Goliath

JB01,

Incorrect. In mathematics, there are undefined terms (necessary to avoid infinte regress). Axioms are nothing more than agreements expressed about the undefined terms.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

BLoggins02,

There's one important difference between Mr. Bender and anonymousj: Although they seem to both be equally ignorant about mathematics and logic in general, Mr. Bender is much more of an arrogant, hate-filled bigot than anonymousj is.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Schmecky

anonymousj,

So, if you actually teach phlosophy courses, I have to ask: have you ever read a high-quality, modern philosophical work which merely stated an argument, refused to give any support whatsoever for its premises, and challenged its readers to disprove its premises, since it wasn't going to give any support for them?

I'm pretty sure I haven't...

You want me to show that your "Arugment G" isn't sound?

How about this...

Statement G = "If something exists, then God exists."

Something exists.
Therefore, if G, God exists.

God does not exist.
Therefore, G is false.

There. I've shown that your first premise is false, and, therefore, your proof is not sound.

anonymousj

Anyone,

I am bothered to think that I have made mistakes in formal logic. Before going on I would appreciate it if someone will kindly show me where I have made the mistakes, so that I can correct them, and, of course, not make them again.

In advance, thanks, and, as always,

cheers,

anonymousj

Goliath

anonymousj,

Stop ignoring me! Go back and read my most recent post to you.

Sincerely,

Goliath

anonymousj

Schmecky,

I would appreciate it if you would put your argumentation in a form that is a bit more formal. I misunderstood an argument earlier (because I was unfamiliar with the system); I don't want to misunderstand another, simply because I mis-intepreted the form of the argument.

Thanks, and,

cheers,

anonymousj

anonymousj

Goliath,

I am not ignoring you. But if you insist that I respond to responders in order, there are many others way ahead of you.

cheers,

anonymousj

Datheron

As Bill the Mod has already posted, after reading some 4+ pages of discussion about the validity of the argument, it's becoming quite apparent that Anon knows exactly what the objections are, and are avoiding them time and time again (whilst chuckling smugly at himself, perhaps) in order to try to bring home the point that he has proven the existence of God as opposed to having proved the existence of God. I also see a blatant attempt at an ad ignorantium, but it looks like Anon is avoiding that simply by defining his argument to not address those issues involved.

Such a farce is intellectually dishonest; if your point, Anon, was to show that one can employ various dirty tactics in a debate, then you have already shown that it is the case. Fortunately, most of us reside in the non-anal plane of existence.

Goliath

anonymousj,

Oh really? Then why did you respond to Schmecky's post--which is [i][b] MORE RECENT [\b][\i] than mine?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Hans

anonymousj

P1. If trees grow, then god does not exist.
P2. Trees grow.
C1. God does not exist.

P1. Your argument concludes that god exists.
P2. It is not possible for a god to both exist and not exist.
P3. C1 is correct.
C2. Your conclusion is wrong.

Seems you were mistaken.