Would you care to post that in a simpler format? I don’t understand a whit of it.
Lib, I went through this quite some time ago in a prior thread of yours. If you don’t mind… Is there any reason that your proof, done a different way, cannot also ‘prove’ the non-existance of god? I felt that way the first time around, but you were completely innundated with questions and (reasonably) bowed out of the thread.
I respectfully told them I did not want to hear it, because they were offering no concrete evidence, rather they were saying “I was hearing odd noises and the floorboards are creaking with no good reason to do so!”. They did not listen. I don’t think you’re listening. So listen up, shithead, I’d listen to them if they had some sort of proof for the paranormal. All they’re saying is some shit about odd noises.
Then how the hell do you make the claim that you will accept logical proof when you don’t even understand a whit of logic?
While I admit I find the convolutions of the ‘proof’ a bit hard to follow, what prevents one from substituting anything at all into the first premise, and thus proving its existence. When you say ‘God’, do you mean the Christian one, or could you also prove somebody else’s deity exists?
Yes. If you deny the premise, then the conclusion is unsound. (But still valid.) That’s why I said that denying the possibility presumes the impossibility, while acceptance of the possibility forces the conclusion of actuality.
I don’t get it. Why the hostility? Are you offended by people who don’t believe in ghosts and don’t want their friends talking shit about it day in and day out?
I don’t believe in god, and I have every fucking right to not want Bible Thumpers talking shit about it day in and day out.
On preview, I guess we can’t argue the existence of god any more, Lib proved it :rolleyes:
What. A. Fucking. Crock. QED my ass.
I will accept logical proof. But I don’t know of “jfjkfjf’s postulate” or ‘jfjkfjkjf’s theorem’. Perhaps if you were to state the actual theorem’s and theories in a way that I didn’t have to search around to fully understand it, then we could talk.
G means supreme being or necessary existence. Due to the modality of necessity, no substitute term would be valid.
“Consequently, to be a necessary being and to be a supreme being are necessarily equivalent: anything of one sort must also be of the other.” — Robert Koons, Professor of Philosophy, UT
No. I’m offended by dumbasses calling other people dumbasses.
Review this. It’s a different version, but equally sound.
Now I remember, I was changing your premise from “It is possible God exists” to “It is possible God does not exist”, which I find to be an identical thought, with different phrasing. Thus going from step 6 to 7 I would say… Since it’s possible God does not exist, and one of the two options (existing or not) must be true, then God does not exist.
I don’t see how substituting “not exist” for “exist” in your premise changes the way the steps work, so “not exist” should be the result, no?
As I said at the beginning (and again since then):
If you’ve already denied even the possibility of God’s existence, then you’ve already concluded that proof is impossible — circulus in demonstrando. But if you accept the possibility, then proof of His existence is inescapable.
How am I a dumbass?
For not believing that my friend’s house is filled with dead souls moaning and wailing, rather than broken pipes causing the noise?
I’ve known enough people interested in ghosts to see that something being wrong with the pipes(or any ghostly occurence) instead of them having ghosts haunting the house that it is not a one-time occurence.
Surely, you understand that, by definition, science is not an appropriate tool for examining the supernatural.
Please explain how my revised premise denies the possibility of the existance of god:
It is possible God does not exist.
If you do not accept this as a valid premise, then you are showing your own bias, stating that God’s non-existance is impossible. With that attitude, no wonder your proof works!
You’re a dumbass because you said you refuse to listen, and because you said that you would accept rational proof but back-peddled when it was given to you. Recall the cow-bovine statement. Just because ghosts do not exist does not mean that the supernatural in general does not exist. You have fallen into one of the most common logical fallacies.
Why is it not, then? Do the ghosties have a special ability to do things like ‘not make any scientific tools work in the slightest when looking for the supernatural’?
Fourth time: if it is possible that God does not exist, then it is impossible that He does. It is not that your premise denies it; it is that your conclusion denies it and then comes back to your premise. If N(~g), then ~(N~g) is false.
My friend tells me of ghosts inside his house. Said ghost turns out to be broken pipes, or any other reasonable explanation for a ‘paranormal’ occurence. This goes on with my friends to the point where I tell them I don’t want to hear it.