Total Posts:259|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God is literally impossible.

KthulhuHimself
Posts: 993
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.

1) For something to exist beyond the level of notion, it is necessary for it to be objective, i.e. independent on human perspective; because if it isn't, then it cannot exist independent on the level of notion, and hence be meaningless beyond that level.

2) By definition, it is necessary for an objective term or concept to be fully and hermetically well-defined (though not necessarily a definition known to us); because by definition, an objective concept or entity is one that is dependent on a timeless means of predication, or in other words definition. It must be well-defined, because if it isn't, then there are no predicated qualities given to the concept, and hence no meaning beyond what a subjective perception will give it.

3) Well ordered definitions can and must be manifested in the form of a well-ordered expression, identical to those used in mathematics nowadays; which come, in every case, in the form of some well-ordered, formal, objective, mathematical language, such as set-theory, etc. Moreover, such definitions must be non-paradoxical, because when a paradox is present, the concept loses any and all objectivity, and hence meaning.

4) To prevent a common paradox, a slightly different form of Russell's paradox; it is necessary for the concept to be completely limited by the language it is defined within; meaning that it cannot predicate over its own predicator.

5) God is commonly defined as an unlimited being (if you define him as limited, this proof is irrelevant).

6) By these necessary standards, i.e. those presented in 1)-4), and by the definition presented in 5), God is ill-defined.

7) God cannot exist objectively.

8) God cannot exist beyond the level of notion, and hence has no effect beyond psychological.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 6:19:10 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.

This relies on a specific definition of "God" meaning "limitless." This definition of God is incoherent to begin with.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 993
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 6:21:51 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 6:19:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.

This relies on a specific definition of "God" meaning "limitless." This definition of God is incoherent to begin with.

So God is limited, then? What makes him god, if so?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 6:32:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 6:21:51 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:19:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.

This relies on a specific definition of "God" meaning "limitless." This definition of God is incoherent to begin with.

So God is limited, then? What makes him god, if so?

Technically if God is constrained by the laws of logic he is "limited" in the sense that he can't do anything logically impossible. Being within the bounds of logical possibility is what allows one to possess maximal properties in the first place. So, could still possess maximal properties are still be "limited." Further, an intelligent creator of the universe wouldn't no longer have the title of God just for not being unlimited.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 993
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 6:41:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 6:32:46 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:21:51 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:19:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.

This relies on a specific definition of "God" meaning "limitless." This definition of God is incoherent to begin with.

So God is limited, then? What makes him god, if so?

Technically if God is constrained by the laws of logic he is "limited" in the sense that he can't do anything logically impossible. Being within the bounds of logical possibility is what allows one to possess maximal properties in the first place. So, could still possess maximal properties are still be "limited." Further, an intelligent creator of the universe wouldn't no longer have the title of God just for not being unlimited.

It is impossible for something to have maximal properties and still be limited; so if your god is limited, he cannot have any (scalar) maximal properties.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 6:43:39 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 6:41:19 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:32:46 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:21:51 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:19:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.

This relies on a specific definition of "God" meaning "limitless." This definition of God is incoherent to begin with.

So God is limited, then? What makes him god, if so?

Technically if God is constrained by the laws of logic he is "limited" in the sense that he can't do anything logically impossible. Being within the bounds of logical possibility is what allows one to possess maximal properties in the first place. So, could still possess maximal properties are still be "limited." Further, an intelligent creator of the universe wouldn't no longer have the title of God just for not being unlimited.

It is impossible for something to have maximal properties and still be limited; so if your god is limited, he cannot have any (scalar) maximal properties.

Which is greater, a God that is possibly non-maximal or a God that is not possibly non-maximal? If God is not possibly non-maximal he must be bound by the laws of logic.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 6:45:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.
Math is tautological, hence absolute only insofar as it restates a prior claim.

A = A
(and equally)
not A = not A

What you did was erroneous as you stated that A (God) equals not A. Such a move is insupportable.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 993
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 6:58:48 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 6:43:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:41:19 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:32:46 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:21:51 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:19:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.

