Koyaanisqatsi

First, I don't recall giving a shit what you do or don't recall, but because you are like a gnat constantly buzzing around and around a point, let me explain it to you YET AGAIN in BIG EZ 2 READ TYPE, with the noted and accepted concessions your ommissions of addressing my arguments entail.

His first post he states:

The christian god is a triune construct that is logically impossible. A Father cannot be both the Son and the Father at the same time and vice versa.

I have no intention of going any further than Kindergarten on this one, so stuff this straw man all you want. The trinity is logically impossible as has been demonstrated ad nauseam on this site, so if you want to use this as yet another pointless foundation for your straw men, have fun.

Do I now...

It is irrelevant what someone "says" from what I "think of what they say." Aj states that in his proof "God" will refer to the christian god and I am demonstrating the ambiguity of that construct.

Something you keep avoiding, I should add.

Gee. Thanks. I suggest you remove your head from your ass before you blow this one out it...

I have a complete understanding of all three, as my posts repeatedly demonstrated. It is you sir, that did not have the ability to figure out what was written plainly in front of you at least three times as demosntrated by this pointless, redirectional straw men.

Really? Then tell what is the "something" that exists that allows us to infer God?

Un hunh....

Aj has thus presented his first premise as: "If some indeterminate or unspecified thing exists, then God exists."

Aka, a tautology, since God is likewise an "indeterminate or unspecified thing."

You know, like I pointed out in my last post only with more detailed deconstruction?

I'm so concerned.

I think that terms used in a syllogism need to be carefully and specifically defined first and foremost, or else they are meaningless (quite literally).

A perfect example. You have arbitrarily used a definition of "nothing" to mean "the opposite of something."

I would strenuously disagree and point out that "nothing" is the antithesis of existence, [b]not necessarily the antithesis of "something."

That would be an example of a semantics game; one like the one aj is playing in case you are still too dense to see what I'm getting at.

"Many, many people smarter than" I, eh? And you claimed to be a teacher of logic as well? What do they call arguments from authority where you got your degree?

In case you hadn't noticed, your opinion has no value here.



Well, again, having one's head up one's ass...

Stuff that straw man!

F*ck off.

Is that thanks enough?

Clutch

Thank you, Koy, for your remarks; they are fully up to the standard of intelligibility that you have set so far.

Again, you simply do not understand the words you are using. That God's existence does not follow from "Something exists" is a matter of the *truth* of the premise -- not of its ambiguity. Again, this is a confused and fumbling way of just denying the truth of aj's P1. Which everyone has already done, rather more clearly.

As for quoting Webster's at me, well, you seem also not to understand how dictionaries work. Nor, for that matter, that logical form is not given by dictionary definition. Your claim was that "something" is ambiguous. I pointed out that this is false, as an elementary matter of logical form. In reply, you quote the dictionary definition, "some indeterminate or unspecified thing".

Koy, if the word was ambiguous, it would list *multiple* meanings. You see, there's a difference between what a word *means* and what it *is*. If "ambiguous", for example, is defined only as "Open to more than one interpretation", then the meaning of "ambiguous" is not ambiguous. And the meaning of "red" isn't red, for that matter. And the meaning of "something", in its logical interpretation, is not an indeterminate or unspecified thing -- it is very precisely captured by the existential quantifer. See how that works? "Something exists", if well-formed, is not ambigous. It is a quantifier phrase, and is logically represented as such -- not in a variety of ways. You should also look into the logical definition of a tautology. First, aj does not present his premise as a biconditional; let's pretend that it's a biconditional, though. More importantly, you have claimed that the consequent is logically false. So how, if the antecedent is ("literally") *meaningless*, can it be a tautology? False on one side of the equivalence, and meaningless on the other? The more you try to clarify your previous manglings of terminology, the more you mangle fresh terms.

Ambiguity
Existential quantification
Conditional premises
Tautology
Meaning
Argument

These are a few concepts that you have used in ways that betray an elementary misunderstanding. You will not be taken seriously by anyone who knows the first thing about logic if you don't learn something about it. Actually, it is quite valuble, so I will thank you for it, at least. Reading these boards, one might leap to the conclusion that *all* the foolish know-nothings, *all* the advocates of "ignorant and proud of it", are fundamentalists, or otherwise theistic. You demonstrate otherwise -- an important reminder that theism has not cornered the market on these characteristics. I stand chastened for my hasty generalization, and apologize to any theists who may still be reading.

Pomp

Koy, check Private Messages.

Clutch, check email.

Thanks.

Kenny

Hello Clutch,

There are a number of reasons why many of those of us who are theists on this board have chosen to simply refrain from responding to Koy. And, despite Koy’s claims to the contrary, it has nothing to do with “evading the issues” on our part. But, it appears it’s more than just us “cult members” that are the subjects of Koy’s abuse. My humble suggestion would be that many of the non-theists on this board who find themselves subjected to Koy’s abusive behavior follow suit in this regard and simply start ignoring him. Perhaps, when he finally has no one left to talk to, he’ll get the point.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Ender

Hello Kenny! Do i detect a case of frayed nerves?
Au contraire! Evasion is a property, in fact the very essence of theism. After all, isn't it predicated on the "ineffable?"

Over and over i see this shameless tactic being espoused by the believers on this forum, given the embarrasing amount of time i've spent reading the posts. Not all of the skeptics here are as abrasive or as up-front as Koy is, and yet this "buffalo-shuffle" is a popular tactic. Why?

Abuse? Confutations of a massive personal investments leads to characterizations such as "abuse," perhaps. I'd call it deconstruction fait bien!
Who died and made you God? You no more speak for theists than i do the Borg.

~WiGGiN~

Bill Snedden

Perhaps not, but he does echo the sentiments of many on these boards.

If we want our opponents to take us seriously, to listen seriously to what we have to say, then we must speak our minds in a rational manner.

To those inured to reason, we should simply remain silent. There is no excuse for abusive behavior. None.

Now, let's all please try to be civil and keep the thread on-topic, shall we?

Bill

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Quite right all, and I apologize, Clutch.

You are right, I was confusing the "poetry" of logic, if you will (what I consider to be the ultimate purpose, a means to establish as objectively as possible in this subjective world, the "truth") and the technical nuts and bolts (what I consider to be the penultimate purpose of logic), much of which I have, as you pointed out, largely forgotten from my college days as being (ultimately) unnecessary.

I think my ego just didn't want to admit it and instead I acted childishly and I apologize.

As most will tell you here, I take things like a logic teacher deliberately abusing what he is supposed to teach others very personally and my passion often takes over. It's something I'm trying to curtail (and am not doing a very good job at it ).

Please accept my apology and chalk it up to over fifteen hundred " <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> "'s.

MOJO-JOJO

The following makes much more sense than your argument;

1. If LSD exists, then anonymousj has used it.

2. LSD exists.
----
3. anonymousj has used it.

Clutch

Koy, absolutely accepted.

Mojo-Jojo,

Yep.