The Best Argument Against the Existence of God

[Super Universe]

You are about 30% correct. I'm introverted and flegmatic. In my culture it's poorly viewed for a man to be overly emotional and I was thought a certain level of stoicism by my father vicariously. I know these traits can often be toxic and I have made some progress in the domain of feeling expression. I do smile and laugh often. I do know many jokes. I do listen to music though my favored music style remains classical and instrumental music so a fairly uncommon type. I only watch combat sports once in a while as well as some e-sports. I would say my taste in movies and television shows are fairly conventional. I'm actually quite the cinephile and watch a great variety of movies. I know several movie quotes, but very few song quotes since I don't listen often to music with vocalisation. I indeed do not dance and while as a child I was a good singer who participated in chorus, puberty did a number on my singing voice. This, in addition to lack of practice as my interested shifted makes me a poor singer and I do not sing out loud in public unless the occasion calls for it. I am not particularly socially awkward and I do entertain a reasonably large and divers network of friends though I must admit most of them are women. I am happily married and have a very young daughter.



I am a history teacher at high school and college level. My personnal specialty is Hellenistic Greece though I'm a generalist teacher and most often teach national history or basic world history. Philosophy and natural sciences are only hobbies of mine. I wrote in this thread because it's an amateur philosophical discussion and debate. I enjoy conversation and debate of a philosophical nature. It doesn't make me particularly happy to classify things; ontological debates are actually rather tedious in my opinion though they are often necessary to make the more fun thought experiment. I'm also an amateur fiction writter so I love thought experiment and "world building". Having them be consistent is important to create a sense of immersion so I like finding inconsistencies and "plot-holes". You first argument could be described as a "plot-hole" to a certain degree.



You have a lot of prejudices about universities and the people in it. Professors are no less humans than janitors or store clercs. The only difference is that their frame of reference in discussions on the subject they study and know are different then the laymen because they actually understand and thought in depth about those issues. Sometime, this can make them feel "alien" in the same fashion a parent's knowledge and control of the world might seem astounding to a young child.

You sang in high school then you stopped. Even people who can't sing still do it in the car or in the shower once in a while. You say you smile and laugh often, okay, but it seems fake. You know many jokes? But you did not share one with us. You know movie quotes but didn't share one with us.

I have a lot of prejudices? I don't like people because I know what future humanity will be like, no serial killers, no control freaks, no rapists, no lazy people who rip off the system, no race wars, no military, no police, no laws.

You compare yourself to the worst people and think that makes you a good person but that's not how it works. To truly be a good person you have to do good things with no expectation of getting anything in return.

I don't like university people? Five years of college, I've been to 40 different US states and 14 different countries, most of them many times. I didn't judge you before you posted or even from a single post. I figured you out from your posts. You refuse to discuss the subject matter and instead analyze the argument using Athenean logic.

What is your obsessive/compulsive disorder? Is it locks? Germs? Scratches in the car paint? The food on your plate can't touch?

We're not robots but you are really trying to be. Maybe preach a little more Diogenes and less Plato and Socrates.

 

[epronovost]

You sang in high school then you stopped.

Elementary school actually.

Even people who can't sing still do it in the car or in the shower once in a while.

I don't drive so of course I don't sing cars and it's very rude to sing in public transportation. I don't sing in the shower though I do hum tunes and music there once in while. I also sing in social occasions like birthdays, Christmas or to put my daughter to sleep after "story time".

You say you smile and laugh often, okay, but it seems fake. You know many jokes? But you did not share one with us. You know movie quotes but didn't share one with us.

Why would I do such a thing in such a context? We were having a debate on the problem of divine hiddeness. You didn't quote any movies or made any joke. were you expecting me to quote the famous scene between Jack Nocholson and Tom Crise in A Few Good Men at some point? That's not exactly polite, but in some circumstances it would have been a nice joke.Unfortunately we are not friends. I revealed things about me, but we don't know each other and frankly you don't seem to like me very much. Had we a different relationship, our interraction would have been different in style and in content which, ironically, provides yet another example of how your first argument was flawed because it doesn't take into account such things.

I have a lot of prejudices? I don't like people because I know what future humanity will be like, no serial killers, no control freaks, no rapists, no lazy people who rip off the system, no race wars, no military, no police, no laws.

A prejudice isn't by necessity negative. There are positive and neutral prejudices too like Asians are good at math or Italian people like pasta. One is a quality and the other one of no special moral value. Prejudices are most often considering insulting not so much because of their content, though they certainly can be, but because they make assumptions on a person that disregard that person idiosyncrasies and personnality; it's objectifying in certain sense. That's why people get offended even when the prejudice you are espousing is a quality.

You compare yourself to the worst people and think that makes you a good person but that's not how it works. To truly be a good person you have to do good things with no expectation of getting anything in return.

I don't remember making any sort of judgement of my own morality neither of yours for that matter. I would not describe myself as an especially good person and, from ou very limited interraction, neither would I describe you as an especially good person. You lack candor, patience, humility and politeness. My supposition is that we are both unremarcable when it comes to moral reasonning and qualities.

I don't like university people? Five years of college, I've been to 40 different US states and 14 different countries, most of them many times.

Good for you, travelling forges the character. I also had the chance to live in several countries and visit many more thanks to being born in a diplomatic familly. In the spirit of sharing, since I shared many information about myself, what did you study in?

I didn't judge you before you posted or even from a single post. I figured you out from your posts.

Obviously you failed considering most of your suppositions were wrong. In fact, the only purely correct one was the fact that I don't dance (unless you consider kata, as dance, which I don't, in that case I would have to say that yes I do dance). I would also like to point out that making such supposition about strangers is generaly considered rather rude, especially when those supposition are meant to be deprecating.

You refuse to discuss the subject matter and instead analyze the argument using Athenean logic.

I do want to discuss the subject matter of your first argument to solve the problem of divine hiddeness. Analysing an argument is discussing an argument. Just like analysing a movie's editing is discussing a movie. Note that you are constantly keeping control of our conversation from the very beginning. I'm writting about singing in shower because you specifically decided, unprompted and in breach of social convention, to "diagnose" someone else from your desk. If you want to return to the initial subject simply tell me so and stop with the constant digressions.

Considering you have misspelled "athenian" several times and that you don't seem to have much formal education or interest in formal debates, I'm more than willing to rephrase my initial criticism of your argument in more digestible and less confrontational way if you wish. I would also like to apologise if you considered to the tone of my very first reply to be too confrontational.

What is your obsessive/compulsive disorder? Is it locks? Germs? Scratches in the car paint? The food on your plate can't touch?

I have no obsessive cumpulsive disorder. I would also advise you not to make light of other people's mental health issues. It's extremely inappropriate and rude. Me humoring your questions doesn't mean I will tolerate every single insult, veiled or otherwise, you will throw at me or others who might be lurking on this thread.

We're not robots but you are really trying to be. Maybe preach a little more Diogenes and less Plato and Socrates.

Ironically, my favored Greek philosopher is Epicurus. I'm not surprised your favored one would be a stoic. Stoic philosophy heavily influenced Christianity and, if I remember correctly, you are Christian are you not?

 

[Super Universe]

Elementary school actually.



I don't drive so of course I don't sing cars and it's very rude to sing in public transportation. I don't sing in the shower though I do hum tunes and music there once in while. I also sing in social occasions like birthdays, Christmas or to put my daughter to sleep after "story time".



Why would I do such a thing in such a context? We were having a debate on the problem of divine hiddeness. You didn't quote any movies or made any joke. were you expecting me to quote the famous scene between Jack Nocholson and Tom Crise in A Few Good Men at some point? That's not exactly polite, but in some circumstances it would have been a nice joke.Unfortunately we are not friends. I revealed things about me, but we don't know each other and frankly you don't seem to like me very much. Had we a different relationship, our interraction would have been different in style and in content which, ironically, provides yet another example of how your first argument was flawed because it doesn't take into account such things.



A prejudice isn't by necessity negative. There are positive and neutral prejudices too like Asians are good at math or Italian people like pasta. One is a quality and the other one of no special moral value. Prejudices are most often considering insulting not so much because of their content, though they certainly can be, but because they make assumptions on a person that disregard that person idiosyncrasies and personnality; it's objectifying in certain sense. That's why people get offended even when the prejudice you are espousing is a quality.



