Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

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

    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.

    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".)

    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".)

    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!
    What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

  • #2
    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?

    Comment


    • #3
      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...
      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.
      What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

      Comment


      • #4
        A.
        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.
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          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"?

          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?
          What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

          Comment


          • #6
            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 .

            Comment


            • #7
              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.
              What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

              Comment


              • #8
                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.
                  What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                      You agree, then, that Christians believe that the God Who exists, exists?
                      Originally posted by chair View Post
                      <No answer from chair.>
                      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.

                      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.

                      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:

                      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?

                      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"?

                      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?

                      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.
                      What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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?
                          _/\_

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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.


                            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.

                            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.

                            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?

                            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, 05:02 PM. Reason: capitalized a 'w'
                            What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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"?

                              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.
                              What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X