Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sin and logic.

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 3:47:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/10/2011 3:43:47 PM, GodSands wrote:
If sin is an illusion, logic therefore is also.

Discuss (I will apply my view on this a little later).

You have given us nothing to discuss.

If cake does not exist it does not logically follow that zebras also do not exist.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 3:54:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
: At 1/10/2011 3:47:10 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/10/2011 3:43:47 PM, GodSands wrote:
If sin is an illusion, logic therefore is also.

Discuss (I will apply my view on this a little later).

You have given us nothing to discuss.

If cake does not exist it does not logically follow that zebras also do not exist.


What do you mean, I given you an assertion, what do you think of it, does it make sense, is it logical?

But really, cake and a zebra, why do you think that equals to the randomness between sin and logic?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 3:57:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/10/2011 3:54:11 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/10/2011 3:47:10 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/10/2011 3:43:47 PM, GodSands wrote:
If sin is an illusion, logic therefore is also.

Discuss (I will apply my view on this a little later).

You have given us nothing to discuss.

If cake does not exist it does not logically follow that zebras also do not exist.


What do you mean, I given you an assertion, what do you think of it, does it make sense, is it logical?


You have not made a logical statement.

But really, cake and a zebra, why do you think that equals to the randomness between sin and logic?

Pretty much.

I don't mean to be an a$s but I think you should pretend as if this particular sub-forum does not exist.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 3:58:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/10/2011 3:54:11 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/10/2011 3:47:10 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/10/2011 3:43:47 PM, GodSands wrote:
If sin is an illusion, logic therefore is also.

Discuss (I will apply my view on this a little later).

You have given us nothing to discuss.

If cake does not exist it does not logically follow that zebras also do not exist.


What do you mean,

He means that your statement makes no sense.

I given you an assertion,

An unsubstantiated assertion.

what do you think of it,

I think it makes no sense. Do you wish to elaborate... Maybe explain WHY logic doesn't exist if sin doesn't?

does it make sense,

No.

is it logical?

No.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 3:58:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
: At 1/10/2011 3:57:01 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/10/2011 3:54:11 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/10/2011 3:47:10 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/10/2011 3:43:47 PM, GodSands wrote:
If sin is an illusion, logic therefore is also.

Discuss (I will apply my view on this a little later).

You have given us nothing to discuss.

If cake does not exist it does not logically follow that zebras also do not exist.


What do you mean, I given you an assertion, what do you think of it, does it make sense, is it logical?


You have not made a logical statement.

But really, cake and a zebra, why do you think that equals to the randomness between sin and logic?

Pretty much.

I don't mean to be an a$s but I think you should pretend as if this particular sub-forum does not exist.


No I won't pretend. Why haven't I made a logical statement, care to explain?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 4:03:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/10/2011 3:43:47 PM, GodSands wrote:
(I will apply my view on this a little later).

If you could simply Explain your view... It would be appreciated.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 4:05:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/10/2011 3:58:39 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/10/2011 3:57:01 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/10/2011 3:54:11 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/10/2011 3:47:10 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/10/2011 3:43:47 PM, GodSands wrote:
If sin is an illusion, logic therefore is also.

Discuss (I will apply my view on this a little later).

You have given us nothing to discuss.

If cake does not exist it does not logically follow that zebras also do not exist.


What do you mean, I given you an assertion, what do you think of it, does it make sense, is it logical?


You have not made a logical statement.

But really, cake and a zebra, why do you think that equals to the randomness between sin and logic?

Pretty much.

I don't mean to be an a$s but I think you should pretend as if this particular sub-forum does not exist.


No I won't pretend. Why haven't I made a logical statement, care to explain?

Because it does not follow any rules of logic.

If sin does not exist neither do biscuits = gibberish.

The onus is on you to define sin (opinions vary), and to demonstrate that if it did not exist then neither would logic.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 4:05:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/10/2011 3:43:47 PM, GodSands wrote:
If sin is an illusion, logic therefore is also.

You see Godsands, in logic, this is what we call a non-sequitur. ---> http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org...
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 4:55:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sin does not exist, logic is a concept. Like the others have said how are the two mutually exclusive?
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 6:02:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
you just can't make unsubstantiated claims. There are magical things called "facts" that you need to back up your claims.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 6:09:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/10/2011 6:02:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
you just can't make unsubstantiated claims. There are magical things called "facts" that you need to back up your claims.

