Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Izbo's philosophy class: Ontological argument

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 8:43:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am going to put this argument to bed here. This is philosophy class for this board. Firstly people like MIG,Cerebral, and Ike stay out you do not have the appropriate prerequisites to be involved in said discussion. The appropriate prerequisite I refer to is not being completely fucktarded. So, we must first give a definition.

Maximally great being- a being in which none could be greater.

Now we have the actual argument, which I will present in its entirety and then break down the premises to show how it works. As presented by Plantinga:

1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world.
4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6) Therefore maximally great being exists.

Ok so premise 1: 1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

It is important to note, that this is actual possibility, not perceived possibility. This will become important later. To explain this a little, it is possible that something could be perceived to be possible yet in actuality it is impossible. Therefore in order for this to work we need to know it is actually possible, or at least say it is likely to be possible. As of right now that seems ok.

Now onto premise 2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

Possibility of existence naturally implies that in some possible world it exists. This may not be the real world but if it didn't exist in some possible world then it would be impossible, so this premise is good.

Onto Premise 3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world.

The logic behind this appears to be that if a being could exist in all possible worlds then it would be greater then a being that only exists in some possible worlds. While I would agree, we could dispute that it is logically possible for a being to exist in every possible world. After all the point of changing god from the omni god to maximally great was to avoid paradoxes. Yet alas I will grant this premise. This means that the only way a maximally great being exists is if this is the set of possible universes:(M=Maximally great being)

(M.M.M,M,M,M,M......)

in other words you could not have these sets:NM( no maximally great being)

(M,M,NM,M,NM........)
NM,M,NM,NM,NM,NM......)

or any variation that combines the two.

So now, we have a updated definition of Maximally great being:
Maximally great being: a being in which none could be greater that exists in every possible world.

We move onto premise 4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.

This is pretty basic, the actual world is a possible world so its obvious that if this being exists in every possible world it exists in the actual world.

Premise 5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

Same thing here, anything that exists in the actual world exists. Obvious, no complaints.

6) Therefore maximally great being exists.

So obviously the conclusion follows if we get up to this point with all arguments being sound.

That is how the Ontological argument works;

This can appear very appealing to a theist and they think they have their proof. A closer look and we can see a problem. As Plantinga himself proposes we could define No Maximality. No Maximality is defined as: the property of being such that there is no maximally great being. Ok so onto the anti-ontological argument.

1. It is possible that a "no maximality" exists.
2. If it is possible that "no maximality exists", then a "no Maximality" exists in some possible world.
3. If a "no maximality" exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a "no maximality" exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a "no maximality" exists in the actual world, then no maximality exists.
6. Therefore, a "no maximality" exists.

Ok, so lets see if this argument works the same way.

1. It is possible that a "no maximality" exists.

Again, in order to know for sure that no maximality exists it must be actual possibility, not perceived possibility.

Premise 2. If it is possible that "no maximality exists", then a "no Maximality" exists in some possible world.

Same reasoning as for the original argument, if a no maximality possibly exists, that would mean it exists in some possible universe, otherwise it would be impossible.

Ont Premise 3. If a "no maximality" exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

This is where the theist, usually whines and complains that no maximality has no requirement to exist in every possible universe. But, alas the theist has defined Maximally great being in such a way that yes it does. Once you have the first possible universe in your set as this:

(NM)

We have already established through the theists own logic that a maximally great being would not exist in a set of universes that has a universe that contains its opposite. So therefore the only universe "No Maximality" can exist in is :

(NM,NM,NM,NM,NM,NM,NM.....)

So based on the theists own reasoning and a little bit of reductio ad absurdum logic, which is as follows: A maximally great being cannot exist in all possible universes, yet not exist in a possible universe. That is breaking the law of non-contradiction.

Onto Premise 4. If a "no maximality" exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

Same reasoning as for the previous argument.

Premises: 5. If a "no maximality" exists in the actual world, then no maximality exists.
6. Therefore, a "no maximality" exists.

as for 5 and 6 we then get there the same way.

So, as is now obvious both arguments get to their beings existing as long as the being is possible.

Analyzing the 2 sides now:

If the theist were to prove the maximally great being as probable, they would have to argue that their being was more likely then "no maximality." If they wanted to completely prove their god, they would be best suited to use reductio ad absurdum that no maximality is absurd. Now, I am not sure that we can reduce either side to absurdity with our knowledge now. So, at best we can say that it is 50/50 which being exists. I would argue though that it is far less then that.