I don't remember making any sort of judgement of my own morality neither of yours for that matter. I would not describe myself as an especially good person and, from ou very limited interraction, neither would I describe you as an especially good person. You lack candor, patience, humility and politeness. My supposition is that we are both unremarcable when it comes to moral reasonning and qualities.



Good for you, travelling forges the character. I also had the chance to live in several countries and visit many more thanks to being born in a diplomatic familly. In the spirit of sharing, since I shared many information about myself, what did you study in?



Obviously you failed considering most of your suppositions were wrong. In fact, the only purely correct one was the fact that I don't dance (unless you consider kata, as dance, which I don't, in that case I would have to say that yes I do dance). I would also like to point out that making such supposition about strangers is generaly considered rather rude, especially when those supposition are meant to be deprecating.



I do want to discuss the subject matter of your first argument to solve the problem of divine hiddeness. Analysing an argument is discussing an argument. Just like analysing a movie's editing is discussing a movie. Note that you are constantly keeping control of our conversation from the very beginning. I'm writting about singing in shower because you specifically decided, unprompted and in breach of social convention, to "diagnose" someone else from your desk. If you want to return to the initial subject simply tell me so and stop with the constant digressions.

Considering you have misspelled "athenian" several times and that you don't seem to have much formal education or interest in formal debates, I'm more than willing to rephrase my initial criticism of your argument in more digestible and less confrontational way if you wish. I would also like to apologise if you considered to the tone of my very first reply to be too confrontational.



I have no obsessive cumpulsive disorder. I would also advise you not to make light of other people's mental health issues. It's extremely inappropriate and rude. Me humoring your questions doesn't mean I will tolerate every single insult, veiled or otherwise, you will throw at me or others who might be lurking on this thread.



Ironically, my favored Greek philosopher is Epicurus. I'm not surprised your favored one would be a stoic. Stoic philosophy heavily influenced Christianity and, if I remember correctly, you are Christian are you not?

We're never had a debate on divine hiddeness. The entire debate was on Athenean logic and now it's shifted to character analysis. We can't discuss the subject because you can't discuss the subject.

Was I expecting you to quote the famous line from Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men." No, that ones is too well known. Find another one. Come on, try to activate your imagination. Hold your breath, make a wish, count to three. "Come with me, and you'll be, in a world of pure imagination. Take a look. And you'll see into your imagination. We'll begin, with a spin, travelling in the world of my creation. What we'll see will defy ex-plana-tion."

Why do parents want their kids to learn to play the piano, or, they used to, not so much anymore, but why?

I don't seem to like you very much? Don't take it personal, you're human, I can't stand humans. A hyena has an excuse.

My first argument was flawed? So. People can nit pick everything to death.

Prejudice is pre-judging. I did not pre-judge you. I read your posts. You humans always think I can't figure you out but this is what I do. You think you're too complicated but you're not. I don't care that I got some of it almost right. You think because I don't know what your favorite song is that I don't know you. The song is just a song, obsessive/compulsiveness ruins lives.

I lack patience? I tolerated you long enough. This subject wasn't about logic. As for politeness, you wreap what you sew. I lack humility? I was humble once, then I realized that humans were still neanderthals that abuse their young (David Turpin anyone).

We are both unremarkable when it comes to moral reasoning? No, my moral reasoning is a thousand years ahead of yours. That doesn't mean I am a thousand years more morally evolved than you are, I just know what it is. Jesus was many thousands of years more moral than the people He lived with and they crucified Him. That's not going to happen to me.

What did I study in? Sciences but so much of physics is off on a tangent going the wrong way. And I had a minor in English but only because I thought I wanted to be a creative writer but they already have enough stories about two people who wake up in a strange place and eventually realize they are Adam and Eve. And I hate the way they've made English like math so I don't really care if I dangle my participle or whatever.

Some of my suppositions were wrong? No they weren't. You're introverted, you're dry, plain, vanilla, you're a teacher (so you get to do all the talking-sense of empowerment), you studied Hellenic Greek philosophy (logic), you try to force every argument into your area of expertise so you can feel a sense of winning.

Analyzing a movie's editing is the same as discussing a movie? No, it's not, but I'm not surprised you think that way. You avoid emotion. You can't figure it. You don't want to try to figure it. You think it's beneath you. You're not human, you're a logic bot. Live long and prosper.

I misspelled "Athenian" several times? Logic bot can't stop being logic bot. You didn't even notice all of the words you misspelled. Don't apologize, logic bot don't apologize, logic bot use reason, logic bot compute, logic bot explain what logic bot knows so you can tell someone they are using straw man or Ad hominem or whatever because that's what humans need, to be more like logic bot.

You have no obessive/compulsive disorders? Yes you do. Your idea of perfection. You mispell words but that's okay, you just really don't like it when others mispell Athenian. I'm sure there's more but I know you won't tell us. You have some William Foster (movie Falling Down) type control thing.

You would advise me not to make fun of other people's mental health issues? Counselors have to vent. You deal with control freaks all day long and see if you don't get frustrated with it all.

"Others lurking on this thread?" Very strange thing to say. Others lurking... Not viewing, or browsing, or perusing, or leafing... So, to you, people who come to internet forums are lurking?

Am I Christian? Something like that.

 

[epronovost]

We're never had a debate on divine hiddeness. The entire debate was on Athenean logic and now it's shifted to character analysis. We can't discuss the subject because you can't discuss the subject.

It wasn't. I made a critique on your argument and you decided to provide new arguments instead of adressing the critique and then make assumption about my person I decided to correct. Might I ask why you keep misspelling "athenian" while we are at it?

Why do parents want their kids to learn to play the piano, or, they used to, not so much anymore, but why?

How the hell did you get to this? Nobody talked about teaching children piano. I don't know how to play piano and my child is too young to learn. Why bring this up? Did you have a bad time trying to learn piano? I don't follow the reasonning there.

I don't seem to like you very much? Don't take it personal, you're human, I can't stand humans. A hyena has an excuse.

So you hate humans, including yourself, yet seek social venues to discuss with them? That sounds a bit contradictory or even masochistic. I don't like indian food so you won't find me in indian restaurants. What does a person who hates others do on discussion forums?

My first argument was flawed? So. People can nit pick everything to death.

And by this process improve them and learn new things and discover new points of view. It's something I find enjoyable. I love learning and discovering new perspectives. That's why I seek discussion and debate.

Prejudice is pre-judging. I did not pre-judge you. I read your posts. You humans always think I can't figure you out but this is what I do.

Yet, the overwhelming majority of your "bets" were wrong because of course they were based on such a small sample of interraction they were more based on personnal bias and prejudice than data.

I lack patience? I tolerated you long enough.

Tolerance doesn't equate patience and even then I would say you hardly tolerate me. You seem to be wishing to hurt my feelings.

This subject wasn't about logic.

The subject of this thread is a logical problem and its counter-argument. I criticised one of such counter-argument. What's not the subject of this thread is movie quotes or pathologising people.

As for politeness, you wreap what you sew.

The phrase is "reap what you sow" not wreap what you sew. I did offer you apologies if you thought my first post was too offensive in tone. Again, I'm sorry if my tone came as condescending or agressive. My goal was to expose a weakness in an argument so that you could learn something new or, more accurately, see something from someone else perspective through the use of a common frame of reference. I also offered you to start anew on different term and will invite you again.

I lack humility? I was humble once, then I realized that humans were still neanderthals that abuse their young (David Turpin anyone).

Then break the cycle. Calm down a little bit, take a deep breath and start anew.

We are both unremarkable when it comes to moral reasoning? No, my moral reasoning is a thousand years ahead of yours. That doesn't mean I am a thousand years more morally evolved than you are, I just know what it is. Jesus was many thousands of years more moral than the people He lived with and they crucified Him. That's not going to happen to me.

Well if it can reassure you, I'm not going to crucify you... I'm not handy with hammer and frankly sturdy pieces of wood are very expensive these days.

What did I study in? Sciences but so much of physics is off on a tangent going the wrong way.

Can I ask you which science? There are many.

And I had a minor in English but only because I thought I wanted to be a creative writer but they already have enough stories about two people who wake up in a strange place and eventually realize they are Adam and Eve.

There are a lot of those? I don't think I ever stumbled upon one. The idea is pretty good I must admit. Do you have any suggestion of good books on the subject?

And I hate the way they've made English like math so I don't really care if I dangle my participle or whatever.

