Jack the Bodiless

...Except, of course, that he isn't. We do NOT agree to that. That is abundantly clear.

Stop mindlessly repeating this mantra and justify your assertion that God is a logically necessary being!!!

How, exactly, can a nonexistent fictional character be a logically necessary being?

Why, exactly, should God NOT be regarded as a nonexistent fictional character?

We already KNOW that the BIBLICAL God is a necessarily nonexistent being. The impossibility of the existence of the Biblical God is clear from Biblical contradictions and the demonstrated falsehood of the Genesis creation account.

So what is the "logically necessary" God? What are his/her/its logically-necessary properties?

Hobbs

Precisely. WJ, as I pointed out before, reality comes before, and takes precedence over, logic. Reality is what it is, regardless of what we think about it. Logic is a set of tools humans have developed for understanding and dealing with reality. But it is reality that is primary.

If I asked you to prove to me that trees exist, would you bother going through a logical demonstration that they exist? Or would you just point to one and say "there is a tree"? If you could just point to God and say "there he is", you could easily prove your case. The fact that you must resort to logic shows that you don't have as strong a case that God exists as I do that trees exist.

But you don't even resort to logic. All you do is resort to assertions. You claim that God is a necessarily existing being, you define 'God' as necessarily existing, but you have done nothing to demonstrate or justify your claims.

Hobbs

Oh, and by the way, can someone tell me why I'm bothering with this? Do I just like to <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> ? Or am I justified in hoping that there are some lurkers who are getting something out of this? I think people like WJ are the best witnesses to the intellectual bankruptcy of theism, so I guess letting them spout off nonsense like this in a public forum can have positive results.

WJ

"...Except, of course, that he isn't. We do NOT agree to that. That is abundantly clear."

w- But it is thru deductive propositional logic that I arrived at that conclusion! How can you 'justify' the fact you do not agree?


"Stop mindlessly repeating this mantra and justify your assertion that God is a logically necessary being!!!"

w- I believe it is you who are are having these comprehension problems.

"How, exactly, can a nonexistent fictional character be a logically necessary being?'

w- Exactly, atheist AJ Ayer would say; get the hell out of this EOG discussion, now Right?

Why, exactly, should God NOT be regarded as a nonexistent fictional character?

w- Because thru analytical propositions, he is logically necessary, you baffoon!

We already KNOW that the BIBLICAL God is a necessarily nonexistent being. The impossibility of the existence of the Biblical God is clear from Biblical contradictions and the demonstrated falsehood of the Genesis creation account.

w- Good, why are you discussing the existence of a non existent Being?

So what is the "logically necessary" God? What are his/her/its logically-necessary properties?

w- That's probably the most intelligent question you've asked... . The answer is that a logically necessary Being cannot be known thru analytic propositions you stooge. Synthetic propositions always involve testing, in this case, the existence of such a Being. Gee, how would you go about testing the 'possibility' of that?

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

WJ

Hobbs!

We crossed. Let me use your analogy. If someone says to you show me your feelings, how do you describe, as well as, explain them? Do you point to a brain? Is that sufficient? If it is, then 'Christianity' can simply point to Jesus.

Once again, I see your theistic logic rear its ugly head!

I await your reply!

seanie

Look.

Just describe the process.

Explain to us.

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

Share your line of reasoning.

Justify your position.

If you're not willing to do that just piss off back to the hall of the mountain king.

Hobbs

Whether or not you arrived at that conclusion through deductive propositional logic may or may not be the case. We couldn't possibly know for sure, because all you have done is to claim that you have done so. You have yet to show how you did so. Until you demonstrate how you arrived at that conclusion through deductive propositional logic, we have nothing to respond to other than an empty assertion.

WJ, are you capable of distinguishing between claiming that you arrived at a conclusion through deductive propostional logic and actually demonstrating how you did so? If so, please demonstrate how you did so. If not, please ... well, I don't know what to recommend to someone who can't recognize so basic a distinction.

Hobbs

And likewise, 'Islam' can simply point to Allah. And 'Zoroastrianism' can simply point to Ahura Mazda. And Moby Dick can simply point to Captain Ahab. If not, why not? What makes your god so damned special? Because it is yours? What makes you so damned special?

Edited to add: If you want to claim that, like my feelings, your god exists nowhere but in your own mind, you'll get no disagreement from me.

If your thinking is as muddled and confused as your posts (and you have given me every reason to conclude that it is), I really and truly have no clue how to reply to you.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Hobbs ]</p>

MrDarwin

No, please don't describe, don't explain, don't share, don't justify. Please continue this tangential discussion elsewhere. Please re-read my OP and if you don't have anything that directly addresses it, then go away.

Anybody care to share their thoughts about the existence or non-existence of evidence of the alleged benevolence of God in the natural world? No? Shall I just conclude that there is no such evidence, and ask that this thread be closed?

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

seanie

Sorry MrDarwin.

Partly my fault for engaging with WJ.

It was always likely to prove pointless.

Apologies for disrupting your thread.

I'll post no more.