User Tag List

Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 68

Thread: Fun with the "I don't believe in God" shtick

  1. #1
    Over 750 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    969
    Thanks
    928
    Thanked 758 Times in 477 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    62159

    Fun with the "I don't believe in God" shtick

    Quote Originally Posted by Vulcan Logician View Post
    I don't believe in God
    By the word, 'God', Christians, when we say that God exists, are referring to the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind. By the word, 'God', are you referring to the same? (But then, why wouldn't you be, inasmuch as you were, after all, addressing Christians when you said, "I don't believe in God"?)

    To exist eternally is to exist. Since the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind exists eternally, the eternally-existing personal Creator of mankind exists. So, by the word, 'God', Christians are referring to the personal Creator of mankind Who exists. When Christians affirm that God exists, we are affirming a tautologous proposition: '[The personal Creator of mankind Who exists] exists.' That tautology, being a tautology, cannot but be true.

    So, if, when you say "I don't believe in God", by the word 'God', you are referring to Whom Christians are referring by the word 'God' when we say "God exists", then you are saying "I don't believe in [the personal Creator of mankind Who exists]".

    One must flagrantly rebel against rational thinking in order to be able to, keeping a straight face, say one or more of the following, three, bullet-pointed things:

    • "I don't believe in [the personal Creator of mankind Who exists]"
    • "I don't believe that [the personal Creator of mankind Who exists] exists"
    • "[The personal Creator of mankind Who exists] does not exist"


    One of the most idiotic, irrational things anybody could ever do is to try to deny, or even to try to simply refuse to believe, a tautology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vulcan Logician View Post
    Zeus makes the rain fall
    Whom (if anyone) or what (if anything) are you calling "Zeus"? To what (if any) person, place, or thing are you referring by the word "Zeus"?

    (It's not necessary, you know, that just because you say the word 'Zeus', you are referring to someone or something by it; it's not a given that you're not just making meaningless noise by saying the string of words, "Zeus makes the rain fall".)

    Quote Originally Posted by Vulcan Logician View Post
    Shiva maintains balance in the universe
    Whom (if anyone) or what (if anything) are you calling "Shiva"? To what (if any) person, place, or thing are you referring by the word "Shiva"?

    (It's not necessary, you know, that just because you say the word 'Shiva', you are referring to someone or something by it; it's not a given that you're not just making meaningless noise by saying the string of words, "Shiva maintains balance in the universe".)

    Quote Originally Posted by Vulcan Logician View Post
    None of them are real. At least, it seems reasonable to me to conclude this. Whether or not I'm wrong, doesn't that seem like a reasonable conclusion to you?
    Please display for us the premise(s) which you imagine necessarily entail(s) that the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind, Who is called YHWH, and Who is real, is not real. Let's find out if the phrase, "Vulcan Logic", has anything, whatsoever, to do with logic.

    Nanu, nanu!

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 4th, 2019),Nang (August 3rd, 2019),Right Divider (August 5th, 2019),rocketman (August 27th, 2019)

  3. #2
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,705
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1,218 Times in 860 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    285398
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    ..

    To exist eternally is to exist. Since the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind exists eternally, the eternally-existing personal Creator of mankind exists. So, by the word, 'God', Christians are referring to the personal Creator of mankind Who exists. When Christians affirm that God exists, we are affirming a tautologous proposition: '[The personal Creator of mankind Who exists] exists.' That tautology, being a tautology, cannot but be true...
    You really don't see the flaw in this?

  4. #3
    Over 750 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    969
    Thanks
    928
    Thanked 758 Times in 477 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    62159
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    ...To exist eternally is to exist. Since the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind exists eternally, the eternally-existing personal Creator of mankind exists. So, by the word, 'God', Christians are referring to the personal Creator of mankind Who exists. When Christians affirm that God exists, we are affirming a tautologous proposition: '[The personal Creator of mankind Who exists] exists.' That tautology, being a tautology, cannot but be true...
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    You really don't see the flaw in this?
    In what, exactly, are you imagining there is a flaw? You're gonna have to be very, very specific. Please try to explain exactly what motivates you to say there's "a flaw in this". I'm all ears.

  5. #4
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,705
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1,218 Times in 860 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    285398
    A.
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    So, by the word, 'God', Christians are referring to the personal Creator of mankind Who exists.
    This is what Christians CLAIM. You have offered no proof of it.