Allow me to pathologise you turn. You are a deeply insecure person with some delusion of grandeur and with very little capacity to tolerate faillure from yourself and others because you have a very fragile ego due to a traumatic childhood after being raised by overly strict and emotionnaly abscent parents. You hate logic, mathematics and grammars because they are rulesets and, with those people, can show errors of yours and you can't stand to be in error because it hurts your feelings and threaten the very weak ego you have developped over the years.

Some of my suppositions were wrong? No they weren't. You're introverted,

That is rather true. Though it would be false to go so far to say I'm a shut-in with very little friends and difficulties to handle social situations. In fact, I would say "reserved" or "flegmatic" would be more accurate than introverted.

you're dry, plain, vanilla,

That's false considering many of my interests are rather uncommon and even a bit "quirky" I would say. For example, I'm a huge fan of cooperative storytelling games and I like to write fiction for fun.

you're a teacher (so you get to do all the talking-sense of empowerment)

You did guess correctly that I was teacher, but at the wrong level and in the wrong domain.

you studied Hellenic Greek philosophy (logic)

That's false. I'm a history teacher and my specialty is Hellenic Greek history not philosophy and as mentionned before though it's my favored era and the one I studied the most, I mostly teach national history (in my case that of Canada and Quebec because that's where I live and work) and general history of the western world. History and philosophy are very different discipline.

Also philosophy doesn't equate logic either.

you try to force every argument into your area of expertise so you can feel a sense of winning.

I actually talk about the subject where I have a certain expertise or bring my expertise in certain subject where it's pertinent because I can add to conversation, learn new things and share my expertise and point of views.

Analyzing a movie's editing is the same as discussing a movie? No, it's not, but I'm not surprised you think that way. You avoid emotion. You can't figure it. You don't want to try to figure it. You think it's beneath you. You're not human, you're a logic bot. Live long and prosper.

All movie critique discuss a little bit editing in movies because editing is an important tool of storytelling. Editing helps transmit information and emotions to the audience.

You didn't even notice all of the words you misspelled.

Obviously if I had noticed those mistakes I wouldn't have made such mistakes in the first place. I don't voluntarely make spelling mistakes. I don't know anybody who does except for purely comedic value. Feel free to correct my spelling or grammar if you want. I generally take kindly to such corrections. They are occasions for self improvement and since english isn't my first language, I can use more practice. Correct spelling makes for easier communication afterall.

Don't apologize, logic bot don't apologize, logic bot use reason, logic bot compute, logic bot explain what logic bot knows so you can tell someone they are using straw man or Ad hominem or whatever because that's what humans need, to be more like logic bot.

I hope that maybe, you'll read that type of comment and realise that they aren't exactly useful, true or beautiful.

(there I go with Socrate... You'll really hate me for this joke, but I couldn't resist; pardon my weakness.)

You have no obessive/compulsive disorders? Yes you do. Your idea of perfection. You mispell words but that's okay, you just really don't like it when others mispell Athenian. I'm sure there's more but I know you won't tell us. You have some William Foster (movie Falling Down) type control thing.

I'm starting to wonder if you are not making a lot of psychological projection in this thread. Are you angry at me or, deep down, are you angry at you right now?

You would advise me not to make fun of other people's mental health issues? Counselors have to vent. You deal with control freaks all day long and see if you don't get frustrated with it all.

Be that as it may, a counselor should know better than making random strangers the subject of their "venting off". A good counselor should also know that catharsis isn't good for managing emotions and stress and can in fact increase it. We all get frustrated and exhausted once in while, some more than others for a variety of reasons, but they aren't excuse to be especially mean spirited or insulting. There are better ways to deal with them like doing something fun or sharing you angst and negative emotions with someone you love and/or trust. Maybe you should go do that a little bit.

I must also say that there is no shame in making mistakes and behaving like a jerk once in a while. We all do at some point. I was a bit of a jerk in this thread myself. The important part is to realise it, apologise and try to improve.

"Others lurking on this thread?" Very strange thing to say. Others lurking... Not viewing, or browsing, or perusing, or leafing... So, to you, people who come to internet forums are lurking?

I was under the impression that the term "lurker" was a common english internet linguo for people who browse forums and discussion boards without actively participating in them.

Am I Christian? Something like that.

A follower of the Urantia Book according to your profile. It's some sort of christianism adapted to the modern age if I'm correct. It made a bit of a splash in the mid 20th century if memory serves me right.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Not everyone is capable of believing without assistance.

 

[Super Universe]

eprovonost

Why do I keep mispelling Athenean? Because I know people like you, you have to control certain things that are out of your control but you have to have your way and you don't like it when you don't get your way. So I'm going to keep mispelling it and there is nothing you can do about it Melvin Udall.

Nobody talked about teaching children piano? I just did. You think others can't bring up new ideas? You don't like that, do you? Others thinking things that you don't think about. Control bot.

What does a person who hates human do on discussion forums? Argue. What do you do on forums?

You love learning and discovering new perspectives? Teachers don't learn new things, they preach their word, they just don't get the alms after speaking.

The majority of my bets were wrong? No, they were correct.

I seem to wish to hurt your feelings? I'm letting you know your place is not over me.

The subject of this thread is logical problem? Nothing is solved by logic. Prove to me that the Eiffel Tower exists using Athenean logic. I bet you can't do it. In fact, I know you can't.

The phrase is reap what you sew? So.

Your goal was for me to learn something new? You mean learn something new from David Turpin? I'm sure you wish you had that kind of power over me.

I should break the cycle and realize that humans are not neanderthals? No, humans should stop being neanderthals. This is exactly why we will never agree on anything. You think everyone should be like you but no one wants to be Melvin Udall. People don't want to quote Athenean logic because it's outdated, boring, and useless.

You're not going to crucify me? As if you thought you could. You humans make me laugh.

What science did I study? General. I got frustrated with it. Too many ideas violate physical laws. Gravity won't allow a big bang to happen so it's impossible but the physicists are determined to force it to work. When you invent something that violates your most fundamental law that's no longer science.

You never stumbled upon a story of people who woke up and eventually realized they were Adam and Eve? I had that idea a long, long time ago, thought it was pretty good, was about half way finished with the story when I read a creative writers critique online and a published author said we don't need any more of those types of stories before I ever told anyone about my idea.

I am deeply insecure? Over confidant actually. I have delusions of grandeur? Not sure what you mean by that, do I think I will go to heaven, yes. I don't take failure well? Depends on the failure. I always think I should have known beforehand. I don't take failure well from others? Psht, that would make it impossible to live if I was like that. I have a fragile ego? No, it's inflated. I had a traumatic childhood? Yes. My parents were overly strict? Mom was not strict at all but very abusive when I was home, I was her emotional punching bag, so I stayed out mostly. Dad was crazy Jehovahs Witness, not really strict but it was best to be quiet because of all the JW rules that didn't make sense to kids. I hate logic? Not really, I don't know, maybe, I hate the incorrect use of logic by atheists as if it can lead you to the truth when it can't. I hate math? In high school I worked the drive through register at Wendy's, I can figure change in my head quicker than anyone, not fond of algebra anymore though, forgot all the rules. Grammar I try to get right but I don't like the excessive rules. I can't stand to be in error? I think I'm normal in that regard except if I remember some info about God or the universe wrong, that really bothers me. Have to get that stuff right or I'm just as bad as the religious people. No weak ego, it's very inflated.

You say you're not dry, plain, vanilla? I'm sure you think you're not.

You like to write fiction for fun? There's nothing fun about creative writing.

I guessed that you were a teacher but at the wrong level and wrong domain? If I gave you directions from Los Angeles to New York and got you within 2 miles of New York, are the directions wrong?

Philosophy and logic are not the same? No one cares.

You actually talk about subject that you are knowledgeable in? Right, you turn everything into a logic debate. Logic is all you have.

All movie critique discuss editing? I've had many, many conversations with friends about movies, never once did we discuss editing. You must know something about movie editing, that's why you are forcing it.

If you had noticed your mistakes you wouldn't have made them in the first place? Everyone can say that. Jesus said you criticize others but you don't see the stick in your own eye.

English isn't your first language? I know, I was thinking Arab but you would certainly be a Muslim and you are not so maybe Turkish but no Turk would study Greek history and the name sounds Slavic so maybe Bulgarian, but I still get an Arab vibe.

