Automaton

Those theists really do get to new depths of stupidity. It's even funnier when they try to dres up their stupidity as intellect.

LordMoneyG

Okay, maybe it's just my propositional logic class talking...But please justify step four through either of the other 3 steps. Or justify step 3, for that matter.

The leap of logic between 3 and 4 is simply too great, without some sort of connection/rule theory set up between it and the other 3.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: LordMoneyG ]</p>

DaveGE

Step 3 seems to me to follow pretty directly from step 2; just replace p with ~G (and then replace ~~G with G). Step 4 doesn't follow from the steps as written; you need to add the premiss ~C~G, which follows from the given definition of God.

Me, I think this argument is terminally vague.

--
Dave Empey

Tristan Scott

Keith Russell

Why? What is the difference between existing as a concept and existing in reality? What makes something real?

If gods only exist as concepts, what difference does that make? They still affect events, do they not?

Feather

The "leap" is supposedly covered "by substitution." That is, substitute "~G" for "p" in the previous steps.

I maintain several of the arguments already presented (particularly that "conceivable" isn't well-defined and that the argument is somewhat circular).

I am just having difficulty finding the correct wording to impress upon my argumentative partner these notions. I figured tossing it here might spark a new way to respond to him.

Clutch

Hey, what's going on?

Ion diagnosed this correctly, and was promptly ignored.

Here I am, conceiving that no gods exist. Actual entails possible; hence it is false that any god's existence is inconceivable. Premise 4 is false. End of story.

I am referring, of course, to natural language premise 4, which is not represented in the (hyuk-yuk) "formal" version of the argument. The "formal" version fails to discharge that very difficult inference rule, modus ponens, since it nowhere produces ~C~G as a premise. The failure to produce this premise is utterly unsurprising, since, as I observe above, I am currently making C~G true!

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Affect or effect events?

Concepts cannot effect events (e.g., be the direct cause of events, such as is claimed by theists with God), but they certainly can affect events (e.g., Holy Wars are instigated based upon the fact that one side believes their concept of God is right and the other side believes their concept of God is right).

The first one necessitates an actual, autonomous being that factually exists and cannot be contriverted; the second has no such requirement and thus must be immediately discarded as false and obviously detrimental.

In other words, one (effect) is "right" and the other (affect) is "wrong."

Tristan Scott

Koyaanisqatsi

Yes, that is why I used the word "affect" in my post.

This seems to contradict your earlier statement.

I guess I fail to see what you are posting this for? Are you trying to make some point?

Koyaanisqatsi

No, actually, it clarifies it, had you not redacted it.



And I fail to see how that could be true, since you consciously redacted the explanation that clearly and obviously shows why I posted it.

No, not "trying."

The point was that a concept of a god is worthless and detrimental, because of its power to affect society and therefore should be immediately discarded from human consciousness in the same manner one would discard thoughts of, say, child rape or incest.

In other words, it is a detrimentally false concept that ultimately destroys society.

Is that clearer for you?

John Page

Not for me - how do you know which concepts to discard? Detrimental to whom or what? Should we abandon concepts altogether?

Cheers, John