[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< You got all that out of what he said? >>>[/quote]indeed I did. I don’t think for myself ya know. [quote]TigerTime wrote: wrote:<<< … I just thought he was making an ass-fucking joke. [/quote]So did he.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< It’s a philosophical stance, not a religious one. That’s what folks are missing. There is no ‘deist’ faith. It’s philosophical proposition.[/quote]For Christians, the two cannot be separated. That’s what YOU’RE missing. You display the most anti-systematic thinking I have ever seen in a smart guy Pat. The compartments in your delightfully entertaining mind are hermetically sealed from one another. God bless the internet. Oh the people I do meet.
[/quote]Incorrect.[/quote]Well hello Pat. Long time no… oh nevermind lol. Yes… you do manage to keep utterly incompatible concepts in apparently segregated ares of your mind. Not trying to get back off on the wrong foot here buddy. I’m telling you honestly what I see. If you did take me off ignore you touched my heart man. I mean that. Maybe we’ll do Pittypat’s Porch one day after all. =D
[/quote]
Sorry, thought I was responding to orion. Please disregard.[/quote]
�¿ Que ?[/quote]
I thought it was an odd thing for you to say too. I had the window in small mode, and was multi tasking… It was just a mistake.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
that one cannot prove a universal negative conclusively.
[/quote]
This “Ayn Randism” proves that she wasn’t a philosopher.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< You’re meant to just sit there quietly and let his God take you in the ass with no lube.[/quote]And no discussion of God would be complete without the penetrating insight and towering goose bump inducing profundity of Makavali. Than you sir. You’ve humbled me again. You are an instrument of righteousness unawares.
[/quote]
You got all that out of what he said?
… I just thought he was making an ass-fucking joke. [/quote]
My insight knows no bounds TT.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
that one cannot prove a universal negative conclusively.
[/quote]
This “Ayn Randism” proves that she wasn’t a philosopher.
[/quote]
As always perfect Joab. I really don’t know how this whole “Can’t prove a negative” horseshit ever came to existence. Just simple math proves this wrong, you don’t have to reach. 5-10=-5…<- Just proved a negative…Prove it wrong.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
that one cannot prove a universal negative conclusively.
[/quote]
This “Ayn Randism” proves that she wasn’t a philosopher.
[/quote]
As always perfect Joab. I really don’t know how this whole “Can’t prove a negative” horseshit ever came to existence. Just simple math proves this wrong, you don’t have to reach. 5-10=-5…<- Just proved a negative…Prove it wrong.[/quote]
Nonsense.
Mathematics is something entirely derived from a priori axioms.
The real world is not.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
that one cannot prove a universal negative conclusively.
[/quote]
This “Ayn Randism” proves that she wasn’t a philosopher.
[/quote]
As always perfect Joab. I really don’t know how this whole “Can’t prove a negative” horseshit ever came to existence. Just simple math proves this wrong, you don’t have to reach. 5-10=-5…<- Just proved a negative…Prove it wrong.[/quote]
Nonsense.
Mathematics is something entirely derived from a priori axioms.
The real world is not.
[/quote]
If that were true, you couldn’t derive propositions from math, but you can so you’re wrong. Math is real, in the real world.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
that one cannot prove a universal negative conclusively.
[/quote]
This “Ayn Randism” proves that she wasn’t a philosopher.
[/quote]
As always perfect Joab. I really don’t know how this whole “Can’t prove a negative” horseshit ever came to existence. Just simple math proves this wrong, you don’t have to reach. 5-10=-5…<- Just proved a negative…Prove it wrong.[/quote]
Nonsense.
Mathematics is something entirely derived from a priori axioms.
The real world is not.
[/quote]
If that were true, you couldn’t derive propositions from math, but you can so you’re wrong. Math is real, in the real world.[/quote]
No, its not.
It is a very exact language to describe the real world as we see it.
Which is neither here nor there, being able to express your presumptions into mathematical equations is far less impressive than most people realize.
Prove to me there is not an invisible unicorn watching over all of us.
Prove to me that little gay fairies do not cause tooth decay.
Prove to me that Mike Tyson is not an extraterrestrial being.
Science, NEVER, EVER, proves anything, it just disproves a lot.
Thats a tad pesky, but that is the best we can do.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
that one cannot prove a universal negative conclusively.
[/quote]
This “Ayn Randism” proves that she wasn’t a philosopher.
[/quote]
As always perfect Joab. I really don’t know how this whole “Can’t prove a negative” horseshit ever came to existence. Just simple math proves this wrong, you don’t have to reach. 5-10=-5…<- Just proved a negative…Prove it wrong.[/quote]
Nonsense.
Mathematics is something entirely derived from a priori axioms.
The real world is not.
[/quote]
If that were true, you couldn’t derive propositions from math, but you can so you’re wrong. Math is real, in the real world.[/quote]
No, its not.
It is a very exact language to describe the real world as we see it.
Which is neither here nor there, being able to express your presumptions into mathematical equations is far less impressive than most people realize.
Prove to me there is not an invisible unicorn watching over all of us.
Prove to me that little gay fairies do not cause tooth decay.
Prove to me that Mike Tyson is not an extraterrestrial being.
Science, NEVER, EVER, proves anything, it just disproves a lot.
Thats a tad pesky, but that is the best we can do. [/quote]
None of that is relevant. All of the above are strawmen… Nobody made a claim for existence of the above and here through made an argument for their existence.