You quote Socrates. I quote Sparta, "Go tell the Spartans, ye who pass us by, that here, obedient to our laws, we lie."

Am I angry? This is the internet. Nothing important enough to get angry over. Am I projecting? Nope.

A counselor should know better than to vent on random strangers? I never said I was a good counselor.

Maybe I should vent on my loved ones? There is no way that is a good thing to do. Someone once gave me some advice on starting my own business, she said "You should get a partner." I said "That's the worst business advice I've ever been given."

You misunderstood the word lurker? Yeah, that's not a good word to use, sounds too much like a stalker.

I'm a UB guy? Yep, it made a splash but people wanted it all to be about them.

 

[epronovost]

Why do I keep mispelling Athenean? Because I know people like you, you have to control certain things that are out of your control but you have to have your way and you don't like it when you don't get your way. So I'm going to keep mispelling it and there is nothing you can do about it Melvin Udall.

So it's to be spiteful.

Nobody talked about teaching children piano? I just did. You think others can't bring up new ideas? You don't like that, do you? Others thinking things that you don't think about. Control bot.

I don't have a particular problem with that. I just don't understand what you wanted to communicate by bringing piano lessons or where you got that idea. I'm not in your head. I can't see your mental processes, only their results. Was it also just to be spiteful?

What does a person who hates human do on discussion forums? Argue. What do you do on forums?

Then what are you arguing about and why? You don't seem to want to argue the subject of the thread afterall. It's been a while you have touched it despite me inviting you to do so twice (thrice now).

You love learning and discovering new perspectives? Teachers don't learn new things, they preach their word, they just don't get the alms after speaking.

Good teachers constantly learn new things. In fact, by law, I'm forced to follow perfectionment classes and listen to seminars about my job and in my field of study. I'm more than happy to abide by this law and make my own learning at home in addition to that which is required by my employment. I read about 5 books about my field of teaching (history) each year. The last one I read was about the early years of the reign of Napoleon the first.

The majority of my bets were wrong? No, they were correct.

Considering I had to correct them all, that's a strange thing to claim.

I seem to wish to hurt your feelings? I'm letting you know your place is not over me.

I'm not asking you to recognise me as your master or someone superior to you except perhapse in some fields where I have more knowledge and experience then you as I would have to defer to your expertise in other domains. I ask you simply to recognise an accurate criticism I've made of one of your arguments and engage it.

The subject of this thread is logical problem? Nothing is solved by logic. Prove to me that the Eiffel Tower exists using Athenean logic. I bet you can't do it. In fact, I know you can't.

The Eiffel tower exist because it can be perceived by the senses and confirmed and compared by the observation of others and retain the same qualities. The last phrase and conception of reality is the one espoused by Aristotle. It's aristotelian logic at it's most basic.

(logic is much like mathematics. There are many kinds of logic systems.)

The phrase is reap what you sew? So.

You've learned a new thing! That's nice!

Your goal was for me to learn something new? You mean learn something new from David Turpin? I'm sure you wish you had that kind of power over me.

I'm not sure I catch the reference there. The only David Turpin I know, just like that from the top of my head, is a famous botanist.

I should break the cycle and realize that humans are not neanderthals? No, humans should stop being neanderthals. This is exactly why we will never agree on anything. You think everyone should be like you but no one wants to be Melvin Udall. People don't want to quote Athenean logic because it's outdated, boring, and useless.

So, if I understand what you are trying to say is that you want to argue with people, but you don't want to argue about logic, philosophy or anything like that because you don't like those things; you don't understand them. Is that correct?

You're not going to crucify me? As if you thought you could. You humans make me laugh.

The comment about crucifying you was, of course, a joke.

What science did I study? General. I got frustrated with it. Too many ideas violate physical laws. Gravity won't allow a big bang to happen so it's impossible but the physicists are determined to force it to work. When you invent something that violates your most fundamental law that's no longer science.

I thought you didn't study physics or did I missread you? So in college you made a Major in natural sciences and a Minor in English? In what field did you find work with such an education.

You never stumbled upon a story of people who woke up and eventually realized they were Adam and Eve? I had that idea a long, long time ago, thought it was pretty good, was about half way finished with the story when I read a creative writers critique online and a published author said we don't need any more of those types of stories before I ever told anyone about my idea.

I never read any story like that. I think it would have been a good idea. You shouldn't have followed that author's opinion. Storytelling is all about taking older stories and tropes and givng them a new flesh and a new "spin". We have told hundreds of star crossed lovers story and we will probably keep writting others in that style until humanity is no more.

I am deeply insecure? Over confidant actually. I have delusions of grandeur? Not sure what you mean by that, do I think I will go to heaven, yes.

A delusion of grandeur, to keep things simple, is when a person's thinks WAY too highly of themselves, overestimate their capacity, importance and originality despite ample proofs of the opposite. People with delusion of grandeur are incapable of assessing their skill level correctly. A delusion of grandeur can be very specific like if I suddenly thought I was the most brilliant author in the world despite having only published two things in my life neither of which are particularly noteworthy or they can be very wide like if I thought I was super-human.

I don't take failure well? Depends on the failure. I always think I should have known beforehand. I don't take failure well from others? Psht, that would make it impossible to live if I was like that. I have a fragile ego? No, it's inflated.

Inflated ego are often very fragile. Think of them like a party balloon they look big and impressive, but the slightest prick and they pop. People with inflated ego often react very strongly to the smallest slight on their ego because while they might think very highly of themselves, it conceals a great fragility. It's a bit like those super macho guys with big muscles and big cars who feel the need to constantly show-off else they think people won't see them as masculine enough. They are trying to hide a weakness beneath a bluster.

I had a traumatic childhood? Yes. My parents were overly strict? Mom was not strict at all but very abusive when I was home, I was her emotional punching bag, so I stayed out mostly. Dad was crazy Jehovahs Witness, not really strict but it was best to be quiet because of all the JW rules that didn't make sense to kids.

You have my sympathy. My spouse has grown up with an emotionally abusive mother and it caused her much pain and she still suffer some consequences of this abuse. One of my close childhood friend also stuggled with very religious parents and they were often oppressively strict. He too got better after a very rough teenagerhood though. Both him and his parents had to learn difficult lessons, but they received help.

I hate logic? Not really, I don't know, maybe, I hate the incorrect use of logic by atheists as if it can lead you to the truth when it can't.

From my point of view it feels like you don't like it because you don't really understand it, don't know much about it and don't like the people who use it when it comes to you. I think you could gain by learning about logic and philosophy in a more collegial setting than debate forums, but that's just my opinion. I think you could get to enjoy it once you get the hang of it.

I hate math? In high school I worked the drive through register at Wendy's, I can figure change in my head quicker than anyone, not fond of algebra anymore though, forgot all the rules.

I started to like math later in my adult life. when I was a kid, I hated math. By the end of my teenage years, I liked it more. Today, when I look back at it, I realise that I didn't hate math so much as I hated how I was introduced and taught the subject. I didn't have the proper philosophical knowledge to actualy understand mathematics.

You like to write fiction for fun? There's nothing fun about creative writing.

If you say so. I thought you wrote yourself. Why did you wrote half a book if you didn't like creative writting?

I guessed that you were a teacher but at the wrong level and wrong domain? If I gave you directions from Los Angeles to New York and got you within 2 miles of New York, are the directions wrong?

That's a very poor comparison. You compared me to a teacher in a completely different domain. Are doctors and mechanics the same thing now?

All movie critique discuss editing? I've had many, many conversations with friends about movies, never once did we discuss editing. You must know something about movie editing, that's why you are forcing it.

I think you underestimate yourself there. You probably did discuss editing while discussing movies without knowing it. For example if you at some point commented on how the movie was kinda bad because the camera was too shacky and you couldn't see what was hapenning well, that's editing and art direction. If you, at some point, mentionned that the story was jumping from one thing to another in a weird or unbelievable manner, that can also be editing. If you are talking about the atmosphere of a movie, that's convey through the editing and art direction, etc. You might not know the technical terms, neither do I know much about them because I'm not a specialist, but everybody knows or can appreciate the effect of good or bad editing in a movie.

If you had noticed your mistakes you wouldn't have made them in the first place? Everyone can say that. Jesus said you criticize others but you don't see the stick in your own eye.

