What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: Christopher A. Lee on 30 Mar 2005 11:19 On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:44:23 GMT, sob(a)sob.com (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote: >On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 09:05:55 -0500, "Robibnikoff" ><witchypoo(a)broomstick.com> wrote: > >>Nothing. Believing it, however, is the height of idiocy as there's no >>evidence this god thing exists. > >That all depends on what you mean by "this god thing". > >If by "God" you mean the Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics, >then there is plenty of evidence - the Universe. What "Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics" would that be? And how is the Universe meant to be evidence for it? Clue: start without any preconceptions about this god of yours. Then derive it from the universe before presuming it. What's that? You can't?
From: Dan Listermann on 30 Mar 2005 11:22 "Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message news:424ac8e5.1565761(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:42:14 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" > <bob(a)bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote: > >>>>> There is no god >>>>> Something that doesn't exist cannot work in anyway let alone >>>> mysteriously > >>>> Well, this God has been credited with the success of certain people in >>>> this world. > >>So? Santa get's the credit for leaving the presents under the tree > > And the Supreme Being is credited with causing Existence. Which begs the question, what caused the supreme being, etc?
From: Elroy Willis on 30 Mar 2005 11:30 sob(a)sob.com (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote in alt.atheism > Elroy Willis <elroywillis(a)swbell.net> wrote: >> dshsfca(a)ixpres.com (D. Stephen Heersink) wrote in alt.atheism >>> Prophets, that alien bunch, haven't proved anything to be true, except >>> as an accidental. The Bible itself teaches us to avoid prophesy of all >>> kinds as a tool of the devil. Not that the Bible has much going right >>> about it in the first place, but it does recognize that prophesy is >>> about as informative as reading the stars. >> If the Bible teaches against prophesy, then why are so many of the >> writers of it considered prophets by so many people? > I do not believe that the Bible has all that many prophets. In fact > there are only a small number acknowledged by Biblical scholars as > prophets. One is all it takes. -- Elroy Willis www.elroysemporium.com
From: Mike Oliver on 30 Mar 2005 11:55 Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: > It is not fair to compare Prophesy to works of people like Nostradamus > or Casey. Those people operate in a different way from Prophesy. <spelling flame alert> "Prophesy", pronounced to rhyme with "eye", is a verb, meaning "to engage in prophecy". "Prophecy", which rhymes with "bee", is a noun. There seem to be plenty of otherwise-well-educated folks who don't know this, so I hope to be excused for pointing it out.
From: SOB) on 30 Mar 2005 14:16
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:19:53 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <calee(a)optonline.net> wrote: >What "Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics" would that be? Stay tuned - I have begun to lay the groundwork. >And how is the Universe meant to be evidence for it? That will become apparent when we get into the discussion. But first it is critical that we establish the framework for the discussion. >Clue: start without any preconceptions about this god of yours. That makes no sense. If I am going to discuss God I must define what I mean. You want me to develop some vague theory so you can show that it is not meaningful. That is very disengenuous of you. >Then derive it from the universe before presuming it. Every rational system has axioms. You cannot derive propositions without them. >What's that? You can't? Prove that I can't. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life." |