tim wood
4.8k
↪Frank Apisa It has to be said. You don't know, either. — tim wood

I don't know what?

Slow down...talk sense.

Sorry for the redundancy, but did you get a chance to mull these over yet:

I could be wrong, but that structure doesn't quite seem right. Isn't it supposed to be: 1.All A are B, 2.All C are A, 3.Therefore, all C are B, ?

Also, let's look at each proposition to determine whether it's premise is sound or not.

2. You said God has no existential predicates. Do you mean God's attributes? How do you know the mind of God?

3. You said God is not a materially existing thing. How does that follow from your first and second premise? Also, the things-in-themselves (the nature of existence) are supposed to be metaphysical, no?
Take self-awareness for example, are those all material? And what about all of the meaning of life questions, how does that fit into your logic about existential predicates?

The syllogism is correct, and is exactly what you asked for. That you neither recognize that nor understand it is not a good thing.

I don't know what? — Frank Apisa

What 3017 doesn't know. You share ignorance.

What 3017 doesn't know. You share ignorance. — tim wood

Sorry for the redundancy, but did you get a chance to mull these over yet:

I could be wrong, but that structure doesn't quite seem right. Isn't it supposed to be: 1.All A are B, 2.All C are A, 3.Therefore, all C are B, ?

Also, let's look at each proposition to determine whether its premise is sound or not.

2. You said God has no existential predicates. Do you mean God's attributes? How do you know the mind of God?

3. You said God is not a materially existing thing. How does that follow from your first and second premise? Also, the things-in-themselves (the nature of existence) are supposed to be metaphysical, no?
Take self-awareness for example, are those all material? And what about all of the meaning of life questions, how does that fit into your logic about existential predicates?

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

Yes, the syllogism I gave is. The one you gave is defective...and does not even come close to applying to what we are discussing.

I gave you the C...and asked for a P1 and P2 that arrives at it.

You changed the C.

C'mon. No more playing the amateur. You know better than that.

tim wood
4.8k
I don't know what?
— Frank Apisa

What 3017 doesn't know. You share ignorance. — tim wood

You are out of control.

That happens when a person who does not like to acknowledge being wrong...

...IS WRONG.

Grow up.

Acknowledge you are wrong. You'll be the better for it.

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
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

It was not exactly what I asked for...IT WAS NOT EVEN CLOSE.

When you are in a hole, Tim...don't ask for a sharper shovel.Ask for a rope or a ladder.

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
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.

His heart seems to be in the right place...and he seems intelligent.

I hope he sees his errors. — Frank Apisa

I agree on all accounts.

Dogberry and Verges, Bye.

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 have reason to suspect that whatever necessariily transcends existence is impossible to exist.

p2. I have reason to 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!)

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

Then we'd be talkin'. (y)

Tic toc tic toc, LOL — 3017amen

take your silence, as acquiescence — 3017amen

I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence) — Frank Apisa

(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)

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 ?

Then we'd be talkin'. (y) — jorndoe

jorndoe, in case you missed my questions to you:

Are you suggesting that atheism is about nothing? How can it be about nothing when there is something?
2. What does open-ended anything mean?

Another question for the Atheist is, if Love can't do what instinct does (or if it's an ancillary/redundant feature of consciousness) to effect survival needs, why should Love exist, what is its purpose? Surely it's not needed to procreate, when instinct is all that's needed... ? Is Love a Universal truth? How does Atheism square the metaphysical circle?

That's just for starters. I want to hear how you reconcile your atheism with materialism and conscious existence. Explain your own existence, can you? If you cannot, then we are back to: When an Atheist makes any and all oral or written statements, judgements, and/or propositions about his/her belief in no God(s), that puts them in the precarious and untenable position of having to defend same.

I'm sorry to keep putting you on the hot seat...or maybe you answered them, I couldn't find where you did though... ?

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

Call a local university and ask to speak with one of their logicians.

Tell them you offered that as a syllogism.

They will enjoy the laugh.

I did.

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

The best way to show the problem with 180 "syllogism" is to adapt it into another form. Here we go:

P1: I suspect anyone who would post a "syllogism" as silly as that one is a moron.

P2: 180 did post it.

C: Therefore I have reason to suspect 180 is an idiot.

What?

By all means, Prof. Apisa, provide correction - show me the syllogistic error of ways. "Do it. YOU CANNOT DO IT." :sweat:

Now now you can't expect respect if you're not going to show respect in return. No need for ad hominems, Frankie, either way, right?

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

As with Tim...you would NEVER accept it from me.

So...go consult with a logician at a local university.

He/she will tell you, in a nice way, I am sure, that you are all wet.

Other than that...if you find a problem with the fact that I see no reason whatsoever to suspect there are no gods...and no reason whatsoever to suspect there is at least one god...

...fine with me.

I enjoy a laugh as much as the next guy!

Coward. Run along now ...

naive, philosophically — Punshhh

Naïve, uncritical, gullible, malleable, credulous, "seeing faces in the clouds", ..., philosophically or otherwise?

Not sure I understood your comment right, entirely possible I misread, in which case discard: Per earlier, in what way does an adult's non-naïveté (or epistemic attitude) demand that they take into account, incorporate thoughts of, intangible hobs that can control the weather in their lives? (Should their spouse family friends be concerned?) If absent in any way that matters, then in/consistency between epistemic attitude and real life comes-to-the-fore.

humans, who are evolved to [...] — Punshhh

Some of the claimants (including @3017amen if memory serves) have difficulties with biological evolution. :confused:

about universal, or remote origins — Punshhh

Are we talking grandeurs by which the universe pales?

The claimants will typically also have it that their super-beings can hide entirely from us, but we cannot hide from them, which seems mostly like post-rationalization.

A kind of rationalization going on here converges on a particular category of propositions, p, so that both p and ¬p are compatible with attainable evidence. Sometimes by design (intent-to-rescue), sometimes not.

normal rational concerns are mute in answering it — Punshhh

Sometimes by design, immunized from counter/evidence. What's left? Epic experiences, personal revelations, ...?

"And where's Jesus?" :)

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.

180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa Coward. Run along now . — 180 Proof

Coward?

To debate you?

C'mon...get serious.

There is no way you will ever accept me showing you how absurd and amateurish your "syllogism" is. So...just ask an actual logician. You will find one at your local university. He/she will be more than willing to show you just how defective that attempt was. They will probably bore you with the explanation...which will go on for a long time. There was lots wrong with it.

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

Consult a logician at any university...and he/she will laugh at your attempt.

Or...just pretend you have made a point.

Either way works for me.

Anyone with a brain realizes there is no way to counter my contention: I see no reason whatsoever to suspect there are no gods...and no reason whatsoever to suspect there is at least one god.

Atheists. They are such fun. They take themselves so seriously. :wink:

: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
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

Ya gotta be able to handle things better than this, 180.

If you show you are thin-skinned...and that you have to resort to those kinds of childish insults...you forfeit.

Obviously an easy for you to do.

And entertaining.

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

I'm fairly confident you didn't miss ...

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

... given the comments you read.

Tic toc tic toc, LOL — 3017amen

Passive-aggressive diversion and disguised insults doesn't make your case.


_{(as an aside, as far as you can be concerned here, I might believe there are little green men on Mars that possess supernatural magic, Shaivist mysticism, voodoo sorcery or otherwise, i.e. don't attribute something to me personally here that I haven't stated)}

wtf :lol: