A Modal Argument For Atheism

[Owen]

G means 'God exists',
<> means 'it is possible that',
[] means 'it is necessary that'.


Premise 1. <>~G
It's possible that, God does not exist. (however it is defined)

Premise 2. <>G -> []G (Leibnitz defined God in this way, I think)
If it's possible that God exists then it's necessary that God exists.

1. ~[]G -> ~<>G

by: Premise 2, (p -> q) <-> (~q -> ~p)

2. <>~G -> []~G

by: 1, ~[]p <-> <>~p, ~<>p <-> []~p

3. []~G

by: 2, Premise 1, Modus Ponens

4. ~G

by: 3, []p -> p (this is an axiom of modal logic)

Q.E.D.


That is to say:
(<>~p & (<>p -> []p)) -> ~p, is true for all propositions p ..it is a theorem.
It is tautologous, truth tables verify it.

Owen

[sahyo]

popcorn

[Owen]

asheera:
popcorn

Are you buying or selling?

[sahyo]

athe'god'ism?

[sahyo]

po :dancing: pcorn

[sonrisa]

cheese or butter?

[a random hack]

seems BVers are more interested in popcorn, than god :lol:

[sonrisa]

Random, popcorn is god :D

[a random hack]

oh :o:lol:

[sonrisa]

:P

[vicente]

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

[Owen]

vicente:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html


And you point is???

[slayer]

Hey Owen,

Thanks for posting the modal argument for atheism. One question immediately comes to mind: If G = God exists, then couldn't we just give a similar argument, except where G = God does not exist, making the necessary adjustments, and then have a modal argument for theism?

You'll soon realize, if you haven't already, that many of the regulars here will respond with irrelevancies, due mainly to their ignorance and stupidity complexes. Without intellectual recourse, they adopt an affected attitude of playful mockishness, in order to hide their failings. Of course this only highlights their insecurities, but you'll never convince them of this. -- This is my intro to psyche at its best.

slayer

PS. In your post about hierarchy of truths, you didn't disable the emoticons and thus one of your symbols turned into a happy face.

[...]

This is my intro to psyche at its best.

:lol:

[Owen]

slayer:

Hey Owen,

Thanks for posting the modal argument for atheism. One question immediately comes to mind: If G = God exists, then couldn't we just give a similar argument, except where G = God does not exist, making the necessary adjustments, and then have a modal argument for theism?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi slayer,

Yes. If we include the (Leibnitzian) property <>G -> []G, in the description of God, and the premise <>G, then it follows that God exists, is true. (<>p & (<>p-> []p)) -> p, is valid for all propositions p.

Theists need only admit that <>G, to prove that God exists, and,
Atheists need only admit <>~G, to prove that God does not exist.

Note: <>G & <>~G, is contradictory.

slayer: You'll soon realize, if you haven't already, that many of the regulars here will respond with irrelevancies, due mainly to their ignorance and stupidity complexes. Without intellectual recourse, they adopt an affected attitude of playful mockishness, in order to hide their failings. Of course this only highlights their insecurities, but you'll never convince them of this. -- This is my intro to psyche at its best.

Evidently!

slayer:
PS. In your post about hierarchy of truths, you didn't disable the emoticons and thus one of your symbols turned into a happy face.

Thanks, I did wonder where the smily came from.

[sahyo]

does slayer enjoy im :blink: agining all playing posts, the thread,
adopt an affected attitude of playful mockishness, in order to hide their failings. Of course this only highlights their insecurities ?

[slayer]

Dear Asheera,

I'm going to go back on my word just this once and attempt to decipher your "English."

You scribbled: does slayer enjoy im agining all playing posts, the thread,
adopt an affected attitude of playful mockishness, in order to hide their failings.

My translation: Do you, slayer, enjoy imagining that all who post here take on an affected attitude of playful mockishness in order to hide their failings?

slayer -- Well, first, I said "many regulars", not "all", so right away you're off track. Second, even if I enjoy imagining this to be the case, it doesn't follow that it isn't the case -- though, I admit, you might only be interested in my mental state. But one gets the sense that if I admit that I do enjoy it, that thereby, somehow -- some way -- you would think that you refuted my claim. Nothing of the kind would follow.

As to my folk psychology, I stand by my claim: many regulars here post nonsense or irrelevancies because they cannot offer anything worthwhile (a.k.a., semi-intelligent and relevant). This phenomena amongts people with stupidity complexes is common, and so it's natural to think that this is what is going on when people do it in this forum.

And just in case you are interested in my mental state, the answer to your question is no. No, I don't enjoy imagining (believing) that people here act this way; it actually is disturbing and annoying to be reminded that there are people like that out there. I would prefer these type of people didn't exist. I would prefer not to have this belief, but that would require a lot fewer examples of this very type of phenomena.

You use "imagining" as if that somehow refuted my claim, as if something imagined couldn't be the case. You would be wrong to think this.

You scribbled: Of course this only highlights their insecurities ?

My translation: You think this type of behavior somehow highlights their insecurities?

slayer -- Yes, it makes their insecurities quite evident. It's like the politically ignorant person at the dinner table who makes a pun on "Bush" in order to "contribute" to the political discussion. The fact that he's had to sit there without being able to say an intelligent word has made him self-conscious -- he knows everyone notices his lack of contribution to the dicussion. His ignorance now on display, he feels -- wishes -- desires -- to add something, but of course he has nothing intelligent to add, so he makes a joke. It's a sad event really, one which everyone at the dinner table fully comprehends, and one which he himself realizes but can't cope with just yet. Most will laugh to be polite, some will just sit in silence, and some will let the noise die down and try to resume an intelligent conversation. Well, I'm the guy who says, "Shut the f--k up, stupid, we're trying to have an intelligent conversation, so take your dumb ass and your stupid insecurities to the bowling alley."

the gentleman,

slayer

[vicente]

Owen writes:
And you point is???

Well Owen, if you use a mouse, an electronic, palm size, button operated device that can be slid on wheels or bearings over a desktop to move the cursor on a CRT to any position, then move your cursor over the link I left and left click. A web page should appear if you did that correctly. That page, titled 'Atheists Wager' gives an arguement why one should not believe in a god.

As this thread was titled A Modal Argument For Atheism, the link seemed appropriate. That is, for those who can perform simple computer navigation skills.

As far as math goes, my own denial of the existence of a god is closely related to Quantum Cosmology's No-Boundary theory, which says, there is no singularity, no Big Bang, no beginning or end, no creation nor creator, because there is no time.

It is only necessary for a belief that a god exists when intellect seeks palatability for the unknown.

Know god, no Truth; Gnow Truth, no god.

:)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by asheera@Apr 6 2004, 03:07 PM
does slayer enjoy im :blink: agining all playing posts, the thread,

scuse me Asheera , BUT....
dontcha need imagination in order to be able to imagine?
I mean, the po boy can't even begin to think outside The Boxx....

....so he adopts an attitude of scorn & mockishness towards those of us who can & do, in order to hide his failing. Of course this only highlights this inability on his part.....

[a random hack]

Yes, it makes their insecurities quite evident. It's like the politically ignorant person at the dinner table who makes a pun on "Bush" in order to "contribute" to the political discussion. The fact that he's had to sit there without being able to say an intelligent word has made him self-conscious -- he knows everyone notices his lack of contribution to the dicussion. His ignorance now on display, he feels -- wishes -- desires -- to add something, but of course he has nothing intelligent to add, so he makes a joke. It's a sad event really, one which everyone at the dinner table fully comprehends, and one which he himself realizes but can't cope with just yet. Most will laugh to be polite, some will just sit in silence, and some will let the noise die down and try to resume an intelligent conversation. Well, I'm the guy who says, "Shut the f--k up, stupid, we're trying to have an intelligent conversation, so take your dumb ass and your stupid insecurities to the bowling alley."


I spose that might be the case.... assuming that was why 'he' spoke up :D

[sahyo]

dear slayer



slayer:

You scribbled: does slayer enjoy im agining all playing posts, the thread,
adopt an affected attitude of playful mockishness, in order to hide their failings.


does slayer enjoy imÂ* :think:Â* agining all playing posts, the thread,
adopt an affected attitude of playful mockishness, in order to hide their failings?



slayer:


adopt an affected attitude of playful mockishness, in order to hide their failings. Of course this only highlights their insecurities ?





slayer:

slayer -- Well, first, I said "many regulars", not "all", so right away you're off track. Second, even if I enjoy imagining this to be the case, it doesn't follow that it isn't the case -- though, I admit, you might only be interested in my mental state. But one gets the sense that if I admit that I do enjoy it, that thereby, somehow -- some way -- you would think that you refuted my claim. Nothing of the kind would follow.