I completely recognise that I often make spelling and grammar mistake and freely invite corrections and will take them to hear. Can you say the same? People making mistake don't erase your own nor does it lessen them.

English isn't your first language? I know, I was thinking Arab but you would certainly be a Muslim and you are not so maybe Turkish but no Turk would study Greek history and the name sounds Slavic so maybe Bulgarian, but I still get an Arab vibe.

As mentionned before, I'm Québécois also known as French Canadian.

A counselor should know better than to vent on random strangers? I never said I was a good counselor.

lol

touché

 

[Super Universe]

So it's to be spiteful.



I don't have a particular problem with that. I just don't understand what you wanted to communicate by bringing piano lessons or where you got that idea. I'm not in your head. I can't see your mental processes, only their results. Was it also just to be spiteful?



Then what are you arguing about and why? You don't seem to want to argue the subject of the thread afterall. It's been a while you have touched it despite me inviting you to do so twice (thrice now).



Good teachers constantly learn new things. In fact, by law, I'm forced to follow perfectionment classes and listen to seminars about my job and in my field of study. I'm more than happy to abide by this law and make my own learning at home in addition to that which is required by my employment. I read about 5 books about my field of teaching (history) each year. The last one I read was about the early years of the reign of Napoleon the first.



Considering I had to correct them all, that's a strange thing to claim.



I'm not asking you to recognise me as your master or someone superior to you except perhapse in some fields where I have more knowledge and experience then you as I would have to defer to your expertise in other domains. I ask you simply to recognise an accurate criticism I've made of one of your arguments and engage it.



The Eiffel tower exist because it can be perceived by the senses and confirmed and compared by the observation of others and retain the same qualities. The last phrase and conception of reality is the one espoused by Aristotle. It's aristotelian logic at it's most basic.

(logic is much like mathematics. There are many kinds of logic systems.)



You've learned a new thing! That's nice!



I'm not sure I catch the reference there. The only David Turpin I know, just like that from the top of my head, is a famous botanist.



So, if I understand what you are trying to say is that you want to argue with people, but you don't want to argue about logic, philosophy or anything like that because you don't like those things; you don't understand them. Is that correct?



The comment about crucifying you was, of course, a joke.



I thought you didn't study physics or did I missread you? So in college you made a Major in natural sciences and a Minor in English? In what field did you find work with such an education.



I never read any story like that. I think it would have been a good idea. You shouldn't have followed that author's opinion. Storytelling is all about taking older stories and tropes and givng them a new flesh and a new "spin". We have told hundreds of star crossed lovers story and we will probably keep writting others in that style until humanity is no more.



A delusion of grandeur, to keep things simple, is when a person's thinks WAY too highly of themselves, overestimate their capacity, importance and originality despite ample proofs of the opposite. People with delusion of grandeur are incapable of assessing their skill level correctly. A delusion of grandeur can be very specific like if I suddenly thought I was the most brilliant author in the world despite having only published two things in my life neither of which are particularly noteworthy or they can be very wide like if I thought I was super-human.



Inflated ego are often very fragile. Think of them like a party balloon they look big and impressive, but the slightest prick and they pop. People with inflated ego often react very strongly to the smallest slight on their ego because while they might think very highly of themselves, it conceals a great fragility. It's a bit like those super macho guys with big muscles and big cars who feel the need to constantly show-off else they think people won't see them as masculine enough. They are trying to hide a weakness beneath a bluster.



You have my sympathy. My spouse has grown up with an emotionally abusive mother and it caused her much pain and she still suffer some consequences of this abuse. One of my close childhood friend also stuggled with very religious parents and they were often oppressively strict. He too got better after a very rough teenagerhood though. Both him and his parents had to learn difficult lessons, but they received help.



From my point of view it feels like you don't like it because you don't really understand it, don't know much about it and don't like the people who use it when it comes to you. I think you could gain by learning about logic and philosophy in a more collegial setting than debate forums, but that's just my opinion. I think you could get to enjoy it once you get the hang of it.



I started to like math later in my adult life. when I was a kid, I hated math. By the end of my teenage years, I liked it more. Today, when I look back at it, I realise that I didn't hate math so much as I hated how I was introduced and taught the subject. I didn't have the proper philosophical knowledge to actualy understand mathematics.



If you say so. I thought you wrote yourself. Why did you wrote half a book if you didn't like creative writting?



That's a very poor comparison. You compared me to a teacher in a completely different domain. Are doctors and mechanics the same thing now?



I think you underestimate yourself there. You probably did discuss editing while discussing movies without knowing it. For example if you at some point commented on how the movie was kinda bad because the camera was too shacky and you couldn't see what was hapenning well, that's editing and art direction. If you, at some point, mentionned that the story was jumping from one thing to another in a weird or unbelievable manner, that can also be editing. If you are talking about the atmosphere of a movie, that's convey through the editing and art direction, etc. You might not know the technical terms, neither do I know much about them because I'm not a specialist, but everybody knows or can appreciate the effect of good or bad editing in a movie.



I completely recognise that I often make spelling and grammar mistake and freely invite corrections and will take them to hear. Can you say the same? People making mistake don't erase your own nor does it lessen them.



As mentionned before, I'm Québécois also known as French Canadian.



lol

touché

The point about the piano was that some good parents want their children to grow up and not be simple but you are incapable of discussing anything outside of your knowledge base. You can't learn because you think you know everything you need to or want to know. You think there is nothing more. You're stuck as a primitive.

You're not inviting me to debate the thread subject, you can't do that. You have to turn everything into a logic debate.

Good teachers constantly learn new things? Napoleon is not a new thing, he's an old thing. Name one truly new thing you learned about. Just one.

In some fields you have more knowledge than I do? Everyone knows something someone else doesn't.

I'm supposed to recognize your criticism is accurate? Will you admit that the philosophy of logic is useless and does not help one find truth?

The Eiffel Tower exists because it can be perceived by senses and confirmed by others? So if you can see it then it's real and if others say it exists then it's real? Can you see gravity?

The only David Turpin you know is a botanist? Look him up online. I'm sure you will see a resemblance.

Forums are for arguments. I've argued with you about logic enough. You won't accept that logic is useless because it does not lead to truth. You can't abandon logic because that's your only debate tactic. You don't care about the truth, you care about showing off your logic skills.

I studied many things in college. What field did I work in? Not going to reveal that.

Do I think way too highly of myself? Yes. Do I overestimate my capacity? Don't think so. Do I over estimate my importance? Nope. I'm not important at all. I'm a grain of sand among billions of grains of sand and there are trillions of beaches. Do I over estimate my originality? I know I'm way more original than 90% of people. Most of you repeat what others have determined for you, you just go along with it, I argue physics with the physicists because gravity says they are wrong.

Inflated ego's are often very fragile? Not what I've seen. Psychopaths have inflated egos and could care less if they make a mistake that harms others. I'm not a psychopath but my ego is very inflated, it's because I just know that I know more about what's important, God and the universe. Logic is not important to the universe. You went down a path that ended 2,300 years ago and you got stuck there and now you can't get out.

You feel I don't understand logic? I do, or did. I had to take a logic class in community college, it was either that or a class on the Vietnam War and a friend warned me about the professor in the Vietnam War class. I don't like how completely useless Logic is. Classifying arguments is a waste of time. Validity is a waste of time. Invalidity is a waste of time. It all means nothing if it doesn't help you find TRUTH. An Ad Hominem can be true, so what is the point in classifying it as an Ad Hominem except to think that you won the argument simply because you were able to classify it using 2,300 year old ideas?

Why did I write half a book if I did not like creative writing? I was young and liked to try new things.

Are doctors and mechanics the same thing? Sometimes I think they are.

Do I invite people to correct my spelling and grammar? No, I could care less about spelling and grammar. If you can still understand it then that's all that matters.

You're not arab, you're French/Canadian? Okay, if you say so.

 

[epronovost]

You can't learn because you think you know everything you need to or want to know.

Then why do I keep professing my love and need of learning new things then?

You're not inviting me to debate the thread subject, you can't do that. You have to turn everything into a logic debate.

How would you go about a philosophical argument on the nature of god(s) without introducing any form of logic? Go ahead, I'll follow. Has mentionned before, you are in control of the conversation

Good teachers constantly learn new things? Napoleon is not a new thing, he's an old thing. Name one truly new thing you learned about. Just one.

