Post by sciwiz12 on Jun 30, 2010 12:48:42 GMT -5
Yeah I know, his bullshit logic is getting old and I'm tired of hearing him repeat it. Konkor if you want to go away from this thinking you won and that you proved anything be my guest. The truth is that anyone could find something similar to what you call evidence, it's not really evidence or proof of anything at all. The only thing it proves is that there are a bunch of ass holes sitting at their computers repeating the same crap about laws of logic trying to convince everyone that it implies the logical existence of god. I don't buy into your phony logic, and for someone who is so tired of arguing you sure seem to run your mouth a lot. I find it amusing that you still think you won just cuz you posted a few bullshit websites that don't prove anything. I didn't want to waste my time going in depth but I hate braggarts, especially when they've got nothing to brag about. There's no such thing as a law of non-contradiction, there are things in this world that can be two fold in relationship to something else or itself. One example that was used was that nobody can be both a father and a son in relationship to the same person but we can see in the song "I'm my own grandpa" how a simple change in dynamics can give a person multiple dual relationships to the same being. In fact you could feasibly have a son that goes back in time and has you as their son. Let's take a more concrete contradiction: The same physically body I have right now cannot inhabit multiple places at the same time. One might logically presume that is true but it's a presumption based on the experience that it's never happened before, however if for instance I were to walk into an area where space had been folded so that two separate spaces were touching then my body would observed as being in both locations at once. As for the circular reasoning, I can indeed say that I am because I am, my being does indeed cause itself. If I did not exist then you would not perceive me so my very existence causes the perception of myself. One example is used that an apple cannot be red because it is red, but that to is lacking perspective, first of all an apple is not red anyway, that's just our perception of the apple based on light bouncing off the apple and hitting our eyes, in truth it's probably more accurate to say that it is black, but because our brains process the light bouncing off the apple and perceive that frequency as the color red, we call it red. The apple reflects red light thus we perceive it as red, if it did not bounce back to us that particular frequency then we would not say it is red, thus an apple is red because it is red. I find often that people who lack perspective often resign to absolutes, I take a more nihilistic stance and you can see why. All of these supposed laws of logic, they're simply view points used to explain a person's mental process. There is no absolute logic because logic is a human construct and everyone constructs it differently, thus while you may be able to prove to yourself the existence of god in such menial ways, you'll never prove it to us that way because your mental process isn't our mental process and yours isn't even the correct way either if such a thing exists because it does not encompass all facets that might go into such reasoning, it is base and crude, it's shallow and lacks substance. It is simply flimsy logic.