sharon45

Furyus George and Gurdur, as you both dabble heavily in self-congratulatory and contradicting behavior, it would be much more positive to have at least something to really add to the current idea, than by not agreeing just "because".

breathilizer

Incorrect. It was understood. Accepted? No.

Here's what your previous argument boils down to:

Premise 1: Some Christians believe God is perfect.
Premise 2: Some Christians believe God is imperfect.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

Now look at an argument with the exact same structure.

Premise 1: Some people believe Pulp Fiction was perfect.
Premise 2: Some poeple believe Pulp Ficiton was imperfect.
Conclusion: Pulp Fiction doesn't exist.

Now do you see where one might agree with both premises, but disagree with the conclusion?

Now do you see how contradicting opinions on something does not disprove the existance of that thing?

Gurdur

Good heavens, we two are suddenly in the same category ?
A black mark for both of us, Furyus George !
Heeeey, Sharon45, if you can show anywhere where I have dabbled in "contradicting behavior", then I will comply with your wishes.

And what would that "current idea" be ?
I'll be happy to add something positive to any positive theme going on --- just show me where it is.
And show me anywhere where I have dabbled in "contradicting behavior", too.

funinspace

First, you have never further explained your "proof" since I have been in this thread. As I have said, and you have apparently refused to read or understand, a logical proof does not stand or fall on the validity of a premise. All you have every tried to explain is 1 of your premises. Using breathilizer's example, you have stuck to explaining/justifying only "10" and nothing else, not the "+", not the "1", nor how it gets to "=". I believe I correctly reiterated your premise in my last response, but again I saw little in the way of substantive response...instead I read statements like "not understood either and accepted". I do understand, as was demonstrated by my rewording of the concept in plain language. And secondly, it is irrelevant as to whether I accept your premise or not. It has no bearing on the attempt at a "proof of logic". But again you do not appear to want to talk about substance. You or anyone else can peruse back up this thread and find the last time you said anything substantive regarding your "proof of logic" (justifying your premise that there are a multitude of Xian gods does not count, THAT IS A PREMISE). The below were your words, yet you do not want to live by them nor the common meanings of said words like logic, rules, and definitions:

The term "logical fallacy" is a well defined and used term of logic. It is not designed nor intended as an insult. I used your own statement where you obviously assumed the conclusion, then made a statement, then said "see that proves the conclusion". That is circular reasoning. I cannot help it if you take it as an insult. That fully meets the criteria defining circular reasoning. Instead of explaining why I was wrong, you just simply state that I am so. A simple question: have you ever asked me to clarify any one of my points? I think that speaks much towards a willingness to debate/discuss an issue. This is one of a multitude of statements without content: "Stating "circular reasoning" and "fallacy" don't apply correctly to my answers and I am not going to entertain these any longer". How about a direct critique of anything that was said? Yes, I have become harsh with you, since I have tired of the suggestion that I don't understand.

Your constant insinuation that, because I do not agree with a premise, I just don't get it, IS condescending. Do you understand that people can understand a concept while still not agreeing it is valid or true? So far you do not seam to recognize that reality which several people have commented on. Nor have you acknowledged that it is possible. Then when it is suggested that I am trapped by the Xian mind set, you say see I knew you would respond like that, when I respond to the first insult. You do make me laugh at the insinuations that I am trapped by the constructs of the Xian world view, as I listen to Nine Inch Nails-God is Dead. You are the one demanding that we use the term "Christian god", when I allowed for more generic terms. Who is trapped?

It took me a while to see it, but I think I have an idea of what is going on. You have already decided that god doesn't exist. So you say the Xian god exists only in the minds of the believers. So when you show different Xian's having conflicting views of god, you see no god. And voila, a proof is made. Do you understand that the philosophical concept of god does not require valid believers? There I go again, using accepted rules to fit within its definition, certain absolutes. You have transposed the believers view of god for god itself but have never quite said it yourself. Instead others struggle with how this is a logical proof, since they see you skipping deductive and/or reductive steps and can't make the logical jump to the conclusion since it is not there. But do continue on with the insinuations vice bothering to defend a concept, it is much easier.

DK

Kilgore Trout

Let me try to state the "proof" as I see it in as simple a way as possible.

Premise: Different christians believe in different gods because the descriptions of their gods are far too different to be called the same god.

Conclusion: There is no such thing as a "christian god", since, as christians believe in different gods it is meaningless to use the term "christian god" because there is no one single "christian god."

This is not meant to be a proof that there is no god or that there is no jesus/god combination.

As a similar example, there is no such thing as the "American god" because people in America believe in different gods.

That part is very important to understand so you don't keep claiming this is the type of argument I am, (and I assume Sharon is), making:
This is NOT what I am saying!

If you want to keep arguing about the premise, then fine. But I wanted to clarify what my argument was, because I can tell you are not even understanding the conclusion.

If you need another example of why christians believe in different gods then here is a good one. Gnostics are christians, and they believe the god of the OT is some sort of "evil" god and is not the same one they follow. That itself is enough to say that not all christians follow the same god.

breathilizer

Okay, I see where you're getting at...

You're trying to say that we can't label it a "Christian" god because Christians disagree on the attributes of said god.

The problem is that Sharon was trying to say that this proved the "Christian" God's non-existance. It doesn't. It only proves a disagreement. Both versions are still the "Christian" God, but at least one of them is wrong.

Gawen

Ok. So, because none of the Xtian Gods match throughout the sects, none of them can be labeled a Xtian God (because it is possible that all of them are wrong). But what are you proving other than each sect of Xristianity needs to come up with its own name for their god?

...and the adventure continues...

funinspace

Thank you for ending the argument over the premise and working on the proof. I'm not sure why you think I was trying to debate it only, but ok. I get the premise, though I guess you still think I don't.

If I read your conclusion right, I would say that "there is no valid human Christian conceptualization since the various groups believe conflicting things" would be a better way of saying it (but those would be my words). I say that because of the above bolded statements. And if this is what sharon45 was saying?

It's funny mentioning the Gnostics of times past. The chaos and lack of any large agreement during the early centuries of xianity is one of the key things of my historical search that helped me be comfortable concluding that the xian god doesn't exist. You see I agree with the reasoning, just not that this is a proof of logic. It still does not logically prove to me that not even one of those concepts is valid. Though I obviously find it a reasonable conclusion. Ok I think I've beat the dead horse enough.

DK

sharon45

I did not say that one of the single beliefs inside of christianity could not possible be valid, I said, that all can't possibly be valid at the same time. Because of this, all christians can't possibly be on the "same page" when it comes to beliefs and that of the same exact version of a god. So there shouldn't really be a term of known as "christianity" or that of the word "christian", because they can't really be all talking about the same exact belief and god. And as I added, the different sects can not explain away the complete counters and contradictions between these hundreds of different sects, showing they can't all be talking about the same version of a god either. These completely counter sects are all being forcibly combined in the same large group known as "christianity", and all the single members have the same title as "christian". This just does not make any sense, so that is why I have concluded, there is no christian god as it is based on the whole of christianity.

I'm still not sure this is going to come across, but I tried to conform to something I am not really educated in, based on what I saw from Kilgore's answers and how he seemed to be received.

breathilizer

Then, Sharon, I suppose neither of us could be called a human because we probably have mutually exclusive attributes.

The reason it is called the "Christian God" is because of Christ, nothing more.