You can learn new things about old things. Napoleon is indeed an historical character. Do you everything about him and his regime? I don't. I learned new things about him and his regime recently; things that I didn't know and now I do.

The Eiffel Tower exists because it can be perceived by senses and confirmed by others? So if you can see it then it's real and if others say it exists then it's real? Can you see gravity?

Yes, we can sense gravity. Thus, it exists.

I argue physics with the physicists because gravity says they are wrong.

What did they say?

Inflated ego's are often very fragile? Not what I've seen. Psychopaths have inflated egos and could care less if they make a mistake that harms others. I'm not a psychopath but my ego is very inflated, it's because I just know that I know more about what's important, God and the universe. Logic is not important to the universe. You went down a path that ended 2,300 years ago and you got stuck there and now you can't get out.

You feel I don't understand logic? I do, or did. I had to take a logic class in community college, it was either that or a class on the Vietnam War and a friend warned me about the professor in the Vietnam War class. I don't like how completely useless Logic is. Classifying arguments is a waste of time. Validity is a waste of time. Invalidity is a waste of time. It all means nothing if it doesn't help you find TRUTH. An Ad Hominem can be true, so what is the point in classifying it as an Ad Hominem except to think that you won the argument simply because you were able to classify it using 2,300 year old ideas?

You had one introduction class on logic, congratulation, it doesn't make you knowledgeable about logic anymore than taking a class of karate makes you a good karateka.

Here. I'll show you several of the idiocies and falsehood that post contains. It assumes logic was developped and was "completed" 2300 years ago. It's actually 300 years older than that and is continuously developped. Many systems of logic were developped during the 19th and 20th century and their development continues today just like algebra for example which is about 2400 years old, but is still being developped today by new generations of mathematicians. An ad hominiem argument is rejected because it doesn't support a conclusion even if it's true. Here's the demonstration:

You are an absolute idiot thus you are wrong about the usefulness of logic. That's an ad hominem argument and it makes no sense. Even if you and I were to accept the presmise that you are indeed an absolute idiot, that would not mean you are wrong about logic. Absolute idiots can be correct about something if only by chance. Thus it's a bad argument since it doesn't prove that you are wrong. That's why it's a bad argument. My position might be correct; the fact that you are an absolute idiot might also be correct, but that's not the point. The point is what can you PROVE is correct or not. Logic is all about proof.

Anybody can claim to be right and know the truth. Even people who are wrong can claim they are right and know the truth. Claims of knowledge and truth are very easy and, in the end pointless, because two persons can make opposite claims. What matters is what proof do they got and those proofs will be using a system of logic or another by necessity and thus can be evaluated.

One of your argument was bad because it doesn't support your conclusion. You and I both think we know the truth about something and we can't both be right. At least one of us must be wrong (maybe both). The question which one and how can we find out. For that we must present arguments and that means using some form of logic both to formulate the argument and analyse them since they are in competition to see which one is the strongest.

 

[Super Universe]

Then why do I keep professing my love and need of learning new things then?



How would you go about a philosophical argument on the nature of god(s) without introducing any form of logic? Go ahead, I'll follow. Has mentionned before, you are in control of the conversation



You can learn new things about old things. Napoleon is indeed an historical character. Do you everything about him and his regime? I don't. I learned new things about him and his regime recently; things that I didn't know and now I do.



Yes, we can sense gravity. Thus, it exists.



What did they say?



You had one introduction class on logic, congratulation, it doesn't make you knowledgeable about logic anymore than taking a class of karate makes you a good karateka.

Here. I'll show you several of the idiocies and falsehood that post contains. It assumes logic was developped and was "completed" 2300 years ago. It's actually 300 years older than that and is continuously developped. Many systems of logic were developped during the 19th and 20th century and their development continues today just like algebra for example which is about 2400 years old, but is still being developped today by new generations of mathematicians. An ad hominiem argument is rejected because it doesn't support a conclusion even if it's true. Here's the demonstration:

You are an absolute idiot thus you are wrong about the usefulness of logic. That's an ad hominem argument and it makes no sense. Even if you and I were to accept the presmise that you are indeed an absolute idiot, that would not mean you are wrong about logic. Absolute idiots can be correct about something if only by chance. Thus it's a bad argument since it doesn't prove that you are wrong. That's why it's a bad argument. My position might be correct; the fact that you are an absolute idiot might also be correct, but that's not the point. The point is what can you PROVE is correct or not. Logic is all about proof.

Anybody can claim to be right and know the truth. Even people who are wrong can claim they are right and know the truth. Claims of knowledge and truth are very easy and, in the end pointless, because two persons can make opposite claims. What matters is what proof do they got and those proofs will be using a system of logic or another by necessity and thus can be evaluated.

One of your argument was bad because it doesn't support your conclusion. You and I both think we know the truth about something and we can't both be right. At least one of us must be wrong (maybe both). The question which one and how can we find out. For that we must present arguments and that means using some form of logic both to formulate the argument and analyse them since they are in competition to see which one is the strongest.

You read about Napoleon and tell people it's new because it's new to you. But it's Napoleon, so, it's old news, it's not new to the universe but you don't care about that.

How could you have an argument about the nature of god without using logic? Children don't know logic but they can answer questions and learn, so the same is with most people. You want to control and classify everything and put it neatly into your little check boxes but that's not the way the rest of us work. We don't need to classify arguments to understand what someone is saying. We don't need Plato or Aristotle or Socrates to have a discussion.

I'm not in control of the conversation. If you stop posting, I'll stop posting.

Do I know everything about Napoleon? Nope. Don't care either.

We can sense gravity so it exists? People can sense God too so therefore, using YOUR logic, He exists.

What did the physicists say when I argued with them? They tried to say that the big bang math works down to point something something and then it doesn't work. My argument was that if I get an equation 90% right but the conclusion is wrong, is it still right? That's what they are doing. If it doesn't work the whole way then it doesn't work. 90% of the right answer is not the right answer.

I had one logic class so I'm not an expert? Correct. Why would anyone want to be an expert in a 2,300 year old philosophy?

An Ad Hominem doesn't support a conclusion? The Ad Hominem is a conclusion. Jane is a woman. All women are *****es. Therefore Jane is a *****. That's a valid statement in logic.

Logic is all about proof? Logic has nothing to do with proof. Logic never proves anything because you have to know the answer BEFORE hand to come to the correct conclusion. Scientists have gotten things wrong over and over and over again and then they finally get it right.

Prove or disprove God using logic.

Are humans logical beings? If not, then how can a human use logic correctly?

In our competition who decides which of our arguments is strongest? If it's an atheist I bet I will lose. If it's another UB person I bet I will win. So much for your logic.

 

[epronovost]

How could you have an argument about the nature of god without using logic? Children don't know logic but they can answer questions and learn, so the same is with most people.

Children do use logic. They don't know they are because they don't have formal education in it, but they do just like they use psychology or engineering or fluid mechanics to name a few without actually knowing precisely what they are doing.

We can sense gravity so it exists? People can sense God too so therefore, using YOUR logic, He exists.

Indeed, depending on the definition used, god might exist simply because people can sense it. It all depends on the definition and the characteristics of the god in question. Harry Potter exists. He is a character in a series of novels and movies, but he isn't a flesh and blood human being living in southern England in the early and late 90's. The question is then, what's your definition of god, what are it's characteristics and what's your proof that he exists (or not).

An Ad Hominem doesn't support a conclusion? The Ad Hominem is a conclusion. Jane is a woman. All women are *****es. Therefore Jane is a *****. That's a valid statement in logic.

No it's only valid if all the premise are true. If all the premise are indeed true the conclusion has been proven true by necessity. If not all of the premise are true then the conclusion is unsupported. A false premise is a logical fallacy (an error in logic if you will). You seem to be incapable to seperate a syllogism from logic itself. Syllogistic logic isn't the end and all of logic. In your example above, you could be called to provide proofs for every single one of your proposition. If they are found to be true, your conclusion must be true. If they are not, your conclusion remains unsupported and nobody can truly affirm that Jane is ***** truthfully.

Scientists have gotten things wrong over and over and over again and then they finally get it right.

Of course, because science isn't logic. Science relies on logic to find the right things to investigate, to build models and theories, design experiments and formulate it's analysis. Science use logic, but logic itself isn't a science.

Are humans logical beings? If not, then how can a human use logic correctly?

Logic is a system. Humans are logical like humans are sad. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.

