International creationism

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by loinburger
You know exactly what his proof was without even seeing it? That's funnier yet.

Jon's a reasonable man most of the time, except when he got stuck in Christianity and the bible.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am saying that while it might appear logical to you, it does not seem to appear logical to many others

Logic rests on several axioms with which we are all in agreement (A == A, IF A == B THEN B == A, IF A == B AND B == C THEN A == C, etc.). It's not possible for something to be made logical through belief, it's only possible through the manipulation of these axioms. The appearance of logic doesn't mean jack****, all that matters is the proof of logic. In another thread Sava didn't "believe" that 1 == .9-repeating, but who gives a **** when his mathematical reasoning was shot?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am appealing to others logic

I am saying that while it might appear logical to you, it does not seem to appear logical to many others

while this does not make you wrong, you should question whether your logic is right and everyone else's is wrong

Jon Miller

You are being utterly silly. How could you possibly tell that my proof does not appear logical to many others when you haven't seen it?

[Jon Miller]

Urban

when you are discussing a subject with other people, you can not say that you prooved something, when your proof did not convince them (when they did not see it as logical)

Jon Miller

[CyberGnu]

I did

if you are too dense to follow me, I can try again and write more clearer

Jon Miller

Oooh, convincing argument, that.

How does your reply pertain to loins post? What is the false dichotomy you percieve?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by loinburger


Logic rests on several axioms with which we are all in agreement (A == A, IF A == B THEN B == A, IF A == B AND B == C THEN A == C, etc.). It's not possible for something to be made logical through belief, it's only possible through the manipulation of these axioms. The appearance of logic doesn't mean jack****, all that matters is the proof of logic. In another thread Sava didn't "believe" that 1 == .9-repeating, but who gives a **** when his mathematical reasoning was shot?

this is true

but what I am saying is that many people whose logic is sound say that Urban's logic is not sound

so what you come down to is URban (and others) say that his logic is right

and others say that Urban's logic is wrong

and you say that Urban is right, but it is because you agree with him

and I say that Urban is wrong, and it is because I disagree with him

so Urban can say that he thinks he is logical

and I can say that he is not logical

but that does not make either of us right

Jon Miller

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I follow these sort of threads

and have seen 'proofs' of his and others in the past

I am not sure exactly which one he was referencing

but my statement is true for all I have seen

and so it is true for the one he posted

I see you have a hard time reading what I post

I don't have a literacy problem, but you've got a big ****ing consistency problem...

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Several moons ago I have proved that an omnipotent diety is a logical impossibility in a thread here because it ends up in contradictions.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Did I and everyone else somehow miss this?

So, you didn't see his proof, and yet you did see his proof? And yet I'm the one who's being "unreasonable", when you're the one behaving inconsistently and throwing ad hominems around like there's no tomorrow?

This is quite typical of fundies. "Love your neighbor" apparently means "Love those who agree with you, and insult the rest."

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Urban

when you are discussing a subject with other people, you can not say that you prooved something, when your proof did not convince them (when they did not see it as logical)

Jon Miller

Your failure to understand a proof doesn't mean it's invalid, merely that you're not capable of understanding it.

In order to invalidate it, you must show how the proof is logically flawed. Saying "it doesn't prove anything to me" does not do that, it just admits your own inability to comprehend it.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


John, you might be a good physicist, but you are a totally lousy logician. Appeal to Numbers, anyone?

There are really a zillion ways to prove an omnipotent being leads to contradictions. For example:

1. An omnipotent being can do anything.
2. An omnipotent being can make a cat both dead and alive at the same time.
3. A cat both dead and alive at the same time is a contradiction.
4. Therefore an omnipotent being leads to contradictions.

If you don't like contradictions, how about some dilemmas? Can an omnipotent being make a rock so heavy that he can't lift?

as you know

logicists and philosphers better than you and I have been debating this for centuries

it is not logically clear to the experts and it is not clear to me (although it may be to you)

Jon Miller

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
and you say that Urban is right, but it is because you agree with him

I never said that I agreed or disagreed with UR's proof, since I've never seen it. Unlike some people, I prefer to reserve judgment on a proof until I've actually seen the proof.

and I say that Urban is wrong, and it is because I disagree with him

You say this without even seeing his proof. And yet I'm being unreasonable.