This relies on a specific definition of "God" meaning "limitless." This definition of God is incoherent to begin with.

So God is limited, then? What makes him god, if so?

Technically if God is constrained by the laws of logic he is "limited" in the sense that he can't do anything logically impossible. Being within the bounds of logical possibility is what allows one to possess maximal properties in the first place. So, could still possess maximal properties are still be "limited." Further, an intelligent creator of the universe wouldn't no longer have the title of God just for not being unlimited.

It is impossible for something to have maximal properties and still be limited; so if your god is limited, he cannot have any (scalar) maximal properties.

Which is greater, a God that is possibly non-maximal or a God that is not possibly non-maximal? If God is not possibly non-maximal he must be bound by the laws of logic.

Explain yourself; none of what you have written here makes any sense, so I'd like you to iterate on what "possibly non-maximal" and "not possibly non-maximal" mean.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 993
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 6:59:26 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 6:45:42 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.
Math is tautological, hence absolute only insofar as it restates a prior claim.

A = A
(and equally)
not A = not A

What you did was erroneous as you stated that A (God) equals not A. Such a move is insupportable.

How? In what way did I claim that?
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 8:02:31 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
To say something is impossible is to then take that something and you define it. You then confine it, and it becomes then something less. Nothing is impossible in a world that doesn't exist. I could say that I once stared at a candescent lightbulb until it morphed into a flame. Don't want to burn down the house, so I unplug the lamp. I know...should have gone green. Whatever. But what happened to the flickering flame? It's gone and all I'm left with is the original bulb. Must have just been my imagination. Except that doesn't explain why the chord to the lamp is now melted. Weirdness.
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 8:02:39 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.

Since when is math "absolute"?

Math is simply a language we use to try and define our experience of reality. The only way it's "absolute" is as an idea in our minds. The moment we try to apply it to reality, however, it becomes very relative. If you can't see this, just think about the fact that no two things can ever be absolutely equal. If they were, they would not be two different things, they would be the SAME THING. Math is a collection of ideological illusions. They work in the real world only to the degree that we ignore how they don't.

1) For something to exist beyond the level of notion, it is necessary for it to be objective, i.e. independent on human perspective; because if it isn't, then it cannot exist independent on the level of notion, and hence be meaningless beyond that level.

Why do you assume that existence requires objectivity? Love exists. Beauty exists. Justice exists. Kindness exists. Yet all of these exist as subjective experiences. And in fact, they are more important to us than that which exists objectively, in most instances. So why are you being so biased in favor of "objective experience"?

2) By definition, it is necessary for an objective term or concept to be fully and hermetically well-defined (though not necessarily a definition known to us); because by definition, an objective concept or entity is one that is dependent on a timeless means of predication, or in other words definition. It must be well-defined, because if it isn't, then there are no predicated qualities given to the concept, and hence no meaning beyond what a subjective perception will give it.

Existence, itself, is a concept. And one that is not easily perceived or defined apart from our own subjective experience of it. Linguistic clarity isn't going to change or negate that fact.

3) Well ordered definitions can and must be manifested in the form of a well-ordered expression, identical to those used in mathematics nowadays; which come, in every case, in the form of some well-ordered, formal, objective, mathematical language, such as set-theory, etc. Moreover, such definitions must be non-paradoxical, because when a paradox is present, the concept loses any and all objectivity, and hence meaning.

Much about existence is paradoxical. And the reason it is, is because the human mind and body cannot fully perceive nor comprehend existence. We can only perceive and comprehend parts of it relative to our profound physical and mental limitations. Thus, the whole of what is often appears paradoxical to us, because we cannot comprehend enough of existence, simultaneously, to resolve the apparent paradox.

4) To prevent a common paradox, a slightly different form of Russell's paradox; it is necessary for the concept to be completely limited by the language it is defined within; meaning that it cannot predicate over its own predicator.

