God.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

I'm just here to argue, lol.

Go look up the Monty Python "Buying an arguement" sketch. I think you might benefit immensely from a better understanding of the difference between "disagreement" and "contradiction"

[purebloodtexan]

Hayate, I also told you that it's a matter of faith. I believe that God influenced the Big Bang, I didn't say that it was a known fact. That's the thing you need to be careful about on Critical Thinking.

It's ok to have religious beliefs in CT, but don't state them as if it's a fact.

[Vendetta21]

There's a logical fallacy called "begging the question," which means that your statement proposed to support your conclusion is actually your conclusion.

Examine the following arguement:

Premise: I'm fly.
Conclusion: I'm hot.

Assuming that "fly" and "hot" have the same defined value, this arguement is worthless. The reason is because it's a statement and not an arguement, and you can't really argue a statement that's only support is itself. Consider the following statement:

You ain't, because you're not.

The arguement here is:

Premise: You ain't.
Conclusion: You're not.

This conclusion cannot be argued. Because of it's form the arguement is fallacious. It is simply the same statement reiterated in a different way but has the same value. The truth value of the statement can either be affirmed or denied.

Revisit the first statement, but now consider two people are at opposition.

Person 1: I'm hot because I'm fly.
Person 2: You ain't because you're not.

Assuming that we can bring no other evidence to the table, this arguement then becomes boolean, or in other words: one or the other. Either person 1 is right or person 2 is right but we cannot determine or evaluate the statements.

Consider the following statements:

1. God just exists.
2. The Universe just exists.

Assuming that these two statements are also boolean, we can either affirm one or the other, but any sort of discussion on the two is superflous. The same goes for any arguement where the claimed support is also the claimed conclusion. Any arguement where on both sides the support is also the conclusion is not really an arguement, but just the same statement made twice with opposition as to the truth value of the statement. Unless palpable evidence can be brought to the table, one cannot determine what the truth value of the statements are.

[Hollus]

Originally Posted by Vendetta21

There's a logical fallacy called "begging the question," which means that your statement proposed to support your conclusion is actually your conclusion.

Examine the following arguement:

Premise: I'm fly.
Conclusion: I'm hot.

Assuming that "fly" and "hot" have the same defined value, this arguement is worthless. The reason is because it's a statement and not an arguement, and you can't really argue a statement that's only support is itself. Consider the following statement:

You ain't, because you're not.

The arguement here is:

Premise: You ain't.
Conclusion: You're not.

This conclusion cannot be argued. Because of it's form the arguement is fallacious. It is simply the same statement reiterated in a different way but has the same value. The truth value of the statement can either be affirmed or denied.

Revisit the first statement, but now consider two people are at opposition.

Person 1: I'm hot because I'm fly.
Person 2: You ain't because you're not.

Assuming that we can bring no other evidence to the table, this arguement then becomes boolean, or in other words: one or the other. Either person 1 is right or person 2 is right but we cannot determine or evaluate the statements.

Consider the following statements:

1. God just exists.
2. The Universe just exists.

Assuming that these two statements are also boolean, we can either affirm one or the other, but any sort of discussion on the two is superflous. The same goes for any arguement where the claimed support is also the claimed conclusion. Any arguement where on both sides the support is also the conclusion is not really an arguement, but just the same statement made twice with opposition as to the truth value of the statement. Unless palpable evidence can be brought to the table, one cannot determine what the truth value of the statements are.

This site lists 20 common logical fallacies, like the one described above. Probably useful for CT.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp

Edit: Here's another one; more thorough.
http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=38

[ljw5021]

Originally Posted by devonin

Go look up the Monty Python "Buying an arguement" sketch. I think you might benefit immensely from a better understanding of the difference between "disagreement" and "contradiction"

Man I love that sketch.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Hollus

This site lists 20 common logical fallacies, like the one described above. Probably useful for CT.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp

Edit: Here's another one; more thorough.
http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=38

See also my thread on the subject in this very forum:

http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...ad.php?t=65553

[Pikachu655]

If God made everything who made God??

[Kilroy_x]

Causa Sui

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Originally Posted by Pikachu655

If God made everything who made God??

This is perhaps going too far. After all, this God itself is hypothetical. On top of that, it would be even more hypothetical to think of what would have created such a God. If we barely have any knowledge of what a God is or how to go about finding one, the thought of God's creator is no where near our level (assuming that any of these exist).

[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by Master_of_the_Faster

This is perhaps going too far. After all, this God itself is hypothetical. On top of that, it would be even more hypothetical to think of what would have created such a God. If we barely have any knowledge of what a God is or how to go about finding one, the thought of God's creator is no where near our level (assuming that any of these exist).

If we are going to choose to conceive and examine a superfluity, we can conceive it to whatever degree we want and never have it go to far. Once you breach that wall separating empiricism and the purely theoretical there is nothing that is not conceivable or examinable as a possibility.

It could be that Janet Jackson created the Universe, with a wholly unreal past in which we all believe to have existed forever because she manufactured it that way, at that moment when her boob slipped, and then it ceased to exist moments laters, but because she also created a wholly unreal future which we also believe to exist because she manufactured it that way and we still are experiencing that future that she created, even though we don't actually exist any longer. Nothing is out of the question when we breach that wall. Nothing too deep, too immense, too abstract.