I invented thumbs.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 7:46:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Seems like I've shaken up the atheist squad. No one yet who believes in some kind of god has responded. Is this some kind of a personal treat?

Atheists take logic to be such a prised link in their way of viewing what is. On the down side they take sin to be a religious configuration, and that only. That it cannot be extended further into a realm void of the supernatural. Sin is typically defined as a action against God, a supreme being who has authority over the human race and all of nature. To sin against God, an eternal punishment is found just among the Holy.

However, conceding this information and to make it foreign with your spirit would transcend the actually reality of sin into a reality of illusion. A dislike of an action towards human emotion creates a harsh reality of pain and suffering, therefore we distinctly use a poetic term to describe the world's bitter side. The term being sin. Without sin, there can be no holiness, and therefore the Christian God cannot exist for theological reasons.

Logic like sin is unseen, you cannot see logic, it isn't a physical object and nor is sin. Take away sin and you are left with the action. The action is processed in our minds and then perceived as right or wrong. You might say that there is no need to further an action in relation with some kind of a god. But so far no one has equipped their claim saying I make no sense in comparing sin to logic.

An illusion is simply something that looks credible but with further empirical investigation, turns out to be a trick of the mind. This can also created without empirical intervention, you can believe something is real or credible yet it doesn't actually exist (those who are uneducated in theology and proper logic will ask "why then do you believe in God?").

Something that is useful doesn't have to exist, it is the conception of the mind and the way we think that creates our reality. We look through our human eyes and see the world, those who have studied empiricism will know what I am talking about. We don't have a 'god's eye' view of the world, but a one that is self defending and seemingly significant. We are not supremely intelligent either, so perhaps logic is a tool to fit our own scope of reality? In the same way, sin could therefore be a tool to control and guild our moral dilemmas?

The point being, logic isn't visible and neither is sin. The action is, but we process the action and call it either good or evil/right or wrong. Having said that, good and evil is an illusion for some of you, them not objectively existing causes them to be illusive, dependent on the minds state and not on physical or spiritual justification. It is the mind that judges what is good or evil, right or wrong. Why can that then not be said for logic? Let me give an example:

Some men are blind, man are human therefore some human are blind. Empirically we cannot prove this to be true, we can only take people testimony on this subject. It is the translation of language that puts across understanding, and understanding puts across logic. Understanding comes through perception of knowledge, example of this may be; "I now understand that what I was looking at was actually a beautiful sun set." Knowing or being sure that it was something else before was due to a lack of understanding, this is because the perception was different. Although it was the same thing, it was being viewed differently.

I would suggest the same, I believe that there are millions if not billions of ways to perceive this universe, in which each way makes total sense to each individual organism. Yet us being created from the image of God, we are blessed with having the most advanced perspective, the most god-like view of the universe. So that we can make sense of it, and so that we can understand it in all it's glory. We being the ones who can grab knowledge by the neck and look it in the face, not by it's toe.

Logic is an illusion if sin is. There is no objective way to perceive the world, but there is a right way to. You don't want to view the world through the eyes of a fly or of a fish since in their perception, understanding is very limited and therefore knowledge is almost non-existent. So much so that instinct has a greater hold on them. Watch a fly bounce against a window for hours or watch a mouse go back to the same danger spot again and again without caution or reasonable thinking.

Logic is indeed illusive since it does not depend on physical activity, instead it depends upon our minds. Any state of mind could be said as false, given that thinking logically is a state of mind, who is to say it is a correct way of thinking? Of course language translates physical information into a mindful setting, language is like the minds over head projector. And understanding is fed from language to be exchanged for knowledge.

Logic and sin may not relate directly, I am not making that distinction, what I am saying is if sin is an illusion, why can't logic be one also?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 7:52:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So, what you're saying is, if one unseen, non-physical thing doesn't exist, then a different unseen, non-physical thing doesn't exist either? That's an absurd non sequitur. :P

To answer your question of why logic and sin can't both be illusions:

1. Sin is tied to morality, tied in turn to obedience or disobedience to God, which ties to God's existence. I don't believe in God, nor do I acknowledge an objective morality. Sin, then, becomes a hollow concept only applicable to the ethical codes of people who have religious faith.

