WJ

Pug!

Ok pinheaded atheist's, listen up. I know what you're doing. You haven't a clue so you're, once again, turning it into a political challenge. Well, I'll take the challenge!

Pug, here's a quote from your AJ ayer site;

"It is only a priori propositions that are logically certain. But we cannot deduce the existence of a god from an a priori proposition. For we know that the reason why a priori propositions are certain is that they are tautologies. And from a set of tautologies nothing but a further tautology can be validly deduced. It follows that there is no possibility of demonstrating the existence of a god."

NOW, if apriori propositions are only logically certain, and there is no possibility of demonstrating the existence of god thru that method, then why are you all in this forum debating the non-possibility of God's existence?

This is more fun that a barrel of atheists!


As Koy would say, for f*cks sake, you're a bunch of damn numbnuts! And Jobar, put up or shut-up!

The AntiChris

Ok, here's a few off the top of my head:

No More religious programming on TV and Radio

No more boring hymns at school

No more sharia courts sentencing adulterous women to death by stoning

No more Sunday School

No more tedious debates about the ordination of women and the celibacy of RC priests

No more Anne Atkins or Peter Hitchens (you need to be a Brit to understand this one )

No more tedious biblical quotes

No more creationist nonsense

No more interminable threads on EOG which invent "God" and then triumphantly provide the logical disproof

No more jihads and fatwas

No more irritating religious intrusion into Christmas and Easter holidays

No more relentless misspellings of "Deity"

No more patronising "God bless" sign-offs

No Hell

No Heaven

And, best of all

No more pointless questions from WJ

Hobbs

WJ, we're not saying that God's existence is not possible. We are saying that there is no evidence of God's existence. How many times does that have to be repeated before you finally get it?

You seem to like what Ayer says here. Do you not recognize that he is saying that you can't use logic to prove God's existence, i.e. that God cannot be said to be a logically necessary being? Haven't you tried to claim that God is a logically necessary being? Why do you keep appealing to Ayer when he disputes, rather than upholds, your claims? We agree with Ayer: you can't use logic to prove God's existence.

You really don't have a clue, do you? And the really sad part is that you actually think you do, you seem to be unable to recognize your cluelessness.

I think that Jobar has vastly overrated you.

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: Hobbs ]</p>

seanie

WJ

You have repeatedly asserted that;

You have never explained why that is the case.

However you have claimed when challenged;

Again this is merely an assertion. You have never elucidated the line of reasoning that led to this conclusion.

You have also claimed;

Well go ahead.

Here's your chance.

Explain.

Describe the process.

Share your line of reasoning.

Justify your position.

Enlighten us.

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

NialScorva

Wow, I find this vastly amusing, considering what follows. You read Ayers? Yeah right, I don't buy that you've read him, much less understood.
This is more fun that a barrel of atheists!


Nope. From the quote itself Ayers says "only a priori propositions are logically certain", which is subtly, but vastly, different than your version. Not only that, but you misquote Ayers in the process by not quoting the preceding 2 sentences:

"If the conclusion that a god exists is to be demonstratively certain, then these premises must be certain; for, as the conclusion of a deductive argument is already contained in the premises, any uncertainty there may be about the truth of the premises is necessarily shared by it. But we know that no empirical proposition can ever be anything more than probable.

By "logically certain", Ayers does not mean what you are assuming he does. You seem to be interpretting it as ontological certainty, but the very *name* of the essay-- "Language Truth Logic and God" makes it clear that he's talking about a linguistic tautology. "All married men are bachelors" is not a tautology due to the fabric of reality or some out-dated notion of essentialism, but because we *define* them to be the same.

The whole point of statement is not that there should be no debate at all, but that there is no possible way a theist can bring a rational debate to the floor precisely because he cannot appeal to a priori proofs nor to evidential arguments due to unverifiability.

How about this:

You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, pulling random quotes out of context in order to name drop. If you'd read *anything* by the logical empiricists, or even remotely understood the linguistic bent that philosophy took around the middle of the 20th century, you wouldn't have even opened your mouth to spew your ignorance on this forum.

WJ

Nail!

Let's see how smart/or in this case, stupid you really are. You're missing the point. Isn't a forum based upon language? Do you even understand analytic propositions/and deduction?

I'm sure you do because, you conclude that god does not exist from the tautologies and analytical statements as presented from say the ontological argument, you goof!?!

An EOG discussion forum to demonstrate god's existence is about language and tautologies, right? That, however, is a debatable point depending on how you answer... . Prove me wrong.

How else do you expect to be convinced otherwise?

I await your reply?

bonduca

Nial.

Jayhawker Soule

No theist, of course, would be so remarkably stupid as to suggest such an absurdity.

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

MrDarwin

If that's the case, you might want to be a little more careful with how you use that language. I usually let these things go, but since you're the one bringing up language, you should know that your extreme sloppiness, viz. basic spelling, correct word use, and grammar makes it hard to take what you're trying to say the least bit seriously.

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Typhon

Come on Wally,

"ferries?" Surely you can do better than this. Oddly enough, there ARE a multitude of "ferries forums" online.

<a href="http://www.portsmouth-ferries.com/forum/forum-frames/index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.portsmouth-ferries.com/forum/forum-frames/index.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.algeria.com/forums/showthread.php3?postid=4525#post4525" target="_blank">http://www.algeria.com/forums/showthread.php3?postid=4525#post4525</a>

<a href="http://www.visitfyn.com/gb/phorum/list.php?f=2" target="_blank">http://www.visitfyn.com/gb/phorum/list.php?f=2</a>

And if you meant faeries, well, they have forums for those as well...

<a href="http://pub3.ezboard.com/fpantheismsupernaturalentitiesfairiesspiritsetc.sh owMessage?topicID=1.topic" target="_blank">http://pub3.ezboard.com/fpantheismsupernaturalentitiesfairiesspiritsetc.sh owMessage?topicID=1.topic</a>

As usual you are woefully unable to defend yourself from even the most basic of attacks on this point. I would say a smart 10 year old would get that people who don't believe in say, eating lima beans because the Jolly Green Giant wants you to, would talk all about their struggle to not eat lima beans, discuss lima bean avoidance strategies, explain the reasons why they don't think the Jolly Green Giant is real and is instead, just a marketing ploy/logo, and demand that visiting Jolly Green Giant believers present some credible evidence for their odd beliefs.

You however, seem to be unable to follow this very simple and logical chain of reasoning, or else, you purposely seek to dismiss it because you can't either discredit it or support your claim here.

On the wealth of other topics, I haven't seen any replies that come close to refuting my points, not even in the same solar system or near galaxy for that matter. Nor have I seen an answer to my question:
Other than appearing to run away from the responses well made about your #1 point and pretend they were never made, I haven't seen much coming back from you yet.

I hope this is simply because you haven't had time to digest and respond to our strong criticisms of your unsupported ideas. I'll be waiting. I had no hope you might win a debate of this sort for a change rather than just looking foolish, but did have hopes that you might at least try.

Cheers,

.T.