The no maximality, is less restrictive on possible universes and also requires less assumptions. Currently we don't know of any Maximally great beings, so assuming one is possible is one more assumption. Also it seems that a maximally great being would have a certain impact on universes that would restrict the possible universes. As the logical construct of Occam's razor says, all things being equal the idea that requires the least assumptions and is the least restrictive is preferred.

I would also argue that a maximally great being is pretty well defeated by the problem of evil, as long as you take the assumption that it would be greater to stop suffering, then it is to let it happen. There does not appear to be any logical inconsistency with stopping suffering. Therefore it appears to me, once we look at this, No maximality actually has a greater probability then a Maximally great being. Good Night ontological argument.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 8:52:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Excuse me, who exactly do you think you are, with that attitude? Is this really conducive to getting your point across? How do you think you come across to people who aren't the individuals you listed, do you think they'd be willing to listen to you after the way you presented yourself in just the first two lines? Is condescension an effective way to engage people where you're from?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:01:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is quite unfortunate to read a post made by a member, whose position I agree with, but whose conduct is repulsive...

Tell me, Izbo10, how would the problem of evil conclusively disprove the existence of a omnipotent deity???
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:31:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:01:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
It is quite unfortunate to read a post made by a member, whose position I agree with, but whose conduct is repulsive...

Tell me, Izbo10, how would the problem of evil conclusively disprove the existence of a omnipotent deity???

this is why you were not invited to participate, you are too fucktarded to understand that the problem of evil was used to say that the odds of the maximally great being was less likely.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:33:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:31:57 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:01:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
It is quite unfortunate to read a post made by a member, whose position I agree with, but whose conduct is repulsive...

Tell me, Izbo10, how would the problem of evil conclusively disprove the existence of a omnipotent deity???

this is why you were not invited to participate, you are too fucktarded to understand that the problem of evil was used to say that the odds of the maximally great being was less likely.

So you have resorted to using barbs to stab your opponents, instead of words or coherent thoughts...

Izbo10, how would you refute the argument that god's plans serve for a common, but unknown good?

Note that I am not agreeing with it (what standard is good, then?) but would like to see your philosophical "faculties" come into play..............
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:36:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:33:28 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:31:57 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:01:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
It is quite unfortunate to read a post made by a member, whose position I agree with, but whose conduct is repulsive...

Tell me, Izbo10, how would the problem of evil conclusively disprove the existence of a omnipotent deity???

this is why you were not invited to participate, you are too fucktarded to understand that the problem of evil was used to say that the odds of the maximally great being was less likely.

So you have resorted to using barbs to stab your opponents, instead of words or coherent thoughts...

Izbo10, how would you refute the argument that god's plans serve for a common, but unknown good?

Note that I am not agreeing with it (what standard is good, then?) but would like to see your philosophical "faculties" come into play..............

Get out of my class you were told to stay out this thread was not for you. Go to into to kindergarten and leave this thread to people who cn think and read.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:37:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:36:45 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:33:28 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:31:57 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:01:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
It is quite unfortunate to read a post made by a member, whose position I agree with, but whose conduct is repulsive...

Tell me, Izbo10, how would the problem of evil conclusively disprove the existence of a omnipotent deity???

this is why you were not invited to participate, you are too fucktarded to understand that the problem of evil was used to say that the odds of the maximally great being was less likely.

So you have resorted to using barbs to stab your opponents, instead of words or coherent thoughts...

Izbo10, how would you refute the argument that god's plans serve for a common, but unknown good?

Note that I am not agreeing with it (what standard is good, then?) but would like to see your philosophical "faculties" come into play..............

Get out of my class you were told to stay out this thread was not for you. Go to into to kindergarten and leave this thread to people who cn think and read.

Delusion or mentality complex?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:38:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:52:52 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Excuse me, who exactly do you think you are, with that attitude? Is this really conducive to getting your point across? How do you think you come across to people who aren't the individuals you listed, do you think they'd be willing to listen to you after the way you presented yourself in just the first two lines? Is condescension an effective way to engage people where you're from?

It tends to work, yes.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:39:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:38:40 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:52:52 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Excuse me, who exactly do you think you are, with that attitude? Is this really conducive to getting your point across? How do you think you come across to people who aren't the individuals you listed, do you think they'd be willing to listen to you after the way you presented yourself in just the first two lines? Is condescension an effective way to engage people where you're from?

It tends to work, yes.

So tell me, Izbo10, what is our discussion about?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:44:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This thread is now a conversation between me and Man-is-good. I don't like Izbo's attitude.

At 10/27/2011 9:01:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Tell me, Izbo10, how would the problem of evil conclusively disprove the existence of a omnipotent deity???

For me, I don't buy the free will rebuttal, so let's start with the part of this song and dance that everyone knows.