"all" referred "playing" posts this thread, not "many regulars"

can slayer 'know' if would or wouldn't happen refuting?



slayer:

As to my folk psychology, I stand by my claim: many regulars here post nonsense or irrelevancies because they cannot offer anything worthwhile (a.k.a., semi-intelligent and relevant). This phenomena amongts people with stupidity complexes is common, and so it's natural to think that this is what is going on when people do it in this forum.

can 'sure', "phenomena amongts people with stupidity complexes", when playing expressing differently than slayer imagines should shouldn't and cannot understand intellectually?



slayer:

And just in case you are interested in my mental state, the answer to your question is no. No, I don't enjoy imagining (believing) that people here act this way; it actually is disturbing and annoying to be reminded that there are people like that out there. I would prefer these type of people didn't exist. I would prefer not to have this belief, but that would require a lot fewer examples of this very type of phenomena.

yes most people imagining believing



slayer:

You use "imagining" as if that somehow refuted my claim, as if something imagined couldn't be the case. You would be wrong to think this.

wasn't refuting, asked:


does slayer enjoy im :think: agining all playing posts





slayer:

You scribbled: Of course this only highlights their insecurities ?

slayer:


adopt an affected attitude of playful mockishness, in order to hide their failings. Of course this only highlights their insecurities ?



slayer:

My translation: You think this type of behavior somehow highlights their insecurities?



slayer:

slayer -- Yes, it makes their insecurities quite evident. It's like the politically ignorant person at the dinner table who makes a pun on "Bush" in order to "contribute" to the political discussion. The fact that he's had to sit there without being able to say an intelligent word has made him self-conscious -- he knows everyone notices his lack of contribution to the dicussion.

perhaps sometimes just a pun?



slayer:

His ignorance now on display, he feels -- wishes -- desires -- to add something, but of course he has nothing intelligent to add, so he makes a joke.

perhaps sometimes not?



slayer:

It's a sad event really, one which everyone at the dinner table fully comprehends, and one which he himself realizes but can't cope with just yet. Most will laugh to be polite, some will just sit in silence, and some will let the noise die down and try to resume an intelligent conversation.

perhaps only seems "fully comprehends"

perhaps not interested in politics?

perhaps just eating?



slayer:

Well, I'm the guy who says, "Shut the f--k up, stupid, we're trying to have an intelligent conversation, so take your dumb ass and your stupid insecurities to the bowling alley."

yes only "trying"



slayer:

the gentleman,

hehe :)

[sahyo]

Originally posted by asheera@Apr 6 2004, 03:07 PM
does slayer enjoy im :blink: agining all playing posts, the thread,

scuse me Asheera , BUT....
dontcha need imagination in order to be able to imagine?
I mean, the po boy can't even begin to think outside The Boxx....

....so he adopts an attitude of scorn & mockishness towards those of us who can & do, in order to hide his failing. Of course this only highlights this inability on his part.....



"outside The Boxx...." as though?

slayer not lacking "imagination"

[slayer]

Dear Asheera,

I can't really comment on much of what you said because what you said isn't clearly stated, and what I did understand was so patently false that I won't waste my time on it.

I will comment though on something Sonrisa and Hack have said, because I'm starting to think that "Sonrisa", "Hack," and "Asheera" are names for the same person.


Hack: I spose that might be the case.... assuming that was why 'he' spoke up

slayer --- Why only "spose"? After all, it's quite obvious from the way I described the events that that's why the guy I'M writing about speaks up. Not only do you display your inability to read well here, but you, once again, expose your relativist leanings -- unable to agree that the guy I'M describing as speaking due to his insecurities is speaking due to his insecurities.

Sonrisa: I mean, the po boy can't even begin to think outside The Boxx....

Sonrisa: ....so he adopts an attitude of scorn & mockishness towards those of us who can & do, in order to hide his failing. Of course this only highlights this inability on his part.....

slayer --- The first quote is trite. Thinking outside the box doesn't just mean thinking something different than everyone else. It means that you can approach problems or phenomena from different angles, this or these perspective(s) leading to a better understanding of the problem or phenomena. But when Sonrisa and Asheera (or is it Sonrisa/Asheera?) take pride in thinking outside the box, they think that any nonsensical thought is a worthwhile accomplishment. I think you've been watching too many Taco Bell commercials, my unoriginal friend. When you stop letting cliches do your thinking, you might crawl out of your mental crib.

