No god.

[gfm7175]

And...…......………...……………………..WHAT??

He is attempting to prove his religions that he mentioned in his OP. In other words, he is being a fundamentalist.

He is just throwing around various words that he doesn't know the definitions of (or cannot consistently define) such as "religion", "supernatural", "reality", ...

 

[gfm7175]

If you prefer lies, that is your problem.

Redefinition Fallacy (religion <-> lies)
Circular Argument Fallacy (attempting to prove your religions)

 

[USFREEDOM911]

He is attempting to prove his religions that he mentioned in his OP. In other words, he is being a fundamentalist.

He is just throwing around various words that he doesn't know the definitions of (or cannot consistently define) such as "religion", "supernatural", "reality", ...

I was curious as to why it bothered him so much and how it affected him!!

 

[Eagle_Eye]

That's right. There is no Santa Clause, no tooth fairy and no god.

Prove they don't exist! Should be easy for a deep thinker like yourself.

 

[gfm7175]

I was curious as to why it bothered him so much and how it affected him!!

He seems to have no idea what religion is, nor the logical framework behind religion. He doesn't strike me as an individual who is familiar with logic.

Therefore, he likely doesn't realize that he himself is practicing several religions, which at that point it is very easy to be a fundamentalist and "wage war upon" religions which he does not adhere to.

 

[gfm7175]

Prove they don't exist! Should be easy for a deep thinker like yourself.

IF he was studied in logic (he obviously isn't), he would respond to you by calling out your post to him as an "Attempted Force of a Negative Proof Fallacy" (because you are attempting to get him to prove a negative regarding an open set, which would be an Argument of Ignorance Fallacy on his part). In other words, you are attempting to force him to commit an Argument of Ignorance Fallacy.

BUT, since he isn't studied in logic, he would likely oblige to your request and attempt to prove their non-existence (thus committing an Argument of Ignorance Fallacy).


His problem is that he has no clue what religion is, nor the logical framework that religion is built upon. He is a fundamentalist of his religions likely due to his lack of understanding about his practicing of those religions.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

IF he was studied in logic (he obviously isn't), he would respond to you by calling out your post to him as an "Attempted Force of a Negative Proof Fallacy" (because you are attempting to get him to prove a negative regarding an open set, which would be an Argument of Ignorance Fallacy on his part). In other words, you are attempting to force him to commit an Argument of Ignorance Fallacy.

BUT, since he isn't studied in logic, he would likely oblige to your request and attempt to prove their non-existence (thus committing an Argument of Ignorance Fallacy).


His problem is that he has no clue what religion is, nor the logical framework that religion is built upon. He is a fundamentalist of his religions likely due to his lack of understanding about his practicing of those religions.

Man is ignorant of how to create life from none life elements because he doesn't know how to do it. Then logically it must follow that somewhere there is someone or some thing that does know how to do it or live wouldn't exist.

You can say it's an Argument of Ignorance Fallacy. But at some point you must allow simple logic to intercede.

 

[gfm7175]

Man is ignorant of how to create life from none life elements because he doesn't know how to do it. Then logically it must follow that somewhere there is someone or some thing that does know how to do it or live wouldn't exist.

You can say it's an Argument of Ignorance Fallacy. But at some point you must allow simple logic to intercede.

It all comes down to the fact that it is a past unobserved event, so any theory about it is a religious theory.

Personally, I find the existence of life to be strong evidence for the truth of Christianity, but that's all it is... evidence. Not a proof of any kind.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

It all comes down to the fact that it is a past unobserved event, so any theory about it is a religious theory.

Personally, I find the existence of life to be strong evidence for the truth of Christianity, but that's all it is... evidence. Not a proof of any kind.

Let me give you something to think about if there is a god who created life here or it was a process where different chemicals came together. Out of the trillions of solar systems in limitless space why would ours be the only one that has life as we know it?

 

[gfm7175]

Let me give you something to think about if there is a god who created life here or it was a process where different chemicals came together. Out of the trillions of solar systems in limitless space why would ours be the only one that has life as we know it?

Good question. If you know the answer to it, then you're a better man than I.