buddha webb
New Member
Sorry dog,i forgot.
Prove to you There's a God?
- Thread starter Marlboro47
- Start date
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
"In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the so-called three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is"
God either exists or doesn't exist, if you say he both exists and does not exist, I'm going to have to ask for some sort of example of to understand what you mean, because at this point I'm going to have to say that's complete bullshit.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...The uncreated and the created - which to me looks something like the relationship we have with our parents. They created us, we didn't create them.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
WTF dude... The uncreated and the created? You mean, the uncreated god, and the created god? If god was once uncreated, then who created god? And if god was always here, isn't it more plausible to exclude god from the equation altogether and just say the universe was always here? It certainly works with Occam's razor...
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Eye, I'm not trying to be a dick - seriously, I'm not, but can you answer a question for once without using metaphors and flowery language that hides the real meaning of what you're saying?
How about a concise, accurate answer that fully describes the full thought process involved with your answer, not a vague 1/2 sentence that doesn't actually explain anything?
Again, not trying to be a dick - it's great that you respond at all!
How about a concise, accurate answer that fully describes the full thought process involved with your answer, not a vague 1/2 sentence that doesn't actually explain anything?
Again, not trying to be a dick - it's great that you respond at all!
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...throwing darts at a bubble that isn't there seems a little metaphysical to me.
Ease up a bit with the wtf's... it's early
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
...throwing darts at a bubble that isn't there seems a little metaphysical to me.
Ease up a bit with the wtf's... it's early
For the record, that was a "what the frig" lol - the slightly less confrontational version of W.T.F... lol
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
god exists in the minds of the religious. but he does not exist in reality. therefore, he both exists and does not exist at the same time
[video=youtube;zCVlmhZgubU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCVlmhZgubU&t=5s[/video]
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
That right there is an example of equivocation fallacy. You are changing the definition of exist to apply to two different circumstances.god exists in the minds of the religious. but he does not exist in reality. therefore, he both exists and does not exist at the same time
Oh, sorry, I thought we were still playing Heis's game.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
That right there is an example of equivocation fallacy. You are changing the definition of exist to apply to two different circumstances.
Oh, sorry, I thought we were still playing Heis's game.
Something cannot be both A, and not A at the same time, in the same sense.
Luger187
Well-Known Member
That right there is an example of equivocation fallacy. You are changing the definition of exist to apply to two different circumstances.
Oh, sorry, I thought we were still playing Heis's game.
good catch. i was half joking anyways
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
tardis
Well-Known Member
sure it can. THink of an image of a car in your head. That both IS and IS NOT a car.
mexiblunt
Well-Known Member
It is an (image) of a car this is the car isn't.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
The new Pontiac 'Is Not'. It's the best car you'll ever own, yet you can tell your friends it is not.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
No it's not in the same sense. One is a thought, and the other is physical - they do not share all the same properties, therefore they cannot be the same thing. See Leibniz' Law, or the identity of indiscernibles, or the indiscernibility of identicals - it's one of those, I always get them mixed up... lol
That doesn't violate "Something cannot be both A, and not A at the same time, in the same sense."
tardis
Well-Known Member
Since when was God required to follow physical laws?
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Well, if God exists, they wouldn't; IF the description of the "entity" stands as - omnipresent, omnipotent, etc etc... but I, nor anyone else has ever seen anything break the afore mentioned logic law (That can actually be verified).
But we weren't talking about god, we were talking about a thought of a car, and a car - which one would you like to talk about?
Similar threads