    B.
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    When Christians affirm that God exists, we are affirming a tautologous proposition: '[The personal Creator of mankind Who exists] exists.' That tautology, being a tautology, cannot but be true.
    No, What you are saying is that "Christians believe what Christians believe." Indeed a tautology, but not one that is of any interest to anybody.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to chair For Your Post:

    quip (August 7th, 2019),Rusha (August 8th, 2019)

  7. #5
    Over 750 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    969
    Thanks
    928
    Thanked 758 Times in 477 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    62159
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    This is what Christians CLAIM.
    Correct!

    Christians CLAIM the tautology--the truth--that the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists, exists.

    Only dyed-in-the-wool devotees of irrationality could deny, or doubt, that the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists, exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    You have offered no proof of it.
    Did you know that every Monday afternoon is a Monday afternoon? Well, it is.

    Would you now like to say, "You have offered no proof that every Monday afternoon is a Monday afternoon"?

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    No, What you are saying is that "Christians believe what Christians believe." Indeed a tautology, but not one that is of any interest to anybody.
    You agree, then, that Christians believe that the God Who exists, exists?

  8. #6
    Over 1000 post club The Horn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New Rochelle,NY.
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    288
    Thanked 410 Times in 293 Posts

    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    210081
    There is absolutely nothing "irrational " about being an atheist . I'm an agnostic, not an atheist , so I neither believe nor disbelieve in a God . But atheists are people w ho don't accept anything blindly , which is a good thing .
    People have the right to believe or disbelieve in whatever they choose to .

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to The Horn For Your Post:

    Rusha (August 8th, 2019)

  10. #7
    Over 750 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    969
    Thanks
    928
    Thanked 758 Times in 477 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    62159
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horn View Post
    There is absolutely nothing "irrational " about being an atheist . I'm an agnostic, not an atheist , so I neither believe nor disbelieve in a God . But atheists are people w ho don't accept anything blindly , which is a good thing .
    People have the right to believe or disbelieve in whatever they choose to .
    Please don't spam this thread with your emotional outbursts.

    Go read the post with which I started this thread, and do not return until you're ready and willing to try to deal with what I wrote in it. Thank you.

  11. #8
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    26,234
    Thanks
    4,623
    Thanked 10,197 Times in 7,580 Posts

    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147795
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Please don't spam this thread with your emotional outbursts.

    Go read the post with which I started this thread, and do not return until you're ready and willing to try to deal with what I wrote in it. Thank you.
    Looks like he finally wore out the exclamation mark on his keyboard

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    7djengo7 (August 5th, 2019)

  13. #9
    Over 750 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    969
    Thanks
    928
    Thanked 758 Times in 477 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    62159
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    Looks like he finally wore out the exclamation mark on his keyboard
    Hehehe. Yeah, and it looks like he's trying to wear out his space bar, too.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    ok doser (August 5th, 2019)

  15. #10
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,705
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1,218 Times in 860 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    285398
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Correct!

    Christians CLAIM the tautology--the truth--that the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists, exists.

    Only dyed-in-the-wool devotees of irrationality could deny, or doubt, that the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists, exists.



    Did you know that every Monday afternoon is a Monday afternoon? Well, it is.

    Would you now like to say, "You have offered no proof that every Monday afternoon is a Monday afternoon"?



    You agree, then, that Christians believe that the God Who exists, exists?
    You are making rather silly use of logic here. What is the point of this thread? To convince Christians that they believe what they already believe, or to convince others that Christians believe what they believe?

    Or do you think that somehow this argument will convince the non-believer? It won't, because there is nothing in this argument to convince the non-believer. The premise is your Christian belief, and the rest is meaningless to the non-believer.

  16. #11
    Over 750 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    969
    Thanks
    928
    Thanked 758 Times in 477 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    62159
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    You agree, then, that Christians believe that the God Who exists, exists?
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    <No answer from chair.>
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    You are making rather silly use of logic here.
    Indeed, you are right that I am making use of logic. However, no use of logic is silly. Saying that use of logic is, or can be, silly, is silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    What is the point of this thread?
    Honing. And, to give people of a particular bent of mind (yourself, for example) an opportunity to showcase just how bitterly frustrated they can become because of a "mere" tautology.

