Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Gods or Monsters, It's All in the Head

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 11:19:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You could apply this logic to God; you could apply it to Santa Clause; in fact, you could apply it to anything you please.

Firstly, only things that have existence can be known. As a demonstration, think of any idea and determine if that idea has its place in the actual World. I know this sounds like something very easy to refute. For example, we know Santa Clause does not actually exist.... Or does he? Each and every property we can think of in relation to Santa has its place in reality. For example, flight, flight is known in the real world. Yet, you may say among birds, not human beings. In fact, the idea of humanlike beings flying through the air is an ancient concept long before humans actually took to flight. This I will give you. Yet, compounding properties doesn't negate the existence of those properties, in any way. For example, the concept of two existed long before the actual number. The number itself is merely a symbol used to denote two ones compounded; yet, two ones have been and will always be two. So, adding a man to flight does not negate either one.

Secondly, both the man and flight have their beginnings and ends in consciousness, even as man compounded with flight. In other words, they are made up of the exact same material, one's imagination. Yet, you may ask, doesn't the man live in the real World, while the other only lives in the imagination.... No. Empirically they both live in the imagination. In fact, without consciousness neither one of them would exist. I can say you exist apart from me, but I could never prove it.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 8:49:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 11:24:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Fallacy of composition.

Is it anymore a fallacy of composition than a Christian's saying Christ ascended into heaven? Can a Christian prove, in a court of law, he did? Can I prove, in a court of law, he didn't?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 3:06:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Court Proof is not logical Proof. It evidence Based. I Believe you section is two doors down. You will be more at home.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 3:08:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 8:49:36 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/9/2012 11:24:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Fallacy of composition.

Is it anymore a fallacy of composition than a Christian's saying Christ ascended into heaven? Can a Christian prove, in a court of law, he did? Can I prove, in a court of law, he didn't?

The Fool: If you are saying in a natural sense NO he didn't. Can you prove I am not God? I am actually Jesus. Can you prove that I am not Jesus?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 9:12:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 3:06:02 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Court Proof is not logical Proof. It evidence Based. I Believe you section is two doors down. You will be more at home.

I don't care to argue with you, on whether proof in court is logical or illogical; so, I've decided to stay my current line of reasoning.

Only things that exist can be known. You cannot know something that doesn't exist. For, if it doesn't exist, then, it is nothing; and, nothing has no properties. It hasn't shape or size; it is not black, blue, green, or red. It can't cut your grass or do your hair. It has no beginning or end. To know it is to know nothing and knowing nothing is knowing nothing. Each and every property in your imagination has its place in reality. Shapes, colors, sizes, regardless of that which they might be, are known only because they have their place in reality.

I got a challenge for you: describe something using only properties that are absent in the real World. Pay attention very closely; I'm not saying describe something such as Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny, but that which I am saying is describe something using properties that don't exist.

What is something other than the sum of its parts? If its parts don't exist, then, neither does it.
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 10:14:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 3:06:02 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Court Proof is not logical Proof. It evidence Based. I Believe you section is two doors down. You will be more at home.

One of the few things I agree with you on. Logical proof is not the same as evidencial proof. In a courtroom, if you don't have evidence to back it up, it didn't happen, in a logical scenario, it doesn't need specific evidence for the possibility to exist.
My legend begins in the 12th century