You're right, my attitude is of scorn and mockishness, but it's not an AFFECTED attitude, "affected" being the key word which you left out. Those of you who can and do what? Use your imaginations? Seems that's what you meant. And this brings me back to my response above. Using your imagination isn't enough. I know you want it to be enough, wishing to avoid the stringent demands of logic, but you cannot escape Logic. Logic is your master. Kneel to it or be rightfully thought a fool and ignoramus. My inability is to buy into the nonsense which obviously is your guiding light: the truth is relative and every thought is as worthwhile as any other. Sorry, you're wrong on both counts.

swatting yet more flies,

slayer

[sonrisa]

Random, I believe we've just been paid a compliment!! :D

[sahyo]

But when Sonrisa and Asheera (or is it Sonrisa/Asheera?) take pride in thinking outside the box, they think that any nonsensical thought is a worthwhile accomplishment. I think you've been watching too many Taco Bell commercials, my unoriginal friend.

hehe ...no tv

slayer imagining "outside the box"
as though inside, outside, box?

[sahyo]

dear slayer


can logic reason sensical?:



http://www.angelfire.com/un/lishah/fig58m.jpg

[sonrisa]

My dear, dear (& I really do mean that) Mr Spock....

slayer-I can't really comment on much of what (Asheera) said because what you said isn't clearly stated, and what I did understand was so patently false that I won't waste my time on it.

(previously)Sonrisa: I mean, the po boy can't even begin to think outside The Boxx....

Sonrisa: ....so he adopts an attitude of scorn & mockishness towards those of us who can & do, in order to hide his failing. Of course this only highlights this inability on his part.....

slayer-- the first quote is trite.

-- oh please! I was merely using a common expression. Wut wood u prefer? That you are unable to think outside the Quadrangle? Or shall we get fancy & make it the Rhombus? the Paralellagram? The L7? Or perhaps it not that shape at all.. I know, you are unable to think outside the....(ta DA!) Buckeyball!!
Either way, it doesn't matter, your admission that Asheera's perfectly comprehensible dissection of one of your previous posts was unclear to you makes my point. You evidently (operative word) are unable to think outside the _________ (fill in the blank with your own damn word)




slayer-- But when Sonrisa and Asheera (or is it Sonrisa/Asheera?) take pride in thinking outside the box, they think that any nonsensical thought is a worthwhile accomplishment.

-- no, you think that. Those are your words, not mine or Asheera's (& yes we're seperate entities, as are Random & me. Hint- I'm a girl, he's a guy. plus, we live on 2 separate continents)



slayer-- I think you've been watching too many Taco Bell commercials, my unoriginal friend.

--um, those are the ones with the chihuahua, ¿bien? ¿es tu, perrito? ¡eres tån cuco!

slayer--You're right, my attitude is of scorn and mockishness, but it's not an AFFECTED attitude, "affected" being the key word which you left out.

--which is why I left it out, einstein



slayer--Those of you who can and do what? yaddayadda....

--(yawn)



slayer--but you cannot escape Logic.

--well maybe you can't.....



slayer-- Logic is your master. Kneel to it or be rightfully thought a fool and ignoramus.

--u r joking, right?



slayer-- My inability is to buy into the nonsense which obviously is your guiding light

-- actually, I'm a General Hospital girl, when I bother to watch that stuff, which hasn't been recently...

live long & prospah, bebé!! V

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by asheera@Apr 7 2004, 02:21 AM

slayer not lacking "imagination"
yeah, I spose you're right, I seem to remember a post of his concerning smutty dreams... I guess that would call for some imagination on his part....

luv the bird.... where r u getting those watercolors?

[sahyo]

:)

cookies deleted
and don't remember site name
...will post url if happens finding it

[sahyo]

:D sonrisa

http://wholeo.net//Trips/Art/MN/writing/mf...faSection10.htm (http://wholeo.net//Trips/Art/MN/writing/mfaSection10.htm)

researching paintings didn't reading

[slayer]

Thank you, Sonrisa, for your latest post on this thread. Now I remember why I wasn't talking to you anymore. Let me follow through this time: I will not discuss anything more with you after this post.

Sonrisa: Either way, it doesn't matter, your admission that Asheera's perfectly comprehensible dissection of one of your previous posts was unclear to you makes my point.

Let me now give examples of this perfectly comprehensible dissection. Dissection no less! Oh my.