Language is only a semi-effective method of describing our conceptions of reality. It does not invent, define, or determine reality, itself. Poetry, for example, pursues the awareness of paradox because it's through paradox and intuition that we can often get a more holistic glimpse of reality.

5) God is commonly defined as an unlimited being (if you define him as limited, this proof is irrelevant).

6) By these necessary standards, i.e. those presented in 1)-4), and by the definition presented in 5), God is ill-defined.

God is mostly defined as a mystery. Most religions have deliberately avoided giving God a name, even, as a reminder to themselves that they do not "know God". That we humans cannot possess "God" with our mind/knowledge.

7) God cannot exist objectively.

So what? As previously stated, most of what matters to us does not objectively exist.

8) God cannot exist beyond the level of notion, and hence has no effect beyond psychological.

Existence is itself a "notion". So your objection, here, is moot. It's all "psychological", to us. Just as it's all "subjective experience", in the end.
Casten
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 10:37:35 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I submit that you are biased and corrupt.

1) By your own admission, you are Cthulhu. As a competitor for dominance over humanity, obviously you disapprove of your rival overlord, Yahweh.

2) As Cthulhu, you are currently running for presidency and politicians cannot be trusted: https://cthulhuforamerica.com...

3) Everyone knows that you subvert the minds of humans through sheer will, so any attempt at reasoning or logic on your part is a completely transparent deception. You're just trying to get us to focus on this thread long enough to enthrall us. It won't work. Take your crap elsewhere. PRAISE CTHULHU. Agh! Son of a *****.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 11:24:38 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 10:37:35 PM, Casten wrote:
I submit that you are biased and corrupt.

PRAISE CTHULHU. Agh! Son of a *****.

Here's a cool story. When i was in high school i liked rock but not metal yet. My friend showed me a quick song by C.O.F. and i disliked it in the moment bc i was being bias and didn't really give it a chance. Then, he gave me the C.D. and just told me to listen to the album.

The next day, i was parked on the hill by my school... wanted to ditch my first class bc i was tired and it was overcast... thought, hey... lets give the cd a try. I put the cd in... first song played:

https://www.youtube.com...

As this song was playing it started literally raining... i was entranced: Then... it dropped into this song:

https://www.youtube.com...

Rain was heavy at this point... and my soul was taken at this moment by metal. True story of how i started listening to metal. Praise Cthulhu!
Casten
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 12:00:51 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 11:24:38 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 9/12/2016 10:37:35 PM, Casten wrote:
I submit that you are biased and corrupt.

PRAISE CTHULHU. Agh! Son of a *****.

Here's a cool story. When i was in high school i liked rock but not metal yet. My friend showed me a quick song by C.O.F. and i disliked it in the moment bc i was being bias and didn't really give it a chance. Then, he gave me the C.D. and just told me to listen to the album.

The next day, i was parked on the hill by my school... wanted to ditch my first class bc i was tired and it was overcast... thought, hey... lets give the cd a try. I put the cd in... first song played:

https://www.youtube.com...

As this song was playing it started literally raining... i was entranced: Then... it dropped into this song:

https://www.youtube.com...

Rain was heavy at this point... and my soul was taken at this moment by metal. True story of how i started listening to metal. Praise Cthulhu!

I dunno. I'm into the theme but they could stand to enunciate a little more. If I was just listening to the CD, I wouldn't be able to understand all those cool Cthulhu lyrics. It would just sort of sound like "AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!" with some drums.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 12:33:27 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.

1) For something to exist beyond the level of notion, it is necessary for it to be objective, i.e. independent on human perspective; because if it isn't, then it cannot exist independent on the level of notion, and hence be meaningless beyond that level.

2) By definition, it is necessary for an objective term or concept to be fully and hermetically well-defined (though not necessarily a definition known to us); because by definition, an objective concept or entity is one that is dependent on a timeless means of predication, or in other words definition. It must be well-defined, because if it isn't, then there are no predicated qualities given to the concept, and hence no meaning beyond what a subjective perception will give it.

