Originally posted by Agerg [b]In your statement you made up a fictional character you [b]know doesn't exist. Therefore you statement is illogical and irrational.
My statement refers to a creator/God as creator of the universe. The evidence is real and exists. Therefore my statement is logical and rational.[/b]
I do know Minnie exists, I have faith she does!...and since you sai ...[text shortened]... universe. The evidence is real and exists. Therefore my statement is logical and rational.[/i][/b]
Sooner or later that frame of mind will become untenable.
Originally posted by Agerg The proposition a creator of the universe magic pot exists is structurally the same as a creator of the universe Bible God exists.
The latter doesn't seem to be drug induced and so neither should be the former.
Structurally?
Is that how you think? You construct two grammatically correct sentences and then judge them both to be propositionally correct?
Is that how you think? You construct two grammatically correct sentences and then judge them both to be propositionally correct?
Agerg says there is no God.
Josephw says there is a God.
One of them is wrong.
The structure of the statement:
a magic pot called Minnie that created the universe exists is the same as in the statement
josephw's interpretation of the Bible God that created the universe exists
`Evidence' for one can easily be made to be `evidence' for the other. Both are just baseless propositions - they differ only in trivial nuances, Minnie hates tigers and you; your God doesn't, Minnie isn't omnipotent (She's potent enough to create the universe though), yours is, and so on...
Originally posted by Agerg The structure of the statement:
a magic pot called Minnie that created the universe exists is the same as in the statement
josephw's interpretation of the Bible God that created the universe exists
`Evidence' for one can easily be made to be `evidence' for the other. Both are just baseless propositions - they differ only in trivial nuances ...[text shortened]... n't omnipotent (She's potent enough to create the universe though), yours is, and so on...
" 'Evidence' for one can easily be made to be `evidence' for the other."
Not so! That idea is illogical.
The universe, and all that exists, as evidence for a creator, is just that.
Creation/creator. Not, creation/minnie.
The original concept of this debate is whether there is a creator/God that created the universe and all that exists. I say that the universe is the evidence for a creator.
If you want to believe that the creator is minnie, then believe it.
Originally posted by josephw [b]" 'Evidence' for one can easily be made to be `evidence' for the other."
Not so! That idea is illogical.
The universe, and all that exists, as evidence for a creator, is just that.
Creation/creator. Not, creation/minnie.
The original concept of this debate is whether there is a creator/God that created the universe and all that exists. I s ...[text shortened]... dence for a creator.
If you want to believe that the creator is minnie, then believe it.[/b]
Creator/God, Creator/magic pot 😵
You started out by answering a post of 667joe's asking for evidence of your "God" and asserted the universe is such evidence; and so equally it is evidence of Minnie =/= "God". Essentially the existence of the universe does sweet F.A. to support the proposition *your* "God" exists.
As for the page long debate between ourselves to establish this idea in your mind,Reveal Hidden Content
(and I still don\'t think I\'ve succeeded here)
it's not my fault you're crap at logic ;] - Feck knows how long it would take me to successfully show you that your base premise, the universe was created by something sentient, isn't necessarily a given.
Capabilities
31 May '11 03:44
Reveal Hidden Content
Back to Top