I posit that God, being omnibenevolent and omnipotent, has within its power to fashion a universe in which evil does not exist. That evil exists shows that God willingly let it be so, and those who willingly allow evil to exist when they have the power to stop it, cannot be omnibenevolent AND omnipotent.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:46:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:44:00 PM, Kleptin wrote:
This thread is now a conversation between me and Man-is-good. I don't like Izbo's attitude.

At 10/27/2011 9:01:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Tell me, Izbo10, how would the problem of evil conclusively disprove the existence of a omnipotent deity???

For me, I don't buy the free will rebuttal, so let's start with the part of this song and dance that everyone knows.

I posit that God, being omnibenevolent and omnipotent, has within its power to fashion a universe in which evil does not exist. That evil exists shows that God willingly let it be so, and those who willingly allow evil to exist when they have the power to stop it, cannot be omnibenevolent AND omnipotent.

Thanks...Now, yes, I have heard of that argument where God appears to have contradictory aspects...

And I do remember that certain members reply that God does not NECESSARILY have to live by the standards or laws of logic...How would you reply???
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:49:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:46:05 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:44:00 PM, Kleptin wrote:
This thread is now a conversation between me and Man-is-good. I don't like Izbo's attitude.

At 10/27/2011 9:01:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Tell me, Izbo10, how would the problem of evil conclusively disprove the existence of a omnipotent deity???

For me, I don't buy the free will rebuttal, so let's start with the part of this song and dance that everyone knows.

I posit that God, being omnibenevolent and omnipotent, has within its power to fashion a universe in which evil does not exist. That evil exists shows that God willingly let it be so, and those who willingly allow evil to exist when they have the power to stop it, cannot be omnibenevolent AND omnipotent.

Thanks...Now, yes, I have heard of that argument where God appears to have contradictory aspects...

And I do remember that certain members reply that God does not NECESSARILY have to live by the standards or laws of logic...How would you reply???

More proof this idiot did not read the original post, the reason that the more "enlightened" (oxymoron, I know) have given up on the omnis and gone to maximally great being is they realize they look bad claiming their god can defeat things like the law of non-contradiction.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:51:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Izbo10, what is your purpose on this site?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:52:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I love izbo's ad hom instead of answering the query. Izbo, it is official. You are an idiot and a troll.
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:52:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:46:05 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
And I do remember that certain members reply that God does not NECESSARILY have to live by the standards or laws of logic...How would you reply???

Haha, I invented that!! Yes, it makes sense that if God exists outside of time and exhibits those traits, that he exists outside the laws of logic. That's also my rebuttal to the heavy rock dilemma and why I am a hard agnostic instead of an atheist.

The issue is that if we accept that God is not bound by logic, then our understanding of God and our worship of God unravels and becomes questionable. Everything we know about God, we know based on the assumptions that God has logical properties. We can no longer argue against Deism, for example, since the only argument against it was that a creator doesn't usually abandon its creation.

To state that God exists outside logic is the same as saying that God is incomprehensible. If that is true, then why worship God? Why trust the contents of the Bible? And what makes the difference between a universe with or without God?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:54:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:51:42 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Izbo10, what is your purpose on this site?

to attempt to ridicule idiots like you into actually starting to think. I use a combination of ridicule and logic. You see the original post here, was well beyond anything you could put together.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:57:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:52:28 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:46:05 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
And I do remember that certain members reply that God does not NECESSARILY have to live by the standards or laws of logic...How would you reply???

Haha, I invented that!! Yes, it makes sense that if God exists outside of time and exhibits those traits, that he exists outside the laws of logic. That's also my rebuttal to the heavy rock dilemma and why I am a hard agnostic instead of an atheist.

The issue is that if we accept that God is not bound by logic, then our understanding of God and our worship of God unravels and becomes questionable. Everything we know about God, we know based on the assumptions that God has logical properties. We can no longer argue against Deism, for example, since the only argument against it was that a creator doesn't usually abandon its creation.

Agreed...

To state that God exists outside logic is the same as saying that God is incomprehensible. If that is true, then why worship God? Why trust the contents of the Bible? And what makes the difference between a universe with or without God?

What about the power or role of god as well???
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:57:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:54:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:51:42 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Izbo10, what is your purpose on this site?

to attempt to ridicule idiots like you into actually starting to think. I use a combination of ridicule and logic. You see the original post here, was well beyond anything you could put together.

Yeah, such a great argument that 58% is original (paperrater.com)! Way to go, professor izbo.
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:58:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:54:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:51:42 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Izbo10, what is your purpose on this site?

to attempt to ridicule idiots like you into actually starting to think. I use a combination of ridicule and logic. You see the original post here, was well beyond anything you could put together.