2. Logic, unlike "sin", is demonstrable, testable, and functional--sin, however, is validated only by a huge word of mouth and an alleged holy book whose validity and credibility in the scientific community are insanely questionable at best, utter garbage at worst.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 7:56:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/10/2011 3:43:47 PM, GodSands wrote:
If sin is an illusion, logic therefore is also.

Discuss (I will apply my view on this a little later).

There is no correlation saying that is sin doesn't exist that logic doesn't. There is no dependency there.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 8:03:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/10/2011 7:46:25 PM, GodSands wrote:
Seems like I've shaken up the atheist squad. No one yet who believes in some kind of god has responded. Is this some kind of a personal treat?

Atheists take logic to be such a prised link in their way of viewing what is. On the down side they take sin to be a religious configuration, and that only. That it cannot be extended further into a realm void of the supernatural. Sin is typically defined as a action against God, a supreme being who has authority over the human race and all of nature. To sin against God, an eternal punishment is found just among the Holy.

However, conceding this information and to make it foreign with your spirit would transcend the actually reality of sin into a reality of illusion. A dislike of an action towards human emotion creates a harsh reality of pain and suffering, therefore we distinctly use a poetic term to describe the world's bitter side. The term being sin. Without sin, there can be no holiness, and therefore the Christian God cannot exist for theological reasons.

Logic like sin is unseen, you cannot see logic, it isn't a physical object and nor is sin. Take away sin and you are left with the action. The action is processed in our minds and then perceived as right or wrong. You might say that there is no need to further an action in relation with some kind of a god. But so far no one has equipped their claim saying I make no sense in comparing sin to logic.

An illusion is simply something that looks credible but with further empirical investigation, turns out to be a trick of the mind. This can also created without empirical intervention, you can believe something is real or credible yet it doesn't actually exist (those who are uneducated in theology and proper logic will ask "why then do you believe in God?").

Something that is useful doesn't have to exist, it is the conception of the mind and the way we think that creates our reality. We look through our human eyes and see the world, those who have studied empiricism will know what I am talking about. We don't have a 'god's eye' view of the world, but a one that is self defending and seemingly significant. We are not supremely intelligent either, so perhaps logic is a tool to fit our own scope of reality? In the same way, sin could therefore be a tool to control and guild our moral dilemmas?

The point being, logic isn't visible and neither is sin. The action is, but we process the action and call it either good or evil/right or wrong. Having said that, good and evil is an illusion for some of you, them not objectively existing causes them to be illusive, dependent on the minds state and not on physical or spiritual justification. It is the mind that judges what is good or evil, right or wrong. Why can that then not be said for logic? Let me give an example:

Some men are blind, man are human therefore some human are blind. Empirically we cannot prove this to be true, we can only take people testimony on this subject. It is the translation of language that puts across understanding, and understanding puts across logic. Understanding comes through perception of knowledge, example of this may be; "I now understand that what I was looking at was actually a beautiful sun set." Knowing or being sure that it was something else before was due to a lack of understanding, this is because the perception was different. Although it was the same thing, it was being viewed differently.

I would suggest the same, I believe that there are millions if not billions of ways to perceive this universe, in which each way makes total sense to each individual organism. Yet us being created from the image of God, we are blessed with having the most advanced perspective, the most god-like view of the universe. So that we can make sense of it, and so that we can understand it in all it's glory. We being the ones who can grab knowledge by the neck and look it in the face, not by it's toe.

Logic is an illusion if sin is. There is no objective way to perceive the world, but there is a right way to. You don't want to view the world through the eyes of a fly or of a fish since in their perception, understanding is very limited and therefore knowledge is almost non-existent. So much so that instinct has a greater hold on them. Watch a fly bounce against a window for hours or watch a mouse go back to the same danger spot again and again without caution or reasonable thinking.

Logic is indeed illusive since it does not depend on physical activity, instead it depends upon our minds. Any state of mind could be said as false, given that thinking logically is a state of mind, who is to say it is a correct way of thinking? Of course language translates physical information into a mindful setting, language is like the minds over head projector. And understanding is fed from language to be exchanged for knowledge.