[dudelogan14]

I myself, am an atheist.

And i find it hard to believe in a book that has been changed by men numerous times. A book that is only filled with morals, where some people live their lives solely on. How is it god's word if men changed it so often?

and dont say that they heard new stories from god.


I find the bible and god to just be a fairytale.
But this is my opinion.

<3.

[devonin]

Being a christian and believing in christian ideals are in no way incompatible with a belief that the bible is not the direct divine word of God.

[chunky_cheese]

Originally Posted by talisman

religion thread alert!

everyone to their impenetrable ideological bunkers!

I know, it's old, but I just had to do it. It still sums up this thread...

[devonin]

Man, that was like 225 posts ago, a bit late to be responding to it I think, in that we went a little past that as a subject of discussion.

[Relambrien]

Devonin, you said in your thread "Logical fallacy and you!" that you enjoy philosophical discussion because of the ability to say "What are the ramifications of x?"

Posts like the following are the reason I don't like philosophical threads:

Originally Posted by Pikachu655

If God made everything who made God??

Discussions like these tend to stray away from "What would the existence of God imply?" and instead become a bunch of people saying, "I know God exists because I said so," and "I know God doesn't exist because he can't."

Then the following three pages are more arguments about that with the odd "Well if we assume x, then y occurs, but maybe x isn't right and z is actually what happens," thrown in.

[devonin]

They stray in that direction because logic and rhetoric have long since stopped being part of formal education in elementary and secondary schools, and are largely absent from university outside of philosophy programs, so frankly a lot of people just don't know better.

But as you said, "with the odd 'Well if we assume x, then y occurs, but maybe x isn't right and z is actually what happens,' thrown in."

The reason I will still vehemantly defend the right of philosophical threads to exist here is the hope that simply from example if nothing else, some of the people who are stuck in non-critical modes of thought might see that there is more to philosophical discussions than simply contradiction and non-contradiction.

[9_ki_kid]

Well If the bible has been changed it could still be the word of god if god was working through that person.

I think that god and the super conscious are the same thing.

[OuterSpace]

God's not real, no matter what people believe in their little brains.

It doesn't even bother me that much anymore that so many people believe in so many different stupid things. They're all going to die anyways, and, we're all ****ing humans so what's in our heads doesn't change the fact that everything happens to us the same when we die.. to our bodies, our cells, etc.

[9_ki_kid]

Originally Posted by OuterSpace

God's not real, no matter what people believe in their little brains.

It doesn't even bother me that much anymore that so many people believe in so many different stupid things. They're all going to die anyways, and, we're all ****ing humans so what's in our heads doesn't change the fact that everything happens to us the same when we die.. to our bodies, our cells, etc.

Well you cant just say they aren't real, you can't prove that anything isn't real, that only has to show that you have never experienced it!
Nobody knows Santa isn't real, but could we prove he doesn't live at the north pole? Sure we could. (But of course Santa does live at the north pole, so if he isn't at the north pole, he is not Santa because he doesn't fit the description.)
But where does god live? We don't know.
What does god look like so we know when we see them? We don't know.
You could be seeing them right now and not know it's them.

And about the comment we are all going to die anyways. Some people want what they did to live on in the future generations.

But about me saying this (But of course Santa does live at the north pole, so if he isn't at the north pole, he is not Santa because he doesn't fit the description.)
We don't know what god is or where they are, or what they are doing, so why should we speak of them?
Why say God killed that bird? If we don't know that god killed that bird.
Why not just say that bird died?
(But of course Santa does live at the north pole, so if he isn't at the north pole, he is not Santa because he doesn't fit the description.)
We should only name things that we can experience and tell apart from other things. If something is everywhere, then why try to differ where it is? Why do we need the word for it?

[OuterSpace]

Originally Posted by 9_ki_kid

Well you cant just say they aren't real, you can't prove that anything isn't real, that only has to show that you have never experienced it!
Nobody knows Santa isn't real, but could we prove he doesn't live at the north pole? Sure we could. (But of course Santa does live at the north pole, so if he isn't at the north pole, he is not Santa because he doesn't fit the description.)
But where does god live? We don't know.
What does god look like so we know when we see them? We don't know.
You could be seeing them right now and not know it's them.

And about the comment we are all going to die anyways. Some people want what they did to live on in the future generations.

But about me saying this (But of course Santa does live at the north pole, so if he isn't at the north pole, he is not Santa because he doesn't fit the description.)
We don't know what god is or where they are, or what they are doing, so why should we speak of them?
Why say God killed that bird? If we don't know that god killed that bird.
Why not just say that bird died?
(But of course Santa does live at the north pole, so if he isn't at the north pole, he is not Santa because he doesn't fit the description.)
We should only name things that we can experience and tell apart from other things. If something is everywhere, then why try to differ where it is? Why do we need the word for it?

That's stupid though. That means, I could make up anything invisible or anything that is just far away from you.. and you can't say it's not real, EVEN IF IT IS JUST SOMETHING I FUCING MADE UP.

There's an invisible pink unicorn sitting RIGHT beside you. There's a blue elephant oribiting Jupiter.

You're saying, there's a possibility that these things might be real? Because that's ****ing hilarious.. and stupid.