There are arguments for the existence of God and hence burden of proof has been fulfilled. The burden of proof now shifts to the one saying the arguments on the table are wrong.
[quote]pat wrote:
There are arguments for the existence of God and hence burden of proof has been fulfilled. The burden of proof now shifts to the one saying the arguments on the table are wrong.[/quote]
No.
Because your arguments prove nothing.
Unless I can weigh, measure and quantify your or any other god or gods.
What you offer is what Kant calls “pure reason” and he offered examples where he proved a position and its opposition to be right on the grounds of puree reason.
Also, destroying your arguments, which Kant probably has done 200 years ago already, it was kind of a hobby of his, would still be very far away from proving that god does not exist, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE.
Pat, what is your proof that God exists? Also it might help to define what you call “God” so I understand better. I too could believe in God if I changed my definition of what God is to something I believe in.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
that one cannot prove a universal negative conclusively.
[/quote]
This “Ayn Randism” proves that she wasn’t a philosopher.
Are you familiar with inverse error? If you look at a truth table for valid arguments, you will see that an argument in Modus Pones/Tollens always have a valid conclusion. An inverse error will not; hence it is not logically universal.
You need to demand your money back from that on-line ‘college’.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< an argument in Modus Pones/Tollens always have >>>[/quote]“Has” man “HAS”. “Have” does not match “argument” in the singular. You have to either go plural with “argument” or use “has” instead of “have”.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
that one cannot prove a universal negative conclusively.
[/quote]
This “Ayn Randism” proves that she wasn’t a philosopher.
Are you familiar with inverse error? If you look at a truth table for valid arguments, you will see that an argument in Modus Pones/Tollens always have a valid conclusion. An inverse error will not; hence it is not logically universal.
You need to demand your money back from that on-line ‘college’.
[/quote]
I think you and I are some of the only ones who cracked a Copi and Cohen book.
They don’t play by the rules of logic, they make their own.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
There are arguments for the existence of God and hence burden of proof has been fulfilled. The burden of proof now shifts to the one saying the arguments on the table are wrong.[/quote]
No.
Because your arguments prove nothing.
[/quote]
Yes the do. You inability to understand them, isn’t the fault of the argument.
That’s just plain stupid. If you make it an empirical thing, you weaken the argument.
[quote]
What you offer is what Kant calls “pure reason” and he offered examples where he proved a position and its opposition to be right on the grounds of puree reason.
Also, destroying your arguments, which Kant probably has done 200 years ago already, it was kind of a hobby of his, would still be very far away from proving that god does not exist, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE.[/quote]
You can prove a negative, we already established that, well maybe you can’t but I can.
Kant, did not “destroy” the argument. That’s a laugh, since he was a theist.
He merely reworked the argument from the point of morality, rather than existence. What he had was still a reductive causal regression resulting in God’s existence. Kant very much believed in the existence of God.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Pat, what is your proof that God exists? Also it might help to define what you call “God” so I understand better. I too could believe in God if I changed my definition of what God is to something I believe in.[/quote]
I use the cosmological argument from the point of contingency. That second part is important because it takes time out of the equation. There are other cosmological arguments, but the point of contingency is what makes it the most solid. It’s not the only argument, but it’s the easiest for people, not familiar with metaphysics, to understand.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘definition of God’? I didn’t realize you could have various definitions. Creator, Uncaused-Cause, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, etc. Take you pick.
Kant was not a theist based on an a priori argument.
He was a fideist.
About “negative” and our ability to prove them : his position was that “existence is not a predicate”. The same shall apply to inexistence.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Pat, what is your proof that God exists? Also it might help to define what you call “God” so I understand better. I too could believe in God if I changed my definition of what God is to something I believe in.[/quote]
I use the cosmological argument from the point of contingency. That second part is important because it takes time out of the equation. There are other cosmological arguments, but the point of contingency is what makes it the most solid. It’s not the only argument, but it’s the easiest for people, not familiar with metaphysics, to understand.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘definition of God’? I didn’t realize you could have various definitions. Creator, Uncaused-Cause, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, etc. Take you pick.[/quote]
So if I believed in an uncaused-cause, would I not be an atheist?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
There are arguments for the existence of God and hence burden of proof has been fulfilled. The burden of proof now shifts to the one saying the arguments on the table are wrong.[/quote]
No.
Because your arguments prove nothing.
[/quote]
Yes the do. You inability to understand them, isn’t the fault of the argument.
[/quote]
I understand it perfectly and while its not quite horseshit, it is not the end all and be all that you imagine it to be.
If you had bothered to read the responses you got you would no that there are serious objections which brings us back to, we dont know.
Actually, it brings us back to Kant, causality is a category of thinking, it is built in within you.
That says a lot about you and next to nothing about the universe.
A lot of the things you take for granted are just not so, or at least they are not proven to be so and yet you dance around that like a ballerina.
If that convinces you, fine, no reason why it should convince anyone else.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Kant was not a theist based on an a priori argument.
He was a fideist.
About “negative” and our ability to prove them : his position was that “existence is not a predicate”. The same shall apply to inexistence. [/quote]
Yes.
Damn, this must be one of those guys who make more sense in the translation, because he could not write a straight sentence in German if his life depended on it.
But, and that puts him head and shoulders above the unwashed masses, he apologized for it.