Magical thinking.

jimmymccready said:
Thank you, Anarchon. Your premise itself is a prima facie unproven statement.

As I told you, you don't have the symbols, logic, or language to disprove the existence of God.
Click to expand...

All proofs begin with axioms. If you found a faulty premise, identify it and explain why it is faulty. Not only have I proven that gods can't exist, in one post, I've proven you wrong in all 3 of your claims about my abilities.
 
Frank Apisa said:
There is no way to prove that gods exist...or that no gods exist.

All one can do is to make a guess one way or the other...or to decline to make a guess (which is what I do.)

Anarchon does NOT know how to ask specific questions in a reasonable way. That seems to be something that is beyond him/her.
Click to expand...

Actually, you can...if you define what a god is. But, getting a theist to define exactly what it is they believe in is like herding cats.
 
Anarchon said:
All proofs begin with axioms. If you found a faulty premise, identify it and explain why it is faulty. Not only have I proven that gods can't exist, in one post, I've proven you wrong in all 3 of your claims about my abilities.
Click to expand...
You are no philosopher. :) No, you began with an unproved axiom, Anarchon, so you must prove that first. You can't because you don't have the language, logic, or symbols for it. I wonder if you are a physicist.
 
jimmymccready said:
You are no philosopher. :) No, you began with an unproved axiom, Anarchon, so you must prove that first. You can't because you don't have the language, logic, or symbols for it. I wonder if you are a physicist.
Click to expand...

-You are avoiding pointing out which axiom you find faulty. If you'll do so, I'll address it. You might want to realize they came from common definitions. For example, one is that gods are supernatural entities. If you take umbrage with that, I'll be glad to consider your definition of god if you'll provide one.
-You are also likely playing a game. If I prove an axiom, you can say that the axioms used in that proof are unproven, and that I should prove them...ad infinitum. That's why axioms, by definition, must be assumed to be true. Unfortunately your tactic leads to the result that nothing can be proven due to infinite regression, not just the existence of god(s). Is that your position? If so, there's no use in this conversation.
-That's not philosophy, it's mathematics. Mathematical proofs are much stronger than what philosophers or scientists play around with. Once proven, they are inviolable.
-I never claimed to be a physicist. I'm a retired soldier/network engineer (Functional Area 24), one of whom's degrees happens to be in physics.
 
Anarchon said:
A set's compliment is all the stuff that's not contained in it. In that instance, it's saying an entity can't be both natural and supernatural.
Click to expand...

lol.....I almost posted "wouldn't it be easier just to say they are mutually exclusive"........you know, like there is a god and there is no god........
 
Anarchon said:
Actually, you can...if you define what a god is. But, getting a theist to define exactly what it is they believe in is like herding cats.
Click to expand...

Actually...I maintain that you cannot.

In any case, I am not a theist, so I cannot "define" what a god is for a theist...not that I consider "defining" one to be significant to "proving" none exist.

I notice, however, you said, "You might want to realize they (your axioms) came from common definitions. For example, one is that gods are supernatural entities."

That raises the question of what "natural" means particularly as compared with "supernatural."

I'd like you to fill that in, if you are willing.

This we can discuss.
 
jimmymccready said:
Slavery took hundreds of years to disappear in the west, iolo, in fact. Serfs went with the land when sold in the Middle Ages, and serfdom in Russia was not ended legally until the 1860s.
Click to expand...

It disappeared quite fast, and serfs were not slaves. Roman society depended on slavery as no later society did until American capitalism' early and southern versions. Feudalism is a different game.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Actually...I maintain that you cannot.

In any case, I am not a theist, so I cannot "define" what a god is for a theist...not that I consider "defining" one to be significant to "proving" none exist.

I notice, however, you said, "You might want to realize they (your axioms) came from common definitions. For example, one is that gods are supernatural entities."

That raises the question of what "natural" means particularly as compared with "supernatural."

I'd like you to fill that in, if you are willing.

This we can discuss.
Click to expand...

I did fill that in.
 
Anarchon said:
-You are avoiding pointing out which axiom you find faulty. If you'll do so, I'll address it. You might want to realize they came from common definitions. For example, one is that gods are supernatural entities. If you take umbrage with that, I'll be glad to consider your definition of god if you'll provide one.
-You are also likely playing a game. If I prove an axiom, you can say that the axioms used in that proof are unproven, and that I should prove them...ad infinitum. That's why axioms, by definition, must be assumed to be true. Unfortunately your tactic leads to the result that nothing can be proven due to infinite regression, not just the existence of god(s). Is that your position? If so, there's no use in this conversation.
-That's not philosophy, it's mathematics. Mathematical proofs are much stronger than what philosophers or scientists play around with. Once proven, they are inviolable.
-I never claimed to be a physicist. I'm a retired soldier/network engineer (Functional Area 24), one of whom's degrees happens to be in physics.
Click to expand...
I told you your premise was faulty.

You are demonstrating above that your symbols and logic and language fail.

Go study Thomas Aquinas's arguments for proving that God exists.
 
iolo said:
It disappeared quite fast, and serfs were not slaves. Roman society depended on slavery as no later society did until American capitalism' early and southern versions. Feudalism is a different game.
Click to expand...
Those are unproven assertions. Serfdom is a form of economic servitude, aking to slavery. The difference is that the land "owns" them.
 
jimmymccready said:
Those are unproven assertions. Serfdom is a form of economic servitude, aking to slavery. The difference is that the land "owns" them.
Click to expand...

In the early days there were both, you know, clearly distinguished. Serfs have very clear rights: they either work so many days a week for their feudal master or give him some part of the crop, and that, basically is IT. Yes, there were still theoretically slaves for a long time after we kicked out the Roman administration here (for instance) but the numbers were very small, because it was easy to escape and join the Germans or other barbarian gangs. The Normans, I gather, made it illegal in 1066.
 
jimmymccready said:
I told you your premise was faulty.

You are demonstrating above that your symbols and logic and language fail.

Go study Thomas Aquinas's arguments for proving that God exists.
Click to expand...

Which premise, and why? You've avoided answering that several times now. The only conclusion we're left to draw is that you can't answer it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top