Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Do you need to speak to me?

    Can you please tell me two questions?

    1. Do you live with your parents?

    2. Do you know anything?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Guyver View Post
      Sure. Why not? You’re somebody aren’t you?
      You just need to speak to somebody?

      Very well, then. Feel free to speak to me. But, please, when speaking to me in this thread, try to keep it closely relevant to what I started this thread about.

      Otherwise, feel free to start another thread for the purpose of just speaking to me, or to speak to me with private messages. I won't snub you.
      What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

      MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
        You just need to speak to somebody?

        Very well, then. Feel free to speak to me. But, please, when speaking to me in this thread, try to keep it closely relevant to what I started this thread about.

        Otherwise, feel free to start another thread for the purpose of just speaking to me, or to speak to me with private messages. I won't snub you.
        Ok then....what is this thread about? What do you want to talk about? I can talk for about 30 more minutes.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Guyver View Post
          Ok then....what is this thread about? What do you want to talk about? I can talk for about 30 more minutes.
          Well, post #33, for instance, is about how someone should probably just read post #1, and then, try to ask very specific questions, and to make very specific criticisms, about what is written in post #1.

          (I don't even have 30 minutes. I'm down to 0 for today. Sorry. See you later, Guyver. Maybe tomorrow.)
          What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

          MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
            Well, post #33, for instance, is about how someone should probably just read post #1, and then, try to ask very specific questions, and to make very specific criticisms, about what is written in post #1.

            (I don't even have 30 minutes. I'm down to 0 for today. Sorry. See you later, Guyver. Maybe tomorrow.)
            Nice move. Maybe you don’t live with your parents.

            Comment


            • #36
              Major Premise: [Every tautology] is [true],
              Minor Premise: [The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'] is [a tautology],
              Therefore,
              Conclusion: [The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'] is [true].

              Do you see the problem now?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                Then what (if anything) are you telling me?



                Give me some dots to connect.



                What (if anything) are you calling "Allah"?



                Betwixt what two claims?
                Allah means God in the Islamic tradition. Seems 'God' is a multi-traditional term, Christian's can't rationally claim exclusive use of it.
                _/\_

                Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

                Comment


                • #38
                  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"?)
                  I think that your definition of God here generally fits what many people, especially Christians would accept.....but the person said he/she doesn't believe in God, so obviously would not accept that definition.

                  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.
                  Your logical argument fails because you assume that God exists. That works for people who believe in God, but it won't be working for the person you quoted.


                  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]".
                  Yes, that is quite obvious. He means he doesn't believe God 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 must not flagrantly rebel against logical thinking regarding these points because they are not logical. You have assumed the existence of the thing you're trying to prove.


                  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.
                  If it has to be believed than it is not a logical necessity to accept it as truth. Therefore, your statement is false.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                    Nice move. Maybe you don’t live with your parents.
                    My parents are in their mid nineties and they live with me/ I live with them

                    Is there something wrong with living with your parents?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by chair View Post
                      Major Premise: [Every tautology] is [true],
                      Minor Premise: [The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'] is [a tautology],
                      Therefore,
                      Conclusion: [The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'] is [true].

                      Do you see the problem now?
                      I see (and, I confess, I foresaw) the problem you've got, here.

                      Your problem is that I, for one, do not call any person, place, or thing, "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists". Further, I do not believe that you are denoting any person, place, or thing by that phrase. Since I do not believe you mean anything by that phrase, I do not believe that, by what you have written in your brackets (viz., "The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'"), you have expressed a proposition (not even a false one), let alone a tautological one.

                      You see, propositions are about things: every proposition has a subject. While I don't believe that your phrase, "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists", is any subject's name--that is, that you are referring to some subject by means of your phrase--I'm certainly not going to be able to believe that you are affirming a proposition when you say, "The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'".
                      What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                      MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by quip View Post
                        Allah means God in the Islamic tradition.
                        By this, what do you mean if not merely that, "in the Islamic tradition", the Arabic word, 'Allah', and the English word, 'God', are thought of as interchangeable by people who have both words in their vocabularies?

                        But, again, the question I asked you, and which you've not answered, is:

                        Whom (if anyone), or what (if anything) are you calling "Allah" (when you say "Allah is considered God by millions")?

                        And, now that I think of it, I should also ask you:

                        Whom (if anyone), or what (if anything) are you calling "God" (when you say "Allah is considered God by millions")?