Asheear: "all" referred "playing" posts this thread, not "many regulars"

slayer -- She seems to be saying that her use of "all" modifies "playing posts" and doesn't refer to all the members who post. Fine, that's understandable enough, even if poorly written. Remember, I claimed that some stuff was intelligible.

But I never claimed that all playful mockish posts were an indication that a stupid person with a stupidity complex wrote them, I claimed that many regulars have stupid complexes and their playful mockish posts is evidence of this. My claim is something different than Asheera is taking on, which is why I didn't want to bother discussing it with her -- because first I would have to set her straight about that before we could get to my actual claim. I'm tired (thanks to Asheera, Sonrisa, and Hack) of having to explain my arguments, which are rather clear, to people who continually misunderstand them.

Asheera: can slayer 'know' if would or wouldn't happen refuting?

slayer -- Please, someone explain what this question is asking. Then explain to me how it's relevant to the excerpt she quoted in her post (below, 7 April, 12:48 AM). This is not perfectly comprehensible, by any means.

Asheera: can 'sure', "phenomena amongts people with stupidity complexes", when playing expressing differently than slayer imagines should shouldn't and cannot understand intellectually?

slayer -- Who cares if it's possible!? Of course it's possible. What does that show?

Asheera: yes most people imagining believing

slayer -- More nonsense. imagining believing? Are you trying to deny that people can believe? What is the purpose of "imagining" in that poor sentence? What exactly should I be addressing here? This is all supposed to be perfectly comprehensible, according to Sonrisa.

Asheera: perhaps sometimes just a pun?
Asheera: perhaps sometimes not?
Asheera: perhaps only seems "fully comprehends"
Asheera: perhaps not interested in politics?
Asheera: perhaps just eating?

slayer -- The Perhaps Syndrome strikes again. Another relativist in love with "perhaps." Yes, sometimes puns are just puns. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But your 'perhaps' are irrelevant because I'm not claiming that puns are never just puns. I'm claiming something different, and I even give reasons, reasons which you do not take on. Instead we get your world breaking news that it's possible for things not to have been as I described. Wow. It is possible that I was mistaken? Sure. So what? Now take on my premises.

(previously) slayer: Well, I'm the guy who says, "Shut the f--k up, stupid, we're trying to have an intelligent conversation, so take your dumb ass and your stupid insecurities to the bowling alley."

Asheera: yes only "trying"

slayer -- Asheera means that people can't have intelligent conversations, because what?....there is not intelligence? no truth? no what? Someone explain what she means. Of course the reason why I say "trying" is not because of anything Asheera seems to be agreeing with me on, but instead because the moron has interrupted the conversation. Was that so difficult to gather? No. But yet Asheera misunderstands and/or misrepresents what I've said.

This is Sonrisa's idea of perfectly comprehensible dissection. Dissection in the sense that she took me apart and showed how wrong I was? I hope you didn't mean that much by 'dissection', Sonrisa. If I were you, I'd just say: Oh no, I only meant that she took apart your argument, with no negative connotations applied to "took apart"; after all, that's what dissection literally means. Yeah, go with that, Sonrisa.

"dissected",

slayer

[sahyo]

slayer:

I never claimed that all playful mockish posts

asheera:


all playing posts, the thread,

[sahyo]

slayer:

Who cares if it's possible!? Of course it's possible. What does that show?

ahseera:

can 'sure', "phenomena amongts people with stupidity complexes", when playing expressing differently than slayer imagines should shouldn't and cannot understand intellectually?


wasn't referring "possible"

[sahyo]

The Perhaps Syndrome strikes again. Another relativist in love with "perhaps." Yes, sometimes puns are just puns. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But your 'perhaps' are irrelevant because I'm not claiming that puns are never just puns. I'm claiming something different, and I even give reasons, reasons which you do not take on. Instead we get your world breaking news that it's possible for things not to have been as I described. Wow. It is possible that I was mistaken? Sure. So what? Now take on my premises.

wasn't questioning whether puns or not

wasn't 'about' perhaps

yes slayer imagined mistaken

[a random hack]

slayer --- Why only "spose"? After all, it's quite obvious from the way I described the events that that's why the guy I'M writing about speaks up. Not only do you display your inability to read well here, but you, once again, expose your relativist leanings -- unable to agree that the guy I'M describing as speaking due to his insecurities is speaking due to his insecurities.

there is only