WJ

BD/Nial/Hobbs, et al!

As a matter of principle, I do not care to participate in 'rants and raves'. So, moving right along, I see that we are finally making progress with respect to not only both of your previous posts (relative to item 1 in my previous 'thesis' about atheism) but the central point that i have made regarding logical inconsistency. To that end, hobbs gets a star on his/her forehead:

"I think that WJ's point may be that Ayer is an example of self-refuting atheist arguing. In other words, if we, as atheists, accept Ayer's arguments (which we must, because he's an atheist, too, and we of course all think alike), it means we cannot use logic to prove or disprove God. That plus his apparent refusal to see that we are not trying to use logic to prove that God does not exist leads him to conclude that we are being inconsistent: ****we claim that logic can't conclude anything about God, then we use logic to conclude something about God.**** [****BINGO]

That is one hypothesis, anyway, to try to make sense of what WJ is trying to say. If there is a point behind the muddle, that may be the point. If that is his point, then the response is that atheism is based on a lack of evidence for God's existence rather than a logical refutation of God's existence, so his argument misses the point entirely."

--------------------End quote

Now I would certainly like to explore more of BD's thoughts relative to his/her previous post, but want to underscore another point, again:

If an EOG forum provides for only direct evidence
from language, ie analytic propositions, whose truth follows purely from the meanings of the words involved (such as the ontological argument) then the atheist can rightfully assert there is nothing to the world other than mathematics and tautologies.

Now, if any of you disagree with that, I shall stop and ask why?

In the alternative, what other point am I missing?

Walrus

abe smith

WJ: Bugger your "logic". All verbiage is MAN-MADE.

seanie

WJ

How did you come to the conclusion that God is a logical necessity?

I've asked you over a dozen times now and you have never explained yourself.

WJ

seanie,

Are you going to answer *my* question or not?

Here let me help you:

logical necessity= analytic apriori. In other words, go back and read what hobbs said: "...we claim that logic can't conclude anything about God, then we use logic to conclude something about God."

Hope that helps you. BTW, now that I answered your's , are you brave enough to answer mine?

BD/Hobbs, please help this fellow out!!!?!!!

seanie

I'm asking you a genuine question.

You've claimed

You've claimed

And you've claimed

Well I'm asking you to do just that.

Show me your reasoning.

Explain to me the process by which you came to that conclusion.

Please answer my question.

How did you use deductive propositional logic to arrive at your conclusion that god is a logical necessity?

Jack the Bodiless

I disagree.

It does not.

You are missing:

1. Perception as the ultimate grounding of knowledge, NOT logic.

2. The unsoundness of the ontological argument.

3. We do not assert what you want us to assert.
We have answered yours. You have NOT answered his.

We are still waiting.

MrDarwin

The point you are missing is that you have made numerous unsupported assertions, you have been completely ignoring all challenges to those assertions, and you have repeatedly failed to answer direct and specific questions. The point you are missing is that you seem to enjoy hearing yourself talk, but you don't really have anything to say. The point you are missing is that most people rapidly tire of such behavior.

Lord Asriel

I'm getting the most curious sense of Deja-vu....

seanie

I feel like I'm in some Samuel Beckett play.

Lord Asriel

Allow me to re-assure you seanie. You can leave this thread at any time you choose, wheras Beckett's character's were unable to leave the play (this is logically necessary).