                        Originally posted by quip View Post
                        Seems 'God' is a multi-traditional term,
                        The English word, 'God', is "a multi-traditional term"? What (if anything) do you mean by that?

                        How would you relate your saying that the English word, 'God', is "a multi-traditional term", to a monolingual person whose mother tongue is not English?

                        Originally posted by quip View Post
                        Christian's can't rationally claim exclusive use of it.
                        Though, would it not seem that persons, alone, whose vocabularies contain the English word, 'God', can rationally claim exclusive use of the English word, 'God'?
                        What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                        MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                          But, again, the question I asked you, and which you've not answered, is:

                          Whom (if anyone), or what (if anything) are you calling "Allah" (when you say "Allah is considered God by millions")?

                          And, now that I think of it, I should also ask you:

                          Whom (if anyone), or what (if anything) are you calling "God" (when you say "Allah is considered God by millions")?
                          I'm referring to Allah (God) Re: OP - "[The] eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind".
                          Are they or are they not the same God?
                          _/\_

                          Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                            ...the person said he/she doesn't believe in God...
                            And so, the question is, is he/she referring, by the word 'God', to the God Who exists, namely, YHWH, or he/she is not?

                            Whenever somebody says the word, 'God', either he/she is referring to something by the word, 'God', or he/she is not.

                            Whenever somebody is referring to something by the word, 'God', either he/she is referring to the God Who exists, namely YHWH, or he/she is not referring to the God Who exists, namely YHWH (in which, latter case, he/she is instead referring to something other than YHWH, the God Who exists).

                            Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                            Your logical argument fails because you assume that God exists.
                            To what (if anything), or to whom (if anyone), are you referring, here, by the word, 'God'?

                            If by "you assume that God exists", you mean that I believe the tautology, 'The eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists, namely YHWH, exists', you are correct. It could never be rational to deny, or to doubt, any tautology, whatsoever; it is always rational to believe a tautology.

                            Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                            That works for people who believe in God, but it won't be working for the person you quoted.
                            And, here again, whom (if anyone), or what (if anything) are you calling "God", here?

                            Are you referring to YHWH, the God Who exists? If you're not referring to YHWH, the God Who exists, then to what, or to whom, are you referring?

                            Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                            Yes, that is quite obvious. He means he doesn't believe God exists.
                            If, by the word 'God', he means Whom Christians mean by the word, 'God', then, when he says, "I don't believe God exists", what he means is "I don't believe the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists, namely YHWH, exists." If, when he says, "I don't believe God exists", he does not mean "I don't believe the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists, namely YHWH, exists", then he does not mean, by the word 'God', Whom Christians mean by the word 'God'.

                            Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                            You have assumed the existence of the thing you're trying to prove.
                            And what (if anything) would you say it is to "prove" something. You'll, perhaps, notice that I've not even once, in this thread (at least), used the word "prove" in any way save in quoting someone else saying it. You'll notice that I do not go about saying, "I proved...", "I can prove...", "I'm trying to prove...", "You can't prove...", "Try to prove...", "You have not proved...", etc.

                            Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                            If it has to be believed than it is not a logical necessity to accept it as truth. Therefore, your statement is false.
                            I don't know what (if anything) you mean by "logical necessity". But, in my book, at least, I take it as axiomatic that for a proposition to be tautological is, necessarily, for that proposition to be true--that it's impossible for that proposition to be untrue, let alone false. If you can tell me that the tautology, 'The eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists, namely YHWH, exists' is not a tautology, or, if you can say "It is a tautology", and yet tell me that it might not be true, why then, you and I are operating on very different, and opposing, axioms, and attempting further discussion would seem to be an exercise in futility, for (without intending to hurt your feelings) I'd have to say that, if you reject that axiom, you're not operating in the realm of reason.
                            Last edited by 7djengo7; August 8th, 2019, 06:19 PM.
                            What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                            MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by quip View Post
                              I'm referring to Allah (God) Re: OP - "[The] eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind".
                              To which one (if any) of the questions I asked you is what you wrote, there, supposed to be an answer?

                              Originally posted by quip View Post
                              Are they or are they not the same God?
                              "they"?? Plural? Why plural? To which two (or more) things (if any) are you referring by the pronoun, 'they'?
                              What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                              MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post

                                "they"?? Plural? Why plural? To which two (or more) things (if any) are you referring by the pronoun, 'they'?
                                Good question. I'll defer the answer to you....
                                They: Allah; Christian God.
                                Are "they" competing Gods or do both religions worship the same 'God'?
                                _/\_

                                Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X