3) Well ordered definitions can and must be manifested in the form of a well-ordered expression, identical to those used in mathematics nowadays; which come, in every case, in the form of some well-ordered, formal, objective, mathematical language, such as set-theory, etc. Moreover, such definitions must be non-paradoxical, because when a paradox is present, the concept loses any and all objectivity, and hence meaning.

4) To prevent a common paradox, a slightly different form of Russell's paradox; it is necessary for the concept to be completely limited by the language it is defined within; meaning that it cannot predicate over its own predicator.

5) God is commonly defined as an unlimited being (if you define him as limited, this proof is irrelevant).

6) By these necessary standards, i.e. those presented in 1)-4), and by the definition presented in 5), God is ill-defined.

7) God cannot exist objectively.

8) God cannot exist beyond the level of notion, and hence has no effect beyond psychological.

Your argument is TL;DR. Regardless, every point can be refuted thus: God is omnipotent, so he can do anything.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 993
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 12:23:09 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 8:02:39 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.

Since when is math "absolute"?

Math is simply a language we use to try and define our experience of reality. The only way it's "absolute" is as an idea in our minds. The moment we try to apply it to reality, however, it becomes very relative. If you can't see this, just think about the fact that no two things can ever be absolutely equal. If they were, they would not be two different things, they would be the SAME THING. Math is a collection of ideological illusions. They work in the real world only to the degree that we ignore how they don't.

Math is absolute because it is objective; that's it. Your "no two things can ever be absolutely equal" argument is irrelevant, because indeed, it is the prediction mathematics makes about reality; i.e. no two different things indeed can ever be the absolute same, by definition.
1) For something to exist beyond the level of notion, it is necessary for it to be objective, i.e. independent on human perspective; because if it isn't, then it cannot exist independent on the level of notion, and hence is meaningless beyond that level.

Why do you assume that existence requires objectivity? Love exists. Beauty exists. Justice exists. Kindness exists. Yet all of these exist as subjective experiences. And in fact, they are more important to us than that which exists objectively, in most instances. So why are you being so biased in favor of "objective experience"?

I'll quote myself here, just to show why what you've written is irrelevant: "it cannot exist independent on the level of notion, and hence is meaningless beyond that level." In other words, there are subjective notions that exist in the world; yet they only exist on the level of notion, no further. For God to be "God", he would have to exist beyond this level, and hence would have to be objective.
2) By definition, it is necessary for an objective term or concept to be fully and hermetically well-defined (though not necessarily a definition known to us); because by definition, an objective concept or entity is one that is dependent on a timeless means of predication, or in other words definition. It must be well-defined, because if it isn't, then there are no predicated qualities given to the concept, and hence no meaning beyond what a subjective perception will give it.

Existence, itself, is a concept. And one that is not easily perceived or defined apart from our own subjective experience of it. Linguistic clarity isn't going to change or negate that fact.

Not linguistics, formal logic.
3) Well ordered definitions can and must be manifested in the form of a well-ordered expression, identical to those used in mathematics nowadays; which come, in every case, in the form of some well-ordered, formal, objective, mathematical language, such as set-theory, etc. Moreover, such definitions must be non-paradoxical, because when a paradox is present, the concept loses any and all objectivity, and hence meaning.

Much about existence is paradoxical. And the reason it is, is because the human mind and body cannot fully perceive nor comprehend existence. We can only perceive and comprehend parts of it relative to our profound physical and mental limitations. Thus, the whole of what is often appears paradoxical to us, because we cannot comprehend enough of existence, simultaneously, to resolve the apparent paradox.

Non-sequitur.
4) To prevent a common paradox, a slightly different form of Russell's paradox; it is necessary for the concept to be completely limited by the language it is defined within; meaning that it cannot predicate over its own predicator.

Language is only a semi-effective method of describing our conceptions of reality. It does not invent, define, or determine reality, itself. Poetry, for example, pursues the awareness of paradox because it's through paradox and intuition that we can often get a more holistic glimpse of reality.