In our competition who decides which of our arguments is strongest?

The logic system we used will decide which one is right. It's objective since it's not something either of us can control.

 

[Super Universe]

Children do use logic. They don't know they are because they don't have formal education in it, but they do just like they use psychology or engineering or fluid mechanics to name a few without actually knowing precisely what they are doing.



Indeed, depending on the definition used, god might exist simply because people can sense it. It all depends on the definition and the characteristics of the god in question. Harry Potter exists. He is a character in a series of novels and movies, but he isn't a flesh and blood human being living in southern England in the early and late 90's. The question is then, what's your definition of god, what are it's characteristics and what's your proof that he exists (or not).



No it's only valid if all the premise are true. If all the premise are indeed true the conclusion has been proven true by necessity. If not all of the premise are true then the conclusion is unsupported. A false premise is a logical fallacy (an error in logic if you will). You seem to be incapable to seperate a syllogism from logic itself. Syllogistic logic isn't the end and all of logic. In your example above, you could be called to provide proofs for every single one of your proposition. If they are found to be true, your conclusion must be true. If they are not, your conclusion remains unsupported and nobody can truly affirm that Jane is ***** truthfully.



Of course, because science isn't logic. Science relies on logic to find the right things to investigate, to build models and theories, design experiments and formulate it's analysis. Science use logic, but logic itself isn't a science.



Logic is a system. Humans are logical like humans are sad. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.



The logic system we used will decide which one is right. It's objective since it's not something either of us can control.

You're idea of logic is that everything is logical to some degree. It's not. The universe is not based upon your idea of logic nor is it based in Athenean logic.

What is my definition of God? There are many, All That Is, the Prime Creator, First Source. I use whatever definition suits me at the time. What is my proof that God exists? The universe. What's your proof that He doesn't?

My premise was that Jane is a woman. Please provide your proof that Jane is not a woman.

Science isn't logic? Nothing is.

Logic is a system? It's a Rube Goldberg system.

Who wins our competition is objective, I think you mean subjective? EXACTLY! Now you finally have it. People are emotional beings. They believe what they want to believe. They're not mathematical robots that follow a logical course so using logic on humans is like testing a human with an alien probe that's not designed for emotional beings.

We're not robots even though you are trying really hard to be one.

 

[epronovost]

You're idea of logic is that everything is logical to some degree. It's not. The universe is not based upon your idea of logic nor is it based in Athenean logic.

Logic is a system of thought based on how the universe "works". No the universe isn't based on logic, logic is based on the universe. That's why our understanding of logic moves with our understanding of the universe and vice-versa. Mathematics and logics are twin disciple.

What is my definition of God? There are many, All That Is, the Prime Creator, First Source. I use whatever definition suits me at the time. What is my proof that God exists? The universe. What's your proof that He doesn't?

It depends you definition of god. My arguments and proofs will vary depending you your definition of god.

My premise was that Jane is a woman. Please provide your proof that Jane is not a woman.

That's only one of the premise of your argument; the second one is that all women are *****es. Your syllogism was of two proposition to support one conclusion. It thus had two necessary premises to be true. If I were to accept your first premise that Jane is a woman doesn't mean I accept your second and thus that your conclusion, that Jane is a *****, has been proven.

Logic is a system? It's a Rube Goldberg system.

No it's actually the opposite of Rube Goldberg machine. It's extremely simple just like mathematics and it's this simplicity that makes it hard to understand because we operate our daily lives in extremely complex environment and this simplicity is alien to the untrained mind.

Who wins our competition is objective, I think you mean subjective?

It's the exact opposite. You DON'T get it. Logic isn't something you or I can manipulate. It's a system. It's constant. It's not relative or subject to our desires, wishes or senses. Judging things under such condition is the definition of "objective" since logic "doesn't care" about which of us is right, it only provides a way to found out which. I would also like to note that objective and subjective are logical distinction. You are trying to use logical reasonning right there.

People are emotional beings. They believe what they want to believe.

You are right on this point. Humans are emotional and they believe things sometime on pure whims instead of evidence or logic. That doesn't mean humans can't be logical. They often are and if they want to argue about anything, they must rely on logic else they cannot argue they can only state contradictory statements and opinions. Don't confuse opinions and tastes for truths or facts because they are neither of those things.

 

[Super Universe]

Logic is a system of thought based on how the universe "works". No the universe isn't based on logic, logic is based on the universe. That's why our understanding of logic moves with our understanding of the universe and vice-versa. Mathematics and logics are twin disciple.



It depends you definition of god. My arguments and proofs will vary depending you your definition of god.



That's only one of the premise of your argument; the second one is that all women are *****es. Your syllogism was of two proposition to support one conclusion. It thus had two necessary premises to be true. If I were to accept your first premise that Jane is a woman doesn't mean I accept your second and thus that your conclusion, that Jane is a *****, has been proven.



No it's actually the opposite of Rube Goldberg machine. It's extremely simple just like mathematics and it's this simplicity that makes it hard to understand because we operate our daily lives in extremely complex environment and this simplicity is alien to the untrained mind.



It's the exact opposite. You DON'T get it. Logic isn't something you or I can manipulate. It's a system. It's constant. It's not relative or subject to our desires, wishes or senses. Judging things under such condition is the definition of "objective" since logic "doesn't care" about which of us is right, it only provides a way to found out which. I would also like to note that objective and subjective are logical distinction. You are trying to use logical reasonning right there.



You are right on this point. Humans are emotional and they believe things sometime on pure whims instead of evidence or logic. That doesn't mean humans can't be logical. They often are and if they want to argue about anything, they must rely on logic else they cannot argue they can only state contradictory statements and opinions. Don't confuse opinions and tastes for truths or facts because they are neither of those things.

Your definition of logic is too expansive. You think all communication is logic. It's not.

Okay, for this exercise I will choose to define God as the Prime Creator. Disprove it.

Where is your proof that my second claim "All women are *****es" is not true?

Logic is extremely simple? You manipulate your definition of logic to suit whatever argument you are trying to make. Logic does not equal sensible. Logic does not mean truth or something correct. Logic has no use is society except for people who are very unemotional and need unnecessary complexity.

I don't get it? Logic is something atheists manipulate all the time. Logic is YOUR opinion but not a theists opinion.

 

[epronovost]

Your definition of logic is too expansive. You think all communication is logic. It's not.

All communication isn't a logic debate, but almost all communication relies, to a certain point, on some form of logic else nobody could understand anybody else. Discussions about facts, their interpretation and interrelation all rely on logic. Critique, stories and debates all rely on logic too. Logic is very fundamental to human communication.

Okay, for this exercise I will choose to define God as the Prime Creator. Disprove it.

Would you prefer I present my argument to disprove in this particular kind of god in a syllogistic manner like you did earlier with you example of Jane or would you rather I use another, less formal method? Pick the one you are the most likely to engage comfortably with. I don't want to throw jargon at you and make you think I'm trying to shut you down with a fallacious appeal to authority.

Where is your proof that my second claim "All women are *****es" is not true?

First, you made that claim so you have to prove it. I don't have to disprove your premise. You have to be able to prove them in the first place. If you can't prove your premise, it can't be considered true and thus it can't prove your conclusion.

second, I can disprove your second premise by making the argument that at least one woman in the world isn't a *****. There are many kind, courageous, curious and carring women in this world and you don't even need to be a "saint" to "not be a *****". There are many "saintly" women and many, many more who, while not quite as admirable, are nonetheless good enough not to be qualified as "*****es".

Logic is YOUR opinion but not a theists opinion.

Logic isn't an opinion. It's a system and it's a system you use when it suits you, but reject when it doesn't it seems. Your definition of God as the Prime Creator is a logical argument first produced by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. The idea of God as the Prime Creator relies on a logical argument to exist.

 

[Super Universe]

All communication isn't a logic debate, but almost all communication relies, to a certain point, on some form of logic else nobody could understand anybody else. Discussions about facts, their interpretation and interrelation all rely on logic. Critique, stories and debates all rely on logic too. Logic is very fundamental to human communication.



Would you prefer I present my argument to disprove in this particular kind of god in a syllogistic manner like you did earlier with you example of Jane or would you rather I use another, less formal method? Pick the one you are the most likely to engage comfortably with. I don't want to throw jargon at you and make you think I'm trying to shut you down with a fallacious appeal to authority.



