Apikorus

Proof that all unicorns are blue:

Lemma: Any set of N unicorns is monochromatic

Proof: Proceed inductively; assume true for N and prove true for (N+1).

• Place the (N+1) unicorns in a line.
• The left N are all of the same color (by assumption).
• The right N are all of the same color.
• The unicorn closest to the middle is a member of both sets.
• Therefore both sets are of the same color.
• Hence, any set of (N+1) unicorns is monochromatic.

To prove that all unicorns are blue, I invoke the lemma, showing that any group of unicorns are of the same color. It remains to be shown that that color is blue. But I have seen a blue unicorn. Hence all unicorns are blue. QED!

What was the point of this thread, again?

Scrutinizer

Rimstalker, Rimstalker -- your desperate attempts to deny the irrefutable proof of God's existence demonstrate your willful blindness to the reality of God.

The shaky premise, obviously, is premise three. In fact, I think I can prove that unicorns are Jack-Russell terriers. Let's see:

1) Unicorns have horns.
2) Jack-Russell terriers are horny.
a) Evidence -- JR-Ts' propensity to attempt
sexual intercourse with human legs at almost
every opportunity
3) Horns = horny
4) Jack-Russell terriers have horns.
5) Therefore, Jack-Russell terriers are unicorns.

Q.E.D.

Since I have proven unicorns to be Jack-Russell terriers, we can be sure that unicorns are not blue by premise two of your argument.

Apikorus' argument that unicorns are blue is (unlike my syllogisms) horribly illogical. Since a blue unicorn is impossible, his/her argument that he/she has seen a blue unicorn can be more parsimoniously explained by hallucination.

BEAT THAT!

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

Kenny

Bull! Have you ever seen a pink Jack-Russell terrier?

Scrutinizer

Well I did once, but these men in white suits insisted I was mistaken.

CodeMason

The concept of "necessary existence" is indeed meaningless. The proposition all bachelors are not married does not a priori establish there to exist bachelors or the property of marriage. One must know of the existence of such things first, in order to make such statements. Therefore an a priori argument to establish existence is faulty... To prove God exists ontologically, one must first prove his existence. I'm sure Thomas Aquinas realised this, and that's why he didn't accept Anselm's argument (or am I getting my history grossly wrong here?)

99Percent

Gurdur and Tronvillain Is this thread a disgrace to atheist? I am surprised

And no, I am not joking.

Why do theist insist that miracles are a work of the supernatural? Because the supernatural is not irrational, ie, logical. If they can prove that irrationality exists in reality then the supernatural and therefore God(s) can exist.,

If Jesus can walk on water, it is because he is supernatural - irrational, in other words it does not follow logic, like God. This is why they are so desperate in believing in miracles.

Pi is an irrational number, not irrational perse.

99Percent

kenny: Do amazing and surprising facts such as Pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 +1/9... really boil down to nothing more than A=A?

Existence does boil down to A=A.

"Perfection" cannot exist in reality. Pi cannot exist in reality. You will never be able to draw the perfect circle in reality. God cannot exist in reality.

This is the confusion that is making you a theist.

Kenny

To say that the “supernatural” (I personally do not like that term) or the Divine is irrational is simply a mischaracterization of classical Christian theism. Classical Christian theism maintains that God is a rational being Who has created the universe in accordance with a rational plan.

It won’t do to simply define the miraculous as irrational. Miracles in the context of Christian theism are not just arbitrary violations of natural law that occur for no discernable reason, but revealatory events which are given their interpretation in the theological context in which they are situated. You may have something like Hume’s inductive argument against miracles in mind, but I don’t believe Hume’s argument succeeds. I have addressed that issue somewhat <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002293&p=" target="_blank">here</a>. In any event, your argument needs a great deal of development in order to hold any water.

God Bless,
Kenny

&lt;edited to repair link&gt;

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Kenny

Sigh. I have a hunch that you are a follower of Ann Rand. Now don’t get me wrong, I think Rand had some interesting things to say about politics and about ethics (though, in the end, I disagree with her), but her metaphysics is just plain sophistry. To attempt to derive some sort of “objective” philosophy from a tautology is ridiculous. Tautology’s are semantically empty. They literally say nothing about the content of reality.

What do you mean when you say “exist in reality?” Since I am a Platonist with regard to abstractions, I believe there is a sense in which mathematical and other types of abstract objects do exist (as forms which reside in the mind of God). If you mean that a perfect circle cannot be instantiated as a physical object, then I agree, but I don’t believe that physical objects are the only things which may properly be called real. Why do you make this claim?

God Bless,
Kenny

David Gould

Assuming that the idea of the perfect circle eixists in the mind of God, is the idea of the perfect circle the perfect circle itself?

I do not see how it is - the idea of something is not the thing itself, else I would have a million dollars just by thinking I did.

Perfect circles may not exist even if God would know one if He saw it.

We can even devise the mathematical notion of what a perfect circle would be. And yet we cannot create a perfect circle.

This proves that the idea is not always the object.