You seem to misunderstand what I mean when I say "language"; in this semantic field, a formal language is a formal system, capable of objective predication. English, for example; is NOT such a language. Because you misunderstand what I mean here, I will not address any of your further points in this attempted rebuttal, because they built off false understandings of the proof itself. I will revise the proof to be clearer on this matter, so you can try to refute it from there.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 993
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 12:24:38 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 12:33:27 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.

1) For something to exist beyond the level of notion, it is necessary for it to be objective, i.e. independent on human perspective; because if it isn't, then it cannot exist independent on the level of notion, and hence be meaningless beyond that level.

2) By definition, it is necessary for an objective term or concept to be fully and hermetically well-defined (though not necessarily a definition known to us); because by definition, an objective concept or entity is one that is dependent on a timeless means of predication, or in other words definition. It must be well-defined, because if it isn't, then there are no predicated qualities given to the concept, and hence no meaning beyond what a subjective perception will give it.

3) Well ordered definitions can and must be manifested in the form of a well-ordered expression, identical to those used in mathematics nowadays; which come, in every case, in the form of some well-ordered, formal, objective, mathematical language, such as set-theory, etc. Moreover, such definitions must be non-paradoxical, because when a paradox is present, the concept loses any and all objectivity, and hence meaning.

4) To prevent a common paradox, a slightly different form of Russell's paradox; it is necessary for the concept to be completely limited by the language it is defined within; meaning that it cannot predicate over its own predicator.

5) God is commonly defined as an unlimited being (if you define him as limited, this proof is irrelevant).

6) By these necessary standards, i.e. those presented in 1)-4), and by the definition presented in 5), God is ill-defined.

7) God cannot exist objectively.

8) God cannot exist beyond the level of notion, and hence has no effect beyond psychological.

Your argument is TL;DR. Regardless, every point can be refuted thus: God is omnipotent, so he can do anything.

Bullsh*t; not addressing the argument does not grant you authority to dismiss it. Either you properly refute the argument, or kindly pack your things and F*CK OFF.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 993
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 12:25:43 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 8:02:31 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
To say something is impossible is to then take that something and you define it. You then confine it, and it becomes then something less. Nothing is impossible in a world that doesn't exist. I could say that I once stared at a candescent lightbulb until it morphed into a flame. Don't want to burn down the house, so I unplug the lamp. I know...should have gone green. Whatever. But what happened to the flickering flame? It's gone and all I'm left with is the original bulb. Must have just been my imagination. Except that doesn't explain why the chord to the lamp is now melted. Weirdness.

I don't see your point; you're too ambiguous.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 993
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 12:27:37 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 10:37:35 PM, Casten wrote:
I submit that you are biased and corrupt.

1) By your own admission, you are Cthulhu. As a competitor for dominance over humanity, obviously you disapprove of your rival overlord, Yahweh.

2) As Cthulhu, you are currently running for presidency and politicians cannot be trusted: https://cthulhuforamerica.com...

3) Everyone knows that you subvert the minds of humans through sheer will, so any attempt at reasoning or logic on your part is a completely transparent deception. You're just trying to get us to focus on this thread long enough to enthrall us. It won't work. Take your crap elsewhere. PRAISE CTHULHU. Agh! Son of a *****.

Haha, it's already working; I can already feel the power of words seep into your (universal your) frail little brains. Soon, all will be mine.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 993
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 12:28:39 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 12:33:27 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.

1) For something to exist beyond the level of notion, it is necessary for it to be objective, i.e. independent on human perspective; because if it isn't, then it cannot exist independent on the level of notion, and hence be meaningless beyond that level.

2) By definition, it is necessary for an objective term or concept to be fully and hermetically well-defined (though not necessarily a definition known to us); because by definition, an objective concept or entity is one that is dependent on a timeless means of predication, or in other words definition. It must be well-defined, because if it isn't, then there are no predicated qualities given to the concept, and hence no meaning beyond what a subjective perception will give it.