First, you made that claim so you have to prove it. I don't have to disprove your premise. You have to be able to prove them in the first place. If you can't prove your premise, it can't be considered true and thus it can't prove your conclusion.

second, I can disprove your second premise by making the argument that at least one woman in the world isn't a *****. There are many kind, courageous, curious and carring women in this world and you don't even need to be a "saint" to "not be a *****". There are many "saintly" women and many, many more who, while not quite as admirable, are nonetheless good enough not to be qualified as "*****es".



Logic isn't an opinion. It's a system and it's a system you use when it suits you, but reject when it doesn't it seems. Your definition of God as the Prime Creator is a logical argument first produced by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. The idea of God as the Prime Creator relies on a logical argument to exist.

Making sense is not making logic. You think it is because you like unnecessary complexity, like the Sheliack.

Would I prefer you to present your argument in a...? See, you can't discuss anything. You have to argue about how to argue incessantly. It never ends.

I first made a claim so I have to prove it? Jane Fonda is a woman. Proof. Why didn't your logic already tell you that? Oh, because it's useless, that's why.

If someone doesn't provide proof for their claim does that mean a claim is false? It doesn't. So, once again logic is useless and tells you nothing. Hehe...

You can disprove my second claim by proving that there is one woman in the world who is not a *****? No, you can't. I won't accept it. So, once again your logic doesn't work.

There are many saintly women? Oh, you mean like Mother Theresa who forced the starving kids in India to pray to Jesus before they could eat? That's not saintly.

My definition of God as the Prime Creator first came from St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century? Okay I change my definition of God to *)()(""L:OW#!@#$!@#%#$%. Use your logic to disprove that.

 

[lukethethird]

The Best Argument Against the Existence of God
What difference does it make, either way we are stuck with believers?

 

[epronovost]

Making sense is not making logic.

Actually yes. In that context "making sense" is synonimous to "it's logical". Things that "make sense' make sense BECAUSE they are logical.

You have to argue about how to argue incessantly. It never ends.

Well we can't argue in a pleasant manner if we don't understand each other can we? Why is it so hard for you to make a simple choice. I just asked you if you wanted me to present my argument in a formal "very robotic manner" that is quicker to read, but sounds very dry and technical or if you preferred me to explain it in a more relaxed manner which takes more time to read. So which method do you prefer?

If someone doesn't provide proof for their claim does that mean a claim is false? It doesn't. So, once again logic is useless and tells you nothing. Hehe...

If you don't prove your claims, you can't call them "the truth" and if they aren't true you can't use them to make a sound argument. Thus, your conclusion cannot be called "the truth", at best it's going to be your very subjective opinion.

No, you can't. I won't accept it.

That would be a big logical fallacy and make you wrong by default. The conclusion you were holding and the premise you were using will be nothing else than your opinion at the very best and at worst just some bull**** straight out of you *** to try to sound like you were right. That you don't accept your errors doesn't make them anything else than errors. Don't act like you don't know that. You know you can be wrong.

This sort of behavior is the opposite of truthseeking. It's trying to find ways to be always right even when you know you are wrong.

There are many saintly women? Oh, you mean like Mother Theresa who forced the starving kids in India to pray to Jesus before they could eat? That's not saintly.

Look. you just made another logical agument! This would be qualitied as "a strong argument" in logic, that's not perfect, but it's a pretty good one. You would need other strong arguments to prove your conclusion true. A strong agument is an argument who is both valid in form and for which the premise are true, but not specific enough to completely support the conclusion on their own.

 

[Super Universe]

Actually yes. In that context "making sense" is synonimous to "it's logical". Things that "make sense' make sense BECAUSE they are logical.



Well we can't argue in a pleasant manner if we don't understand each other can we? Why is it so hard for you to make a simple choice. I just asked you if you wanted me to present my argument in a formal "very robotic manner" that is quicker to read, but sounds very dry and technical or if you preferred me to explain it in a more relaxed manner which takes more time to read. So which method do you prefer?



If you don't prove your claims, you can't call them "the truth" and if they aren't true you can't use them to make a sound argument. Thus, your conclusion cannot be called "the truth", at best it's going to be your very subjective opinion.



That would be a big logical fallacy and make you wrong by default. The conclusion you were holding and the premise you were using will be nothing else than your opinion at the very best and at worst just some bull**** straight out of you *** to try to sound like you were right. That you don't accept your errors doesn't make them anything else than errors. Don't act like you don't know that. You know you can be wrong.

This sort of behavior is the opposite of truthseeking. It's trying to find ways to be always right even when you know you are wrong.



Look. you just made another logical agument! This would be qualitied as "a strong argument" in logic, that's not perfect, but it's a pretty good one. You would need other strong arguments to prove your conclusion true. A strong agument is an argument who is both valid in form and for which the premise are true, but not specific enough to completely support the conclusion on their own.

People were able to communicate long before the invention of logic came around.

Logic is not necessary to understand each other.

Why is it so hard for me to make a simple choice? I don't like being dragged down your control freak highway. The simple choice would have been for you to discuss the OP subject and not turn it into a logic is best debate but you can't help it.

If I don't prove my claims they might not be true? Even if I can't prove my claims they might still be true. That's how useless logic is. You think the truth lies in the person's ability to argue the truth but that's not correct. Even a mentally handicapped person can be right.

If I don't accept your proof regardless that would be a logical fallacy? The scientists did not accept Higgs idea that there was a new particle. It took them 48 years to accept it. Army general Billy Mitchell told the US Navy that he could sink their battleships with his biplanes. The admirals said "No way." They conducted a test and Billy's planes hit the battleship over and over and over again and the admirals admitted that it would eventually sink. Then they got pissed and Billy was demoted. Then 15 years later the Japanese sunk the Arizona with 4 bombs. So something that is a logical fallacy today can be truth tomorrow. See how useless your logic is?

That kind of behaviour is the opposite of truth seeking? Exactly. People don't want the truth. They want the truth according to them. They want it their way but it's not their way. God did not ask for your permission or your advice when He created the universe.

I would need other strong arguments to prove my conclusion true? No, I really don't.

 

[epronovost]

People were able to communicate long before the invention of logic came around.

Logic as am academic discipline was created around 2600 years ago, but as a "characteristic of the universe" it always existed. In that it's like biology or mathematics. These academic disciplined were first created around the same time than logic, but their subject always existed. As a living organism we evolved an instinctive ability to understand the subject of logic (the interelation between facts and investigative skills), just like we evolved an ability to understand numbers, to better survive and manipulate an hostile environment.

Logic is not necessary to understand each other.

To a certain point yes. You cannot have complex discussion, critique, debates, etc. without a commonly accepted sets of rules and comprehension of the world's mechanic. You need to agree on interelation between proposition and that's what logic studies, the interelation between facts.

I don't like being dragged down your control freak highway. The simple choice would have been for you to discuss the OP subject and not turn it into a logic is best debate but you can't help it.

Then why do you ask me to disprove your definition of God as the Prime Creator of the universe for which the proof of his existence is the existence of the universe itself? You asked me to prove you wrong using logic. Do you want me to do that and do you want to read that or do you just want to move on to something else with you life?

Even if I can't prove my claims they might still be true.

But they cannot be KNOWN to be true nor can they be claimed to be true; they can only be said to be potentially true until proven or disproven. Everything and anything could be true that doesn't mean that everything is true. Logic allows KNOWLEDGE of the truth. It allows to make a distinction between the things you believe and the things you know.

The scientists did not accept Higgs idea that there was a new particle. It took them 48 years to accept it. Army general Billy Mitchell told the US Navy that he could sink their battleships with his biplanes. The admirals said "No way." They conducted a test and Billy's planes hit the battleship over and over and over again and the admirals admitted that it would eventually sink. Then they got pissed and Billy was demoted. Then 15 years later the Japanese sunk the Arizona with 4 bombs. So something that is a logical fallacy today can be truth tomorrow. See how useless your logic is?

Note that in all the situation above the people who claim something PROVED IT beyond all reasonnable doubt and they had logical arguments and scientific evidences to support their claim.

In this scenario, you are the admirals not Army General Mitchell because you specifically told me you would never accept any argument against your unproven second premise and you would not provide any proofs for it either. You are doing a thing akin to claiming you can be on the sunken battleship and still be correct when you say "this ship cannot be sunk and nothing can prove me wrong".