tim wood
4.8k
↪Frank Apisa It has to be said. You don't know, either. — tim wood
What 3017 doesn't know. You share ignorance. — tim wood
tim wood
4.8k
↪Frank Apisa The syllogism is correct, and is exactly what you asked for. That you neither recognize that nor understand it is not a good thing. — tim wood
tim wood
4.8k
I don't know what?
— Frank Apisa
What 3017 doesn't know. You share ignorance. — tim wood
The one you gave is defective. — Frank Apisa
tim wood
4.8k
The one you gave is defective.
— Frank Apisa
It's correct. I'm either a liar or mistaken. It's up to you to show the mistake - or make the case for my lying. Do a little research; learn something. There was a clue just above the syllogism. And, keep in mind it is exactly what you asked for. — tim wood
When you are in a hole, Tim...don't ask for a sharper shovel.Ask for a rope or a ladder. — Frank Apisa
3017amen
2.1k
When you are in a hole, Tim...don't ask for a sharper shovel.Ask for a rope or a ladder.
— Frank Apisa
LOL, I know. It seems as though he put himself in a precarious and/or somewhat untenable position :snicker: . — 3017amen
His heart seems to be in the right place...and he seems intelligent.
I hope he sees his errors. — Frank Apisa
p1. I have reason to suspect that whatever necessariily transcends existence is impossible to exist.Put your supposed reason into a syllogism with the conclusion being:
Therefore I have reason to suspect it is impossible for a god to exist. — Frank Apisa
Done.Do it.
YOU CANNOT DO IT.
Now we're talkin'!!!! — 3017amen
Still waiting for you to make your case (to use your verbiage, and mentioned before), or is that not forthcoming? Say, feel free to show how you derive your gods from love. Somehow I get an impression you have a long story to tell. — jorndoe
Tic toc tic toc, LOL — 3017amen
take your silence, as acquiescence — 3017amen
(there cannot be a separate explanation for existence, since then that explanation would then not exist, but that's peripheral to @3017amen's burden here)I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence) — Frank Apisa
p1. I suspect that whatever necessarily transcends existence is impossible to exist.
p2. I suspect a god necessarily transcends existence.
c. Therefore I have reason to suspect it is impossible for a god to exist. — 180 Proof
Then we'd be talkin'. (y) — jorndoe
180 Proof
1.5k
Put your supposed reason into a syllogism with the conclusion being:
Therefore I have reason to suspect it is impossible for a god to exist.
— Frank Apisa
p1. I suspect that whatever necessariily transcends existence is impossible to exist.
p2. I suspect a god necessarily transcends existence.
c. Therefore I have reason to suspect it is impossible for a god to exist.
:smirk:
Do it.
YOU CANNOT DO IT.
Done.
Again.
(You're welcome!) — 180 Proof
3017amen
2.1k
p1. I suspect that whatever necessarily transcends existence is impossible to exist.
p2. I suspect a god necessarily transcends existence.
c. Therefore I have reason to suspect it is impossible for a god to exist.
— 180 Proof
180, welcome to the party! Here's what you've suggested:
p1. I suspect that whatever necessarily transcends existence is possible to exist.
p2. I suspect a god necessarily transcends existence.
p3. Therefore, I have reason to suspect it is possible for a god to exist.
Did I get that right ?
↪Frank Apisa — 3017amen
180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa By all means, Prof. Apisa, provide correction - show me the syllogistic error of ways. "Do it. YOU CANNOT DO IT." :sweat: — 180 Proof
naive, philosophically — Punshhh
humans, who are evolved to [...] — Punshhh
about universal, or remote origins — Punshhh
normal rational concerns are mute in answering it — Punshhh
180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa Coward. Run along now . — 180 Proof
tim wood
4.8k
So...go consult with a logician at a local university.
— Frank Apisa
Where do you think
II-2, camestres
— tim wood
comes from?
You've played yourself the fool, nor it be denied you've done a good and unreversible job of it. — tim wood
Incoherent gibberish. 'Transcends existence' denotes (1) separate from existence, (2) non-existence or does not exist; if 'necessarily transcends existence', then necessarily separate from existence, that is, does not exist - cannot exist.p1. I suspect that whatever necessarily transcends existence ispossibleto exist. — 3017amen
Oh, 3017, you passed the audition for @Frank Apisa's idiot wingman a long time ago. :clap: :lol:Did I get that right ?
180 Proof
1.5k
↪tim wood :up:
p1. I suspect that whatever necessarily transcends existence is possible to exist.
— 3017amen
Incoherent gibberish. 'Transcends existence' denotes (1) separate from existence, (2) non-existence or does not exist; if 'necessarily transcends existence', then necessarily separate from existence, that is, does not exist - cannot exist.
Did I get that right ?
Oh, 3017, you passed the audition for Frank Apisa's idiot wingman a long time ago. :clap: :lol: — 180 Proof
I'm fairly confident you didn't miss ...I'm sorry to keep putting you on the hot seat...or maybe you answered them, I couldn't find where you did though... ? — 3017amen
... given the comments you read.Still waiting for you to make your case (to use your verbiage, and mentioned before), or is that not forthcoming? Say, feel free to show how you derive your gods from love. Somehow I get an impression you have a long story to tell. — jorndoe
Passive-aggressive diversion and disguised insults doesn't make your case.Tic toc tic toc, LOL — 3017amen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.