Are you suggesting you resolved millennia of theistic disputes and figured out who or what "God" is? — baker
The clue to why lies in the conclusion of this valid argument:
1. If someone thinks Sir2u's arguments are valid, then that person is too dumb for fun
2. Sir2u thinks Sir2u's arguments are valid
3. Therefore.... — Bartricks
Yet still you engage. Just stop feeding him and he’ll go away. — DingoJones
No bloody way mate, I am waiting to see who cracks first.
Who wants to bet that he runs in the next 50 posts or less? — Sir2u
No bloody way mate, I am waiting to see who cracks first. — Sir2u
Because I did not make it up. It comes from a very respect person in the area of philosophy and he thinks it is valid. — Sir2u
The rational intuitions of my philosophical mind leads me to the following conclusions but not necessarily beliefs:
1. god created mankind
2. god's guide to living says that mankind should worship him
3. therefore god needs mankind to worship him
1. if god needs mankind to worship him the mankind must reproduce to continue worshiping him
2. some people think that not reproducing is a morally correct thing to do
3. therefore either god does not decide what is moral and is not omnipotent OR some people are wrong about their ideas — Sir2u
There is something attractive about his smug certainty. Being able to prance around with a certainty like that -- that must be great! Yay!I don’t understand the masochism displayed by some of our more educated members to engage. I havent seen a single productive response from him. — DingoJones
None of the monotheistic religions is in favor of (absolute) antinatalism.'God' denotes an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. There's no dispute over that. And anyway, I stipulated that this is how I am using the term. But yes, if you are asking me if I am claiming to have proved God exists, then yes, I absolutely am.
But as with most people on this forum, you seem to have the focusing abilities of a goldfish. This thread is not about whether God exists, it is about the compatibility or otherwise of God with antinatalism and whether God's existence positively implies antinatalism. — Bartricks
None of the monotheistic religions is in favor of (absolute) antinatalism. — baker
Will you argue that you have better knowledge of God (in general, or in particular in reference to antinatalism) than they do? — baker
They have millennia of sacred texts, some of which are said to have been dictated directly by God.
Your dictionary definition of the term "God" is derived from those monotheistic texts, but the rest of your premises about God are merely your own inferences. — baker
But as with most people on this forum, you seem to have the focusing abilities of a goldfish. — Bartricks
Yes, you're a troll. — Bartricks
you have no idea what you're up against. — Bartricks
I think the technical term for an argument of that form is 'stupid'. — Bartricks
I think the technical term for an argument like that is 'unbelievably stupid'. — Bartricks
Oh good grief!! Just engage with something I argued in the OP! — Bartricks
Haha, nobody, but nobody, is going to take that bet....you have no idea what you're up against. — Bartricks
Are not valid. Here is the first:
1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore R.
1. If P, then Q (you wrote 'the', but I'll charitably assume you meant 'then', and no doubt the 'respect person' in philosophy meant 'then')
2. R
3. Therefore, either S or T — Bartricks
So just to be clear - you're claiming that the following arguments come from a 'respect person' in philosophy.
(you wrote 'the', but I'll charitably assume you meant 'then', and no doubt the 'respect person' in philosophy meant 'then') — Bartricks
why not address something I argued in the OP? — Bartricks
Dude is mentally ill, he’s psychologically incapable of stopping. Thats my guess. Some sort of personality disorder. So its a waste of time, but whatever floats your boat, just din’t let me catch you complaining he’s still around :wink: — DingoJones
I think you need a little guidance here. All you have stated here are the patterns of arguments. P, Q and R are only shown to represent something, as in the argument I posted. By themselves they have no meaning at all.
To disprove the arguments validity you have to show why either the premises are not true or that they do not add up to the conclusion. Which do you think is wrong and why? — Sir2u
You do not have to show that an argument's premises are 'false' to establish invalidity. An argument is invalid when its conclusion is not implied by its premises. The point of an argument is to 'extract' the implications of the premises. — Bartricks
To disprove the arguments validity you have to show why either the premises are not true or that they do not add up to the conclusion. Which do you think is wrong and why? — Sir2u
That is not valid. Why? Because 3 does not follow from 1 and 2. That is, 3 does not tell us what the combination of 1 and 2 create. — Bartricks
Did you not read what I said? — Sir2u
But what I really don't understand is why you think the second one is invalid. — Sir2u
We did not mention their soundness. — Bartricks
The same reason the first isn't. It doesn't conform to any of the 9 rules of inference that you don't know but are currently looking up. — Bartricks
But do not quite know what these terms mean and you are learning on the hoof, yes, by looking stuff up on Stanford and Wikipedia, yes? — Bartricks
But you see the first argument as
p
q
Therefore p — Sir2u
1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore R. — Bartricks
I probably studied this stuff before you were born. — Sir2u
Not to sound too old but I went to college before most people had color televisions. Maybe that's the problem — Sir2u
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.