3) Well ordered definitions can and must be manifested in the form of a well-ordered expression, identical to those used in mathematics nowadays; which come, in every case, in the form of some well-ordered, formal, objective, mathematical language, such as set-theory, etc. Moreover, such definitions must be non-paradoxical, because when a paradox is present, the concept loses any and all objectivity, and hence meaning.

4) To prevent a common paradox, a slightly different form of Russell's paradox; it is necessary for the concept to be completely limited by the language it is defined within; meaning that it cannot predicate over its own predicator.

5) God is commonly defined as an unlimited being (if you define him as limited, this proof is irrelevant).

6) By these necessary standards, i.e. those presented in 1)-4), and by the definition presented in 5), God is ill-defined.

7) God cannot exist objectively.

8) God cannot exist beyond the level of notion, and hence has no effect beyond psychological.

Your argument is TL;DR. Regardless, every point can be refuted thus: God is omnipotent, so he can do anything.

Also, your username is nonsensical.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 12:39:00 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 6:59:26 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:45:42 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.
Math is tautological, hence absolute only insofar as it restates a prior claim.

A = A
(and equally)
not A = not A

What you did was erroneous as you stated that A (God) equals not A. Such a move is insupportable.
How? In what way did I claim that?
You defined God as an unlimited being, which is granted. Unlimited taken here in the Kantian sense of an infinite judgment ("undead" as opposed to "not dead"; "unwilling" as opposed to "not willing").

The proper statement, therefore, is "God is unlimited" or "God is infinite."

What you undertook in the last analysis, however, is erroneous as you equated the infinite (un-) with the negative (not).

"God is un-X" cannot be equated with "God is not X."
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 1:10:50 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 6:19:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.

This relies on a specific definition of "God" meaning "limitless." This definition of God is incoherent to begin with.
And if it was a definition of a god, would a grammatical English make a difference?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Perussi
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 1:19:09 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.

1) For something to exist beyond the level of notion, it is necessary for it to be objective, i.e. independent on human perspective; because if it isn't, then it cannot exist independent on the level of notion, and hence be meaningless beyond that level.

^^^ Why?

And some god could be defying this as we speak.

2) By definition, it is necessary for an objective term or concept to be fully and hermetically well-defined (though not necessarily a definition known to us); because by definition, an objective concept or entity is one that is dependent on a timeless means of predication, or in other words definition. It must be well-defined, because if it isn't, then there are no predicated qualities given to the concept, and hence no meaning beyond what a subjective perception will give it.

What the fork does well-defined mean?

3) Well ordered definitions can and must be manifested in the form of a well-ordered expression, identical to those used in mathematics nowadays; which come, in every case, in the form of some well-ordered, formal, objective, mathematical language, such as set-theory, etc. Moreover, such definitions must be non-paradoxical, because when a paradox is present, the concept loses any and all objectivity, and hence meaning.

4) To prevent a common paradox, a slightly different form of Russell's paradox; it is necessary for the concept to be completely limited by the language it is defined within; meaning that it cannot predicate over its own predicator.

5) God is commonly defined as an unlimited being (if you define him as limited, this proof is irrelevant).

6) By these necessary standards, i.e. those presented in 1)-4), and by the definition presented in 5), God is ill-defined.

It says nothing about being unlimited.

7) God cannot exist objectively.

8) God cannot exist beyond the level of notion, and hence has no effect beyond psychological.
Forum Record: 6/0

Funny Quotes:

"i worship satan and allahu akbar and hispanic muslims i am an illigal immigrant"
-communist_snake-

"What fuking dates are you talking about child. the and ridiculous and stay out of mummies drugs, you're fuked."
-I'll keep this anonymous...-

"fuk off bog, no one even reads your crap, what price is you hooker now?"
-same dude as above....-
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 993
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 2:33:56 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 12:39:00 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:59:26 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:45:42 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.
Math is tautological, hence absolute only insofar as it restates a prior claim.