May I assume that you're just trolling? You're obviously not debating, since to debate something means to consider somebody else's opinion, whereas you're arrogantly rejecting opinions that disagree with your own (presumably based on the assumption that you are infallible, because I don't know how else you'd manage to be so contemptuous of everybody else as to behave this way).

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Your failure to understand a proof doesn't mean it's invalid, merely that you're not capable of understanding it.

In order to invalidate it, you must show how the proof is logically flawed. Saying "it doesn't prove anything to me" does not do that, it just admits your own inability to comprehend it.

or it means that it is invalid and complete gibberish (not saying that all URban's are, what I am saying is that they have been arround for centuries, and a lot of very good logicians have argued about them and so they are not clear proofs)

you also realise, I am sure

that there are 'proofs', which have not been proven or disproven

I could for example say that I have a logical donkey

and so this donkey has food in two places an equal distance a way

what would be logical is to the food that is closer

but neither is closer

so the donkey starves (since it must be logical)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by loinburger


I never said that I agreed or disagreed with UR's proof, since I've never seen it. Unlike some people, I prefer to reserve judgment on a proof until I've actually seen the proof.



You say this without even seeing his proof. And yet I'm being unreasonable.

May I assume that you're just trolling? You're obviously not debating, since to debate something means to consider somebody else's opinion, whereas you're arrogantly rejecting opinions that disagree with your own (presumably based on the assumption that you are infallible, because I don't know how else you'd manage to be so contemptuous of everybody else as to behave this way).

have you read what I posted

I claim to have followed threads like this in the past (I have been almost constantly on apolyton for a year and I read threads like this over all others)

therefore I claim to have read Urban's post, and his proof

and so I claim to have seen his proof

and considered it not a proof

can you follow that?

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by loinburger


I don't have a literacy problem, but you've got a big ****ing consistency problem...

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Several moons ago I have proved that an omnipotent diety is a logical impossibility in a thread here because it ends up in contradictions.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Did I and everyone else somehow miss this?

So, you didn't see his proof, and yet you did see his proof? And yet I'm the one who's being "unreasonable", when you're the one behaving inconsistently and throwing ad hominems around like there's no tomorrow?

This is quite typical of fundies. "Love your neighbor" apparently means "Love those who agree with you, and insult the rest."

do you have a problem understanding english

it is obvious from my post that I disagree that he 'proved' that an omnipotent deity is a logical impossibility

not that I did not see his post

I expect more of you

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

oh, I love you

and I love Urban

and Gnu

I just disagree with you, and get frustrated with being deliberately misunderstood (Although as I posted I get misunderstood often and so it is probably partially my fault)

do you admit now that I am not being inconsistent?

and I do also admit that there is a possibilty that I did not see URban's referenced post but it was likely that I had (considering the ammount of time I spend on here), and from his later post I beleive I did

Jon Miller

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


John, you might be a good physicist, but you are a totally lousy logician. Appeal to Numbers, anyone?

There are really a zillion ways to prove an omnipotent being leads to contradictions. For example:

1. An omnipotent being can do anything.
2. An omnipotent being can make a cat both dead and alive at the same time.
3. A cat both dead and alive at the same time is a contradiction.
4. Therefore an omnipotent being leads to contradictions.

Rather odd for you to choose that one given that science suggests that paradox occurs.

If you don't like contradictions, how about some dilemmas? Can an omnipotent being make a rock so heavy that he can't lift?

"Logic dictates 1 != 2, but if God is omnipotent surely he can make 1=2. By doing so He would defy the laws of nature and make the whole universe a rather strange place. Just because it is a strange place does not mean it cannot be made a 'real' place.

All He need to do is change change the basics of logic. Presumably an omnipotent God can just change the laws of logic to make the dilema go away."

I don't buy the argument fully, but it is an interesting exit clause. It continues along the lines of asking how and if the laws of nature can change.