O.K. then what or who is God?

[flamingjimmy 10]

If your argument cannot stand up to scrutiny, then its nothing more than a theory.

 

But my argument can stand up to scrutiny, and it's much more than a theory: it's a truth, established by pure logic.

 

If you see a hole in it please do point it out but simply telling me it doesn't stand up to scrutiny without telling me what your scrutiny has revealed about it is pretty bad form.

[alchresearch 214]

I have been thinking long and hard and I still cannot find any solution to the God problem.

 

Lots of people have been doing the same thing for centuries and come to the same conclusion. Perhaps there is none. Perhaps life is too short to worry and fight about it.

[flamingjimmy 10]

Classic quote from that great thinker 'Niel' from the inbetweeners.

 

Erm I think that quote might predate the inbetweeners by a few decades or so.

[WeX 10]

But my argument can stand up to scrutiny, and it's much more than a theory: it's a truth, established by pure logic.

 

If you see a hole in it please do point it out but simply telling me it doesn't stand up to scrutiny without telling me what your scrutiny has revealed about it is pretty bad form.

 

Your interpretation of logic is your personal opinion. This is why we have peer review for scientific theories. They are scrutinised and tested by others to insure they are correct. Only then are they considered to be true or as close as we can get. You're just stating your argument is "pure logic" without giving any evidence to back this up. Just saying its something doesn't make it so.

[stevie1957 10]

Eric Clapton is grossly overrated actually.

 

That’s a matter of opinion. The point I was making is, anyone can be your God.

[stevie1957 10]

God is whatever you want him/her to be. Easy.

 

..... ...... .....

[Obelix 11]

Your interpretation of logic is your personal opinion. This is why we have peer review for scientific theories. They are scrutinised and tested by others to insure they are correct. Only then are they considered to be true or as close as we can get. You're just stating your argument is "pure logic" without giving any evidence to back this up. Just saying its something doesn't make it so.

 

It's a mathematical argument he's making not a scientific one. FJ is arguing from the viewpoint of reductio ad absurdum and since he reaches a contradictory conclusion the premise given is false. That's all that is needed.

[flamingjimmy 10]

Your interpretation of logic is your personal opinion. This is why we have peer review for scientific theories. They are scrutinised and tested by others to insure they are correct.

Mine is not a scientific theory though, it is a logical argument. And my interpretation of logic is correct, and not at all a personal opinion, you do not seem to understand it though. It's actually better than a scientific theory because my argument, if sound and valid, will be correct for all time, and no amount of evidence can change it.

 

Only then are they considered to be true or as close as we can get. You're just stating your argument is "pure logic" without giving any evidence to back this up. Just saying its something doesn't make it so.

I gave you the complete argument, in concise and simple terms, it stands unless you can fault it, and does not require evidence.

 

EDIT: Obelix put that much better.

[regatta 10]

The red indians prayed to a totem pole and we called them savages ect, at least they prayed to something they could see and feel. so what does that make us.

[alchresearch 214]

Same with the Aborigines.

[WeX 10]

It's a mathematical argument he's making not a scientific one. FJ is arguing from the viewpoint of reductio ad absurdum and since he reaches a contradictory conclusion the premise given is false. That's all that is needed.

 

Logic is not purely mathematics and quoting Latin does not make you appear more intelligent.

 

This whole argument is subject to interpretation and FJ's interpretation is one of many.

[Obelix 11]

Logic is not purely mathematics and quoting Latin does not make you appear more intelligent.

 

This whole argument is subject to interpretation and FJ's interpretation is one of many.

 

Pulling people up for using the commonly accepted term for it doesn't make your argument any better either. I'd expected better of you Wex.