A = A
(and equally)
not A = not A

What you did was erroneous as you stated that A (God) equals not A. Such a move is insupportable.
How? In what way did I claim that?
You defined God as an unlimited being, which is granted. Unlimited taken here in the Kantian sense of an infinite judgment ("undead" as opposed to "not dead"; "unwilling" as opposed to "not willing").

What I had done here, which may settle on you after some time, is prove that such a being is impossible, nothing more.
The proper statement, therefore, is "God is unlimited" or "God is infinite."

What you undertook in the last analysis, however, is erroneous as you equated the infinite (un-) with the negative (not).

"God is un-X" cannot be equated with "God is not X."

How? They are the same phrase worded differently.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 993
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 2:36:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 1:19:09 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.

1) For something to exist beyond the level of notion, it is necessary for it to be objective, i.e. independent on human perspective; because if it isn't, then it cannot exist independent on the level of notion, and hence be meaningless beyond that level.

^^^ Why?

I explain this in the very point you're referencing, read it again and then reply.
And some god could be defying this as we speak.

I just proved that to be a literal impossibility, so no.
2) By definition, it is necessary for an objective term or concept to be fully and hermetically well-defined (though not necessarily a definition known to us); because by definition, an objective concept or entity is one that is dependent on a timeless means of predication, or in other words definition. It must be well-defined, because if it isn't, then there are no predicated qualities given to the concept, and hence no meaning beyond what a subjective perception will give it.

What the fork does well-defined mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org...
3) Well ordered definitions can and must be manifested in the form of a well-ordered expression, identical to those used in mathematics nowadays; which come, in every case, in the form of some well-ordered, formal, objective, mathematical language, such as set-theory, etc. Moreover, such definitions must be non-paradoxical, because when a paradox is present, the concept loses any and all objectivity, and hence meaning.

4) To prevent a common paradox, a slightly different form of Russell's paradox; it is necessary for the concept to be completely limited by the language it is defined within; meaning that it cannot predicate over its own predicator.

5) God is commonly defined as an unlimited being (if you define him as limited, this proof is irrelevant).

6) By these necessary standards, i.e. those presented in 1)-4), and by the definition presented in 5), God is ill-defined.

It says nothing about being unlimited.

So god is limited?
7) God cannot exist objectively.

8) God cannot exist beyond the level of notion, and hence has no effect beyond psychological.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 2:53:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 2:33:56 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 9/13/2016 12:39:00 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:59:26 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:45:42 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.
Math is tautological, hence absolute only insofar as it restates a prior claim.

A = A
(and equally)
not A = not A

What you did was erroneous as you stated that A (God) equals not A. Such a move is insupportable.
How? In what way did I claim that?
You defined God as an unlimited being, which is granted. Unlimited taken here in the Kantian sense of an infinite judgment ("undead" as opposed to "not dead"; "unwilling" as opposed to "not willing").
What I had done here, which may settle on you after some time, is prove that such a being is impossible, nothing more.
No, you made the logical error of equating the negative (not A in point 7, 8) with the infinite (un-A, point 5).

The proper statement, therefore, is "God is unlimited" or "God is infinite."

What you undertook in the last analysis, however, is erroneous as you equated the infinite (un-) with the negative (not).

"God is un-X" cannot be equated with "God is not X."

How? They are the same phrase worded differently.
The two judgments are not the same. A negative judgment is the opposite of an affirmative judgment. An infinite judgment, however, never reaches a final stage in which it negates the affirmative.

Give this a closer look (http://plato.stanford.edu...).
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 4:50:21 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 12:25:43 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 9/12/2016 8:02:31 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
To say something is impossible is to then take that something and you define it. You then confine it, and it becomes then something less. Nothing is impossible in a world that doesn't exist. I could say that I once stared at a candescent lightbulb until it morphed into a flame. Don't want to burn down the house, so I unplug the lamp. I know...should have gone green. Whatever. But what happened to the flickering flame? It's gone and all I'm left with is the original bulb. Must have just been my imagination. Except that doesn't explain why the chord to the lamp is now melted. Weirdness.

