Am I so stupid at math or did I just prove God?

Author: TheGreatSunGod

Posts

Total: 168
Topic's author
#151
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 844
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
If you're asking the question you're already proving it.
So asking for proof for A proves A? So then you prove God each time you ask proof for God.

Maybe your argument is that you cant ask for proof without using logic here, but that just means logic cant be proved. If you cant ask for proof, then it cant even be proved.

Your proof for logic depends on logic to be true first for proof to be true.

So again, using logic to prove logic here. Circular fallacy.
#152
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,750
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
So again, using logic to prove logic here. Circular fallacy.
Repeating an incoherent question doesn't make it any more coherent. See post 122. If you intend to continue this conversation, respond to it instead of just repeating the same meaningless nonsense.
Topic's author
#153
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 844
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
Repeating an incoherent question doesn't make it any more coherent
So are you using logic to prove logic?

Can logic be proved?

Or it cant be?

These are very simple questions now.
#154
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,491
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Repeating an incoherent question doesn't make it any more coherent
So are you using logic to prove logic?

Can logic be proved?

Or it cant be?

These are very simple questions now.
No, logic itself cannot be proven. Logic is foundational, meaning it's a starting point for reasoning and argumentation, and it cannot be proven by using logic itself. Instead, logic is considered an axiom, a basic assumption upon which other proofs and arguments are built.


#155
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,750
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
So are you using logic to prove logic?
No

Can logic be proved?
No

These are very simple questions now.
Answered in post 122. See Shila's response as well.
Topic's author
#156
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 844
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
Can logic be proved?

No
I rest my case.
#157
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,750
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Can logic be proved?

No
I rest my case.
Presuppositionalism in a nutshell. Find a "problem" in epistemology that cannot be solved, claim God solves it, declare victory.

It's the most intellectually bankrupt form of apologetics out there.
Topic's author
#158
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 844
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
 Find a "problem" in epistemology that cannot be solved, claim God solves it, declare victory.
God who is above logic can solve anything. He cant even contradict himself there.

#159
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,750
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
God who is above logic can solve anything
How convenient.

Unfortunately for you such a being is the literal definition of incoherent and therefore not provable.
Topic's author
#160
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 844
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
Unfortunately for you such a being is the literal definition of incoherent and therefore not provable
Being above logic cannot be proved by logic, nor stopped by logic. So it must exist.
#161
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,750
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
So it must exist.
That's called a conclusion. You might want to Google how you got there.
Topic's author
#162
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 844
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
That's called a conclusion. You might want to Google how you got there.
By using non-logic place where everyhing is possible.
#163
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,491
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Being above logic cannot be proved by logic, nor stopped by logic. So it must exist.
No, logic itself cannot be proven. Logic is foundational, meaning it's a starting point for reasoning and argumentation, and it cannot be proven by using logic itself. Instead, logic is considered an axiom, a basic assumption upon which other proofs and arguments are built.
Topic's author
#164
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 844
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Shila
For you, my next thread is pascal's wager.
#165
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,491
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
For you, my next thread is pascal's wager.

Pascal's Wager is a philosophical argument suggesting that it is rational to believe in God because the potential reward (eternal happiness) for believing in God and the potential punishment for not believing (eternal suffering) far outweigh the potential consequences of believing in a false God or no God at all.


#166
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,750
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
That's called a conclusion. You might want to Google how you got there.
By using non-logic place where everyhing is possible.
So in other words... If we begin with a place of non-logic where everything is possible then we can use this to explain logic.

Do you know what you just did is called?
Topic's author
#167
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 844
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
If we begin with a place of non-logic where everything is possible then we can use this to explain logic
Non-logic makes both everything and nothing possible, yes. So non-logic is a better answer we have, while also not being a better answer at the same time.
#168
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,750
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Do you understand that you're typing words but saying absolutely nothing?