I see, Izbo10. Inferring capabilities and extents of knowledge from an internet account...another classic move.

What's next, Izbo10? What happened to your tenure as professor?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:59:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:57:28 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:54:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:51:42 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Izbo10, what is your purpose on this site?

to attempt to ridicule idiots like you into actually starting to think. I use a combination of ridicule and logic. You see the original post here, was well beyond anything you could put together.

Yeah, such a great argument that 58% is original (paperrater.com)! Way to go, professor izbo.

And then the excuse that we who possess lower intelligences do not understand the "brilliant" and sophisticated reasoning of your dear teacher is brought up
or, if our professor is tired of explaining, a couple of insults...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:59:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:57:28 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:54:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:51:42 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Izbo10, what is your purpose on this site?

to attempt to ridicule idiots like you into actually starting to think. I use a combination of ridicule and logic. You see the original post here, was well beyond anything you could put together.

Yeah, such a great argument that 58% is original (paperrater.com)! Way to go, professor izbo.

wtf are you even talking about? I just wrote the entire thing myself, the parts that aren't original jackass are the actual syllogisms, which are repeated several times. Crayola is making a new crayon, so not bright its blacker black.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:59:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:58:13 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:54:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:51:42 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Izbo10, what is your purpose on this site?

to attempt to ridicule idiots like you into actually starting to think. I use a combination of ridicule and logic. You see the original post here, was well beyond anything you could put together.

I see, Izbo10. Inferring capabilities and extents of knowledge from an internet account...another classic move.

What's next, Izbo10? What happened to your tenure as professor?

They flew out the window so now he has to sell insurance.
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 10:02:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:59:49 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:58:13 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:54:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:51:42 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Izbo10, what is your purpose on this site?

to attempt to ridicule idiots like you into actually starting to think. I use a combination of ridicule and logic. You see the original post here, was well beyond anything you could put together.

I see, Izbo10. Inferring capabilities and extents of knowledge from an internet account...another classic move.

What's next, Izbo10? What happened to your tenure as professor?

They flew out the window so now he has to sell insurance.

How about you respond to the fact that you were just called out on your little paperrater.com stunt, and how about the fact that you were completely ignorant of solipsism in our last debate jackass.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 10:02:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:59:49 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:58:13 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:54:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:51:42 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Izbo10, what is your purpose on this site?

to attempt to ridicule idiots like you into actually starting to think. I use a combination of ridicule and logic. You see the original post here, was well beyond anything you could put together.

I see, Izbo10. Inferring capabilities and extents of knowledge from an internet account...another classic move.

What's next, Izbo10? What happened to your tenure as professor?

They flew out the window so now he has to sell insurance.

"Professor, how did your students end up out of the window?" [Academic manager]
"Fvcking morons, they were looking for god. One of them stuck his head out of the window, and another into his @___, and et cettera."
"Why didn't you stop them, professor (assumes more angry tone)"
"What should I have to do with all the idiots who go worshipping some sky wizard in this university?"

Next day--Professor's office is empty, and he is seen accosting two children for money.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 10:04:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:57:19 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
What about the power or role of god as well???

What of it? It's equally incomprehensible. The end state is that we cannot make any positive claims about God, and that leads us to either Deism or Agnosticism.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 10:07:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 10:04:57 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Hey Izbo, debate me on this and I'll wipe the floor with you.

Heck, I'll even defend Anselm's ontological argument.

Ballsy. I hate that argument. You know it's wrong on every level but I can never quite phrase the rebuttal in the right way...

How do you explain that existence is not a predicate in an easy to understand way?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 10:07:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 10:04:57 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Hey Izbo, debate me on this and I'll wipe the floor with you.

Heck, I'll even defend Anselm's ontological argument.

read and learn your argument is dead, this is not up for debate among serious philosophers anymore.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 10:10:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 10:07:35 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 10:04:57 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Hey Izbo, debate me on this and I'll wipe the floor with you.

Heck, I'll even defend Anselm's ontological argument.

read and learn your argument is dead, this is not up for debate among serious philosophers anymore.

To be honest, I wonder if there are any other arguments to defend the existence of god other than the much-refuted/contested/accepted Kalam and Anselm's ontological arguments.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 10:11:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 10:07:35 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 10:04:57 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Hey Izbo, debate me on this and I'll wipe the floor with you.

Heck, I'll even defend Anselm's ontological argument.

read and learn your argument is dead, this is not up for debate among serious philosophers anymore.

Debate contradiction or else we know you're a joke.
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.