Logic and sin may not relate directly, I am not making that distinction, what I am saying is if sin is an illusion, why can't logic be one also?

The third paragraph was just gibberish so I did not read anything after that until your summation. Which is not what you orginally argued.

Please you really have no place here.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 8:07:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
: At 1/10/2011 7:52:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
So, what you're saying is, if one unseen, non-physical thing doesn't exist, then a different unseen, non-physical thing doesn't exist either? That's an absurd non sequitur. :P

To answer your question of why logic and sin can't both be illusions:

1. Sin is tied to morality, tied in turn to obedience or disobedience to God, which ties to God's existence. I don't believe in God, nor do I acknowledge an objective morality. Sin, then, becomes a hollow concept only applicable to the ethical codes of people who have religious faith.

2. Logic, unlike "sin", is demonstrable, testable, and functional--sin, however, is validated only by a huge word of mouth and an alleged holy book whose validity and credibility in the scientific community are insanely questionable at best, utter garbage at worst.


Logic is still functional in your view, yes indeed it is. But my point isn't whether it is functional or not but whether it exists or not, is it an illusion or not? Sin is still just as valid to you as it is to me, sin isn't physical it can't be taken out of your life like a physical thing can. You may not believe in God, but that's also beside the point, a blind person can't see the moon, but the moon still exists. In the same way just because you think sin is a religious ordeal which greatly involves God, it doesn't mean that you are let off the hook. Despite what you believe you are subjected to the truth.

So what I am saying is if you think sin is an illusion, logic, because they are both dependent on perception of the mind, is also. Despite is logic functions in your life. For a bug or some other creature, logic plays no role in it's life, therefore logic is an illusion. However having said that, we aren't any creature, but created from God's image. We think like He does etc...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 8:11:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
GodSands, it looks like you're arguing sin and logic belong to ontologically similar categories of abstracta. The problem is, unless the underlying reason why a particular abstract object doesn't exist necessarily applies to all abstracta, you're affirming the consequent by claiming that if sin doesn't exist, neither can logical absolutes.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 8:12:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The third paragraph was just gibberish so I did not read anything after that until your summation. Which is not what you originally argued.

Please you really have no place here.


What don't you understand, be in accordence too, not just like, "None of it."
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 8:13:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/10/2011 8:07:29 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/10/2011 7:52:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
So, what you're saying is, if one unseen, non-physical thing doesn't exist, then a different unseen, non-physical thing doesn't exist either? That's an absurd non sequitur. :P

To answer your question of why logic and sin can't both be illusions:

1. Sin is tied to morality, tied in turn to obedience or disobedience to God, which ties to God's existence. I don't believe in God, nor do I acknowledge an objective morality. Sin, then, becomes a hollow concept only applicable to the ethical codes of people who have religious faith.

2. Logic, unlike "sin", is demonstrable, testable, and functional--sin, however, is validated only by a huge word of mouth and an alleged holy book whose validity and credibility in the scientific community are insanely questionable at best, utter garbage at worst.


Logic is still functional in your view, yes indeed it is. But my point isn't whether it is functional or not but whether it exists or not, is it an illusion or not?

It is a system which we have labeled, and it works. It isn't an illusion.

Sin is still just as valid to you as it is to me, sin isn't physical it can't be taken out of your life like a physical thing can. You may not believe in God, but that's also beside the point, a blind person can't see the moon, but the moon still exists. In the same way just because you think sin is a religious ordeal which greatly involves God, it doesn't mean that you are let off the hook. Despite what you believe you are subjected to the truth.

1. You assume first that Sin/God/etc. is the truth. You've never proven that on this site, and I guarantee that you never will.

2. I'm a moral nihilist. I don't subject myself to those codes.

So what I am saying is if you think sin is an illusion, logic, because they are both dependent on perception of the mind, is also. Despite is logic functions in your life.

Logic isn't dependent on the perception of the mind. A would still be A, even if humans didn't exist.

For a bug or some other creature, logic plays no role in it's life, therefore logic is an illusion.

Mentally inferior creatures don't have the cognitive capacity to understand and employ logic; however, they still unconsciously act in accordance with basic axioms like the law of identity. A bear eats fish because the fish is a fish, rather than a table, or a tree, or its own leg.

