Tristan Scott

I don't think you are talking out of your ass Theli, when you said

That has been my point all along. But when someone claims they can do just that, I'm gonna say "please do".

That's when they start breaking out all of their ridiculous equations and lofty pompous declarations etc. Athiests can be every bit as goofy as theists.

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Tristan Scott ]</p>

Theli

What I was getting at here was that something that hasn't been proven shouldn't be considered true as it is of no greater use to our knowledge.
Therefore the animal is already dead, mission accomplished.

We can engage statements on a pure logical/hypothetical manner, but if no link is provided between the statement and any veryfiable observations it remains a hypothetical argument.
And shouldn't be considered true until a link is established.

To say that "Santaclaus doesn't exist" is a false statement, is in itself pointless as the opposite to that claim bears no possible knowledge or meaning.
It is just fantasy.

Ok, I just saw a whale swiming pass me. I think I'm out on deep water here.

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Philosoft

And then completely ignore them when they produce one.

<strong> How about you simply explain why Mageth's proof is unsound rather than tossing ad homs? Your blanket declarations are not going to shut me up.

Ion

No, Tristan.

'God' is disproven by contradictory definition in the Bible, so the definition is false, and 'God' such defined doesn't exist.

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]</p>

DRFseven

Feather, if you are trying to say that the concept of God is a card trick, I agree. What typically happens is that "God" is defined by those who proclaim its truth as "that which cannot be disproved." The so-called definition is rigged.

Ion

I think a concept defined wrongly, is disproven.

'God' defined in the Bible as the concept of 'God', is defined wrongly, and is disproven.

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]</p>

Tristan Scott

If the shoe fits wear it. Actually I don't find you goofy at all. You are simply rude and deserve to be ignored. I explained why Mageth's proof about Santa was unsound, and have already stated that all everyone on this thread is doing is proving that the description of god in the bible is faulty. One poster went so far as to say that if more claims about someone are true than are false that could be used as proof that the person existed. I find that goofy logic.


[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Tristan Scott ]

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Tristan Scott ]</p>

Tristan Scott

So if someone defines a fourth dimension wrongly, that proves a fourth dimension does not exist? Or does it just not exist as defined.

Philosoft

Hey, don't get upset that I didn't agree with you when you tried to use Plato to objectify beauty.

No, you explained why you thought Mageth's proof was unsound. You are as wrong now as you were then.

<strong> If...then. Conditional. Any of this making sense to you?

<strong> I agree.

<strong> I'm quite sure I've yet to attack anyone's character. I'm sorry, however, if my manners aren't up to snuff. I don't always have a great deal of time to insert flowery prose.

Tristan Scott

I didn't find you particularly rude in that exchange, maybe a bit obtuse .

I retract my statement about never seeing you discuss with civility and apologize.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Tristan Scott ]</p>