-->
@Vegasgiants
If energy bills exist, then God exists.
Another undeniable proof of God's existence: All human logic is flawed
Posts
Total:
49
-->
@Best.Korea
And atheism
-->
@Best.Korea
Human logic can be only one of these 3:1) Circular2) Based on premises which are accepted as truth without asking for reason for the premises3) Infinite reasoningAll 3 of these forms of logic are flawed.1) is a logical fallacy.2) is based on no proof.3) cannot be proven at all, since infinity cannot be demonstrated.However, if we accept any of these as basis for our logic, we end up proving God.1) Circular logic: God exists because Bible says so. Bible is true because it is the word of God.2-1) Unquestionable premise: God exists because it says so in the Bible. Bible is unquestionable.(Awkward moment for people who think feelings are unquestionable).2-2) If feelings are unquestionable, that means God exists because many people feel the presence of God.3) Infinite reasoning: God exists because of infinite amount of reasons, such as God1, God2, God3...So therefore, no matter what logic we use, God exists.
Human logic can be only one of these 3:
1) Circular
2) Based on premises which are accepted as truth without asking for reason for the premises
3) Infinite reasoning
All 3 of these forms of logic are flawed.
1) is a logical fallacy.
2) is based on no proof.
3) cannot be proven at all, since infinity cannot be demonstrated.
However, if we accept any of these as basis for our logic, we end up proving the existence of Bob the spherical camel.
1) Circular logic: Bob the spherical camel exists because I say so. What I say is true because it is corroborated by the known existence of Bob the spherical camel.
2-1) Unquestionable premise: Bob the spherical camel exists because I said so right now. What I said right now is unquestionable.
(Awkward moment for people who think feelings are unquestionable).
2-2) If feelings are unquestionable, that means Bob the spherical camel exists because I feel the presence of Bob the spherical camel.
3) Infinite reasoning: Bob the spherical camel exists because of infinite amount of reasons, such as Bob1, Bob2, Bob3...
So therefore, no matter what logic we use, Bob the spherical camel exists.
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
However, if we accept any of these as basis for our logic, we end up proving the existence of Bob the spherical camel
If you reject all of those as basis for your logic, you cannot prove that anything exists. So either God exists either nothing does.
-->
@Best.Korea
If you reject all of those as basis for your logic, you cannot prove that anything exists. So either God exists either nothing does.
I don't reject them. No, I'm not just saying that for the sake of argument, I legitimately don't reject them. Regardless, don't you think that there should be some restriction of their use? Unless, that is, you accept the existence of Bob the spherical camel.
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
What restriction could be in place? Wouldnt such restriction be just as good as any other restriction? Example, me saying that only Bible is true.
-->
@Best.Korea
Wouldnt such restriction be just as good as any other restriction?
So then rejecting the Bible and rejecting Bob the spherical camel is no better or worse than rejecting Bob the spherical camel and accepting the Bible. I'm glad we agree.
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Yes. Same applies to anything, including your existence and mine.
So either God exists either nothing does.
-->
@Best.Korea
I assume that Best.Korea is an assumption.
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes. Same applies to anything, including your existence and mine.So either God exists either nothing does.
Whoops, there was a typo. This shouldn't change anything though!
So then rejecting the Bible and rejecting Bob the spherical camel is no better or worse than rejecting Bob the spherical camel and accepting the Bible. I'm glad we agree.
I meant to write "accepting."
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
So how is accepting that "it is true that you are real" different from accepting that "Bible is true"?
-->
@zedvictor4
I assume that Best.Korea is an assumption.
Thats okay. Best.Korea also thinks that Best.Korea is an assumption 😁
-->
@Best.Korea
So how is accepting that "it is true that you are real" different from accepting that "Bible is true"?
What? How is that relevant? What is that even intended to mean? Also, do you or do you not agree the accepting Bob the spherical camel and rejecting the Bible is just as reasonable as accepting the Bible and rejecting Bob the spherical camel?
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Please answer the question. Why is it true that you exist?
How is that relevant?
If "you exist is true" is not relevant to the Bible being true, then Bible being true is not relevant to Bob being true.
Why do you believe it is true that you exist?
-->
@Best.Korea
Please answer the question. Why is it true that you exist?
Why is it true that I exist? Well. I'm tempted to say "I think therefore I am," but I'm also tempted to say "suppose I don't." I'm sure you have some sort of rebuttal to "I think therefore I am," so why don't we just skip it? I don't exist. I am not real. So what?
If "you exist is true" is not relevant to the Bible being true, then Bible being true is not relevant to Bob being true.
None of those have any sort of inherent relevance to each other. You still have yet to answer my question: Do you or do you not agree the accepting Bob the spherical camel and rejecting the Bible is just as reasonable as accepting the Bible and rejecting Bob the spherical camel?
Why do you believe it is true that you exist?
Once again, suppose I don't. I want to see where you intend to go with that.
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Do you or do you not agree the accepting Bob the spherical camel and rejecting the Bible is just as reasonable as accepting the Bible and rejecting Bob the spherical camel?
If it is reasonable to accept that you exist, then it is also reasonable to accept that Bob the spherical camel exists.
I'm tempted to say "I think therefore I am,"
God thinks, therefore God exists. I dont think you can prove that you think, or that your thoughts exist.
Therefore, God's existence is equally true as your existence.
-->
@Best.Korea
If it is reasonable to accept that you exist, then it is also reasonable to accept that Bob the spherical camel exists.
But is it just as reasonable to accept Bob the spherical camel and reject the Bible as it is to accept the Bible and reject Bob the spherical camel? Please answer this specific question.
God thinks, therefore God exists. I dont think you can prove that you think, or that your thoughts exist.Therefore, God's existence is equally true as your existence.
You seem to have ignored what I said next:
but I'm also tempted to say "suppose I don't." I'm sure you have some sort of rebuttal to "I think therefore I am," so why don't we just skip it? I don't exist. I am not real. So what?
So tell me, what are the consequences of me not existing?
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
So tell me, what are the consequences of me not existing?
None, really. It is even better, morally, since no one can cause you pain since you dont exist and neither does your pain.
But is it just as reasonable to accept Bob the spherical camel and reject the Bible as it is to accept the Bible and reject Bob the spherical camel? Please answer this specific question.
Yes, just as it is equally reasonable to accept that you exist. So yes, if you are real, then so is God. If God is not real, then neither are you.
-->
@Best.Korea
So in conclusion, existence is a completely arbitrary label.