarchon said:
Do you see these positions as disparate?
Click to expand...

Rather than answer that directly, allow me to comment on each. You decide if my comments indicate a "yes" or "no" to your actual question.

A person that knows god exists.
Click to expand...

Change "god" to "a god"; "at least one god"; or "gods"...or I cannot even understand this sentence. (You might want to work the word "claims" somewhere into it.)



A person that believes god exists, but lacks knowledge of its existence.
Click to expand...

If by "believes" you mean "accepts as true without any evidence"...and if you change "god" to "a god"; "at least one god"; or "gods"...I will comment further. Without those adjustments, I cannot even understand the comment.


A person that knows god does not exist.
Click to expand...

If you mean, "a person who knows no gods exist"...that is an impossibility. No one can KNOW no gods exist.


A person that lacks belief that god exists, and is unaware of the concept of god.
Click to expand...

Same thing as above with regard to the word "god."


A person that lacks belief that god exists, and is aware of the concept of god.
Click to expand...

Same thing as above with regard to the word "god."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top