However having said that, we aren't any creature, but created from God's image. We think like He does etc...

Prove it.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 8:15:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
what I am saying is if sin is an illusion, why can't logic be one also?

Because you have to use logic, in order to refute logic, thus affirming its existence. But you can argue against sin without having to affirm its existence.

Logic is an axiom, but sin isn't.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 8:21:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/10/2011 8:11:36 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
GodSands, it looks like you're arguing sin and logic belong to ontologically similar categories of abstracta. The problem is, unless the underlying reason why a particular abstract object doesn't exist necessarily applies to all abstracta, you're affirming the consequent by claiming that if sin doesn't exist, neither can logical absolutes.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 8:26:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/10/2011 8:21:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/10/2011 8:11:36 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
GodSands, it looks like you're arguing sin and logic belong to ontologically similar categories of abstracta. The problem is, unless the underlying reason why a particular abstract object doesn't exist necessarily applies to all abstracta, you're affirming the consequent by claiming that if sin doesn't exist, neither can logical absolutes.

I don't think GodSands is going to understand most of that.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 8:30:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is a system which we have labeled, and it works. It isn't an illusion.

If we have to label it to know of it, it is an illusion. Language is also an illusion, it means nothing to a bear, but to us it does because to sort understanding throught language, a bear does not. It is an illusion, not saying it's a bad thing for it to be one, it just not carved into the internal make-up of existence like an object is.

: 1. You assume first that Sin/God/etc. is the truth. You've never proven that on this site, and I guarantee that you never will.:

Probably not.

: 2. I'm a moral nihilist. I don't subject myself to those codes.

Like I've said, it still could apply to you, like some kinds of logic don't apply to me at this moment. In fact I don't know all the types of logic there are, so I am total ignorant of them. Yet I still function, same with sin, or acknowledge sin to be real, you don't have to acknowledge it as real to live, just like logic.

Logic isn't dependent on the perception of the mind. A would still be A, even if humans didn't exist.

Language wouldn't exist without intelligence. Therefore A wouldn't exist if humans didn't. A however would exist if humans were to have existed.

: Mentally inferior creatures don't have the cognitive capacity to understand and employ logic; however, they still unconsciously act in accordance with basic axioms like the law of identity. A bear eats fish because the fish is a fish, rather than a table, or a tree, or its own leg.

A bear eats fish, not because it knows it has the right protein in the fish it eats, but probably because it knows it is filling and tasty. Memory is important.

Prove it.

Can't, but I do use the same logic as you do to try and disprove God as I do to try and prove God.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 8:30:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/10/2011 8:12:50 PM, GodSands wrote:


What don't you understand, be in accordence too, not just like, "None of it."

Seriously? Are you drunk?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 8:31:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
: At 1/10/2011 8:30:54 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/10/2011 8:12:50 PM, GodSands wrote:


What don't you understand, be in accordence too, not just like, "None of it."

Seriously? Are you drunk?


No, are you?
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 8:38:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/10/2011 8:26:28 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/10/2011 8:21:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/10/2011 8:11:36 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
GodSands, it looks like you're arguing sin and logic belong to ontologically similar categories of abstracta. The problem is, unless the underlying reason why a particular abstract object doesn't exist necessarily applies to all abstracta, you're affirming the consequent by claiming that if sin doesn't exist, neither can logical absolutes.

I don't think GodSands is going to understand most of that.

No, but since most people have no effing clue what GodSands is jabbering about, I thought I might be able to shed some light on it.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2011 8:40:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/10/2011 8:31:45 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/10/2011 8:30:54 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/10/2011 8:12:50 PM, GodSands wrote:


What don't you understand, be in accordence too, not just like, "None of it."

Seriously? Are you drunk?


No, are you?

My posts are coherent, yours are not.

Did you understand this,
At 1/10/2011 8:11:36 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
GodSands, it looks like you're arguing sin and logic belong to ontologically similar categories of abstracta. The problem is, unless the underlying reason why a particular abstract object doesn't exist necessarily applies to all abstracta, you're affirming the consequent by claiming that if sin doesn't exist, neither can logical absolutes.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.