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

Author: TheGreatSunGod

Posts

Total: 172
Topic's author
#151
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 853
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: 5,752
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: 5
Posts: 853
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: 5,752
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: 5
Posts: 853
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: 5,752
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: 5
Posts: 853
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: 5,752
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: 5
Posts: 853
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: 5,752
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: 5
Posts: 853
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: 5
Posts: 853
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: 5,752
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: 5
Posts: 853
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: 5,752
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?

Topic's author
#169
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 853
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
Do you understand that you're typing words but saying absolutely nothing?
Non-logic says nothing and everything at the same time. Maybe in some other debate, it would help you a lot if you called my words illogical. But sadly, when we are trying to prove logic, it gets a bit more complicated than that.
#170
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,752
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Non-logic says nothing and everything at the same time.
Something that says everything is definitionally meaningless.So no, you're not also also saying everything, you're just saying nothing.

Maybe in some other debate, it would help you a lot if you called my words illogical.
Again, logic is the foundation of acceptable thought. You either follow it, or you are by definition incoherent and therefore your words/claims/arguments are meaningless. You don't get a pass on that because you decided to challenge logic itself (all while ironically using logic to challenge it).

But sadly, when we are trying to prove logic, it gets a bit more complicated than that.
No, it doesn't. It gets more confusing sometimes when dealing with someone who doesn't understand the first law of logic and is therefore either unwilling or incapable of seeing that he's using it to point to something he himself defines as it not being applicable to, but there is no complication here. You cannot prove logic, you also cannot disprove logic. 

That second part is the one you always conveniently leave out. That's what your entire case is built on, and the problem you are blind to is that you really seem to think that's not what you're doing but it absolutely is. It is only when you accept that logic is insufficient and therefore in need of validation itself that any of this could make any sense to you.

"This sentence is false"

What you're doing is functionally equivalent to explaining why this sentence is true or false. It's neither.
#171
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,752
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Here is what presuppositionalism is:

Logic cannot prove logic, therefore it is insufficient.

Because logic is insufficient, we must appeal to something outside of logic

God by definition, can do anything and therefore, can solve this problem and validate logic.

Therefore, we must begin with God, and then use logic.

Therefore, I am now starting my epistemology with God.

Let me know if you can spot the problem here.

Topic's author
#172
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 853
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
You cannot prove logic, you also cannot disprove logic
So you cant prove it, I know that. We are not in a disagreement there. You cant prove God. You cant disprove God. You cant prove logic. Its same old story. I just offered a simple non-logical explanation, because logical explanation cannot work there.