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    To convince Christians that they believe what they already believe,
    Where, in this thread, did I ever even mention the tautological proposition that 'Christians believe what Christians believe'? That's right: I never did, anywhere. So, you are speaking falsehood when you say, to me:

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    What you are saying is that "Christians believe what Christians believe."
    Here, again, is the tautology I've been talking about throughout this thread, and about which you've been transparently (and understandably) playing stupid: 'The God of Scripture Who exists (namely, YHWH), exists.'

    By the way, why don't you try to explain exactly what (if anything) you imagine you mean by "convince"? Were you, for instance, to say, "I convinced Mr.------ that X is true", then exactly what (if anything) would you say has occurred between you and Mr.------ in this event of "convincement", this event of you "convincing" Mr.------? What (if anything) would you say it is for a person to go from being "unconvinced" of the proposition, P, to being "convinced" of the proposition, P?

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    or to convince others that Christians believe what they believe?
    Again, please to try to explain exactly what (if anything) you call "convincing", or, "convincement", or "being convinced". What would you say is the sine qua non of any and all "convincing"?

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    Or do you think that somehow this argument will convince the non-believer? It won't, because there is nothing in this argument to convince the non-believer.
    I don't know what (if anything) you are referring to by your phrase, "this argument". However, now that you mention argument, let's take a look at an interesting argument:


    Major Premise: [Every tautology] is [true],
    Minor Premise: [The tautology, 'YHWH, the God Who exists, exists'] is [a tautology],
    Therefore,
    Conclusion: [The tautology, 'YHWH, the God Who exists, exists'] is [true]
    .



    Obviously, you despise the proposition that is the conclusion of this valid, sound argument. So, which premise(s) would you like to say is/are false?

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    The premise is your Christian belief, and the rest is meaningless to the non-believer.
    • Quoting my exact words, please specify whatever I wrote which you are, here, calling "the premise".
    • Quoting my exact words, please specify whatever I wrote which you are, here, calling "the rest".


    Meaninglessness is a property of no argument. Whatever is meaningless is not an argument. What is transparent is that by "meaningless to the non-believer", you mean, simply, "greatly unpalatable to chair".

    Oh, and by the way: Thanks, chair, for actually taking the time to consider what I'm saying, and for, politely, at least trying to appear to be interacting somewhat with what I'm saying (though please don't take me, here, as suggesting you've actually hit the mark). Scroll back a few posts to what The Horn posted, here, and you can easily see there's a marked contrast between his (so far, one-off) drive-by emotive spamming, and what you're doing, here.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    ok doser (August 6th, 2019)

  18. #12
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,705
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1,218 Times in 860 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    285398
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post


    Where, in this thread, did I ever even mention the tautological proposition that 'Christians believe what Christians believe'?
    In just about every post you've posted here.

    Here is the start of your original post. I've put in boldface the assumptions. These are all common Christian beliefs. So your Tautology, though possibly logically correct (in the formal sense) , is pointless.
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    By the word, 'God', Christians, when we say that God exists, are referring to the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind. By the word, 'God', are you referring to the same? (But then, why wouldn't you be, inasmuch as you were, after all, addressing Christians when you said, "I don't believe in God"?)

    To exist eternally is to exist. Since the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind exists eternally, the eternally-existing personal Creator of mankind exists. So, by the word, 'God', Christians are referring to the personal Creator of mankind Who exists. When Christians affirm that God exists, we are affirming a tautologous proposition: '[The personal Creator of mankind Who exists] exists.' That tautology, being a tautology, cannot but be true.
    Horn is right, by the way.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to chair For Your Post:

    Rusha (August 8th, 2019)

  20. #13
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    5,832
    Thanks
    707
    Thanked 1,203 Times in 909 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    By the word, 'God', Christians, when we say that God exists, are referring to the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind. By the word, 'God', are you referring to the same? (But then, why wouldn't you be, inasmuch as you were, after all, addressing Christians when you said, "I don't believe in God"?)

    What if said atheist is in the identical discussion with a Hindu or Muslim? What de facto, existing God(s) is s/he referring to then?

    What about you...if you're addressing a Muslim claiming that you don't believe in HIS God....praytell which extant God must you be logically referencing?

  21. #14
    Over 750 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    969
    Thanks
    928
    Thanked 758 Times in 477 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    62159
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    In just about every post you've posted here.
    False. In no post, whatsoever, did I bring up the proposition, 'Christians believe what Christians believe'. That proposition was not even once discussed in this thread until you (irrelevantly) brought it up.

