WJ

Hey, aren't we all committed? You guy's are committed to the logical inconsistency of atheism and me, well...,

Koy, have you ever figured out what logical necessity means yet?

WJ

PS, BTW, Tommyc, be careful how you use the word "Amen". You might just prove another point...!

Dr S

Okey dokey WJ, here are three quotes from you.
Do you see anything wrong with this picture?

tommyc

Sorry, I should have written:

[mock southern preacher voice]Amen to that brother![/mock southern preacher voice]

seanie

Another WJ contribution.

tommyc

I still fail to see the logical inconsistency of not believing in a large man with a white beard floating up in the sky.

(actually that sounds a hell of a lot like Santa doesn't it?)

WJ

Dr.s!

Please share the [specific] contradiction! I'm curious how you think it [logic] relates to either the thread topic or life in general... ?



[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Dr S

(A)You guy's are committed to the logical inconsistency of atheism...,

A is a declaration that Atheists are illogical.

(B) Koy, have you ever figured out what logical necessity means yet?

B asserts that you are using logic

(C) I have faith, but it isn't in your logic! And that's because all human logic, ultimately, remains fallible

C says that Atheists are using logic but should not use it for the reasons you are not using it

WJ

(A is a declaration that Atheists are illogical.

(W) No, man is illogical in our context. Atheism's bases (judgment about a truth) for a no-god belief is logically inconsistent.

(B) Koy, have you ever figured out what logical necessity means yet?

B asserts that you are using logic

(w) Yes, we don't have a choice, do we? Do you agree that logical necessity or logically necessary truths must exist? And if you do, is a logically necessary Being absurd? And if so, how so?

(C) I have faith, but it isn't in your logic! And that's because all human logic, ultimately, remains fallible

C says that Atheists are using logic but should not use it for the reasons you are not using it

(w) No, it says that atheists uses logic, particularly deductive logic, as the most convicing method for a no-god belief or a judgement about a claim over the possibility of one.

Doc, if you answer b, I believe you will see the inconsistency in c. The inconsistency will be in the arbitrary application of which logic (empirical/apriori) in the face of what can be known thru such logic and the limitations thereof.
And there again, you should not be concerned or care about something that you know cannot and will not ever exist. and that is because the atheist [you] has somehow concluded that the Being God is not logically possible (in the formal apriori sense of logic).

Pardon the pun, but would you *care* to answer b for me?

Koyaanisqatsi

You really are a braying jackass, WJ. But what's worse, you're a boorish, braying jackass.

As before:

It is obviously impossible for you to make a sound syllogism based upon the invalid premise that a fictitious character from ancient mythology could be an actual "necessary Being," let alone a "first causal agent," which means that you never did nor could establish a valid truth claim through formal logic.

Hence my observation:

This fact, of course, then lead to:

Which, in turn, resulted in:

Had you been an intelligent person, you would have understood that I had already demonstrated why the premises of your claim were invalid as far as formal logic is concerned, so the only other option left for you would be to present some kind of actual evidence to support your claim (beyond the worthless empirical claim of "I believe this is true").

As you should know, syllogisms with invalid premises (hell, syllogisms with valid premises, for that matter) do not constitute as evidence in support of a claim that an actual being exists who is the "first cause," necessary or otherwise, nor does an empirical claim of the nature "I believe this is true;" i.e., a personal, unverifiable, unfalsifiable, untestable assertion of truth based entirely upon individual wish fulfillment.

Get it?

So, you're a jackass on (at least) two levels; (1) you base your position on invalid premises and (2) you deliberately confuse and misapply disparate, ambiguous meanings of the word "proof" (and all of its derivations) to avoid conceding that you're a jackass.

Here, let me make it painfully easy for you:

You failed "1b" so I routed you to "1a."

Got it?

Here, I'll make it as crystal f*cking clear as I possibly can:

You can start there.

Clear now? Bray twice for yes.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>