I don't see your point; you're too ambiguous.

Well nothing is impossible if I take the time to tidy this up. But where's the lesson in that if I have to do all the sweeping. Get a broom. Don't be lazy. Cleanliness is next to Godliness, in ways you wouldn't believe. Better to get a vacuum to suck up anything capable of becoming prickly. That's good advice. Maybe the best if like me and constantly do things you're not supposed to. Hehe. And where a raincoat when it rains. Instead just stay indoors and triple-bolt the door, like it matters. You're welcome :)
Outplayz
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 7:19:28 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 12:00:51 AM, Casten wrote:
At 9/12/2016 11:24:38 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 9/12/2016 10:37:35 PM, Casten wrote:
I submit that you are biased and corrupt.

PRAISE CTHULHU. Agh! Son of a *****.

Here's a cool story. When i was in high school i liked rock but not metal yet. My friend showed me a quick song by C.O.F. and i disliked it in the moment bc i was being bias and didn't really give it a chance. Then, he gave me the C.D. and just told me to listen to the album.

The next day, i was parked on the hill by my school... wanted to ditch my first class bc i was tired and it was overcast... thought, hey... lets give the cd a try. I put the cd in... first song played:

https://www.youtube.com...

As this song was playing it started literally raining... i was entranced: Then... it dropped into this song:

https://www.youtube.com...

Rain was heavy at this point... and my soul was taken at this moment by metal. True story of how i started listening to metal. Praise Cthulhu!

I dunno. I'm into the theme but they could stand to enunciate a little more. If I was just listening to the CD, I wouldn't be able to understand all those cool Cthulhu lyrics. It would just sort of sound like "AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!" with some drums.

Lol! I understand. Yet... you will actually be able to follow what he says if you read the lyrics as you play the music... this guy is a master poet, just reading his lyrics without the music is pretty cool.
Lynx_N
Posts: 276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 8:53:05 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
All the Gods there ever has been and ever will be are man made, so yes, God(s) are fully possible.
Bronto?
Congrats.

poet
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 10:23:50 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 12:24:38 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 9/13/2016 12:33:27 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 9/12/2016 6:10:02 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
Deal with it; the proof that lays before you is mathematical, hence absolute.

1) For something to exist beyond the level of notion, it is necessary for it to be objective, i.e. independent on human perspective; because if it isn't, then it cannot exist independent on the level of notion, and hence be meaningless beyond that level.

2) By definition, it is necessary for an objective term or concept to be fully and hermetically well-defined (though not necessarily a definition known to us); because by definition, an objective concept or entity is one that is dependent on a timeless means of predication, or in other words definition. It must be well-defined, because if it isn't, then there are no predicated qualities given to the concept, and hence no meaning beyond what a subjective perception will give it.

3) Well ordered definitions can and must be manifested in the form of a well-ordered expression, identical to those used in mathematics nowadays; which come, in every case, in the form of some well-ordered, formal, objective, mathematical language, such as set-theory, etc. Moreover, such definitions must be non-paradoxical, because when a paradox is present, the concept loses any and all objectivity, and hence meaning.

4) To prevent a common paradox, a slightly different form of Russell's paradox; it is necessary for the concept to be completely limited by the language it is defined within; meaning that it cannot predicate over its own predicator.

5) God is commonly defined as an unlimited being (if you define him as limited, this proof is irrelevant).

6) By these necessary standards, i.e. those presented in 1)-4), and by the definition presented in 5), God is ill-defined.

7) God cannot exist objectively.

8) God cannot exist beyond the level of notion, and hence has no effect beyond psychological.

Your argument is TL;DR. Regardless, every point can be refuted thus: God is omnipotent, so he can do anything.

Bullsh*t; not addressing the argument does not grant you authority to dismiss it. Either you properly refute the argument, or kindly pack your things and F*CK OFF.

You fvck off. Go suck your mother's diick, and don't pretend like she hasn't got one.