    Here's the proposition my thread is about:

    The eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists, namely YHWH, exists.
    And, here's the irrelevant proposition you brought up (because you're trying to divert attention away from your inability to deal with the proposition which inconveniences you, which my thread is about), and which I did not bring up:

    Christians believe what Christians believe.
    What is the subject of the proposition which my thread is about? That's right: it is NOT Christians. Rather, the subject of my proposition is the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists, namely YHWH. In fact, Christians do not even figure in the predicate of my proposition, either.

    What is the subject of the irrelevant proposition which you brought up? That's right: it is NOT the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists. Rather, the subject of your proposition is Christians.

    So, we have two, different propositions, each one about something distinct from/different than what the other one is about. For you to be able to say that those two, different propositions are one and the same proposition, at least one of the following things cannot but be true:

    • You are an abject ignoramus concerning logic.
    • You are a flat-out liar.


    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    Here is the start of your original post.
    From which we find that what you have said about me (viz., that I was the one who brought up the proposition, 'Christians believe what Christians believe', rather than you) is a falsehood that could only have been alleged by one who is either fundamentally ignorant, and incompetent, concerning logic, or who is a flat-out liar, or both.

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    I've put in boldface the assumptions. These are all common Christian beliefs. So your Tautology, though possibly logically correct (in the formal sense) , is pointless.
    Since you admit that Christians believe the tautology that 'The eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists, namely YHWH, exists', you paint yourself as a hardcore irrationalist. For, only a devotee of irrationality could, out of one side of his/her mouth, admit that T is a tautology, and yet, out of the other side of his/her mouth, profess a reluctance or refusal to believe, or profess a denial of, that tautology, T.

    You admit that the tautology, 'The eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists, namely YHWH, exists', is a "common Christian belief". You're right on target, there: every single Christian who has ever lived has believed that tautologous (and, therefore, necessarily true) proposition. Only devotees of irrationality--that is to say, God-despisers--can deliberately go about proudly professing to not believe that the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists, namely YHWH, exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    ...your Tautology, though possibly logically correct (in the formal sense)...
    What (if anything) do you imagine you mean by this, Professor? Tautologies are propositions. Propositions are either true or false. What (if anything) do you imagine it is for a proposition to be correct, in addition to its being either true or false?

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    Horn is right, by the way.
    It's not "Horn", it's "The Horn", see. And, you really think The Horn was right in his drive-by graffito-tagging my thread with his little emotional outburst, saying nothing of any relevance, whatsoever, to my thread? How can such a performance as The Horn's ever be rationally considered to be right?

    Really, what you just said, there ("Horn is right, by the way") is no more than a performance of exactly the same sort as The Horn's: purely emotive. No truth in what you said; not even any falsehood in it. It was simply meaningless, beyond being an expression of your emotion.

    And, so far, absolute silence from you concerning the syllogism I presented to you:


    Major Premise: [Every tautology] is [true],
    Minor Premise: [The tautology, 'YHWH, the God Who exists, exists'] is [a tautology],
    Therefore,
    Conclusion: [The tautology, 'YHWH, the God Who exists, exists'] is [true]
    .



    Would you like to tell me that the major premise is false?
    Would you like to tell me that the minor premise is false?
    Would you like to tell me that the conclusion is false?
    Last edited by 7djengo7; August 7th, 2019 at 06:02 PM. Reason: capitalized a 'w'

  22. #15
    Over 750 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    969
    Thanks
    928
    Thanked 758 Times in 477 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    62159
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    What about you...if you're addressing a Muslim claiming that you don't believe in HIS God....praytell which extant God must you be logically referencing?
    By your phrase, "HIS God", to whom (if anyone), or to what (if anything), praytell, are you referring? That is, whom (if anyone), or what (if anything), are you calling "HIS God"?

    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    What if said atheist is in the identical discussion with a Hindu or Muslim? What de facto, existing God(s) is s/he referring to then?
    If a Hindoo or a Muslim is referring to YHWH, then they are referring to God. If a Hindoo or a Muslim is not referring to YHWH, then they are not referring to God. If a Hindoo or a Muslim is referring to someone or something that is not YHWH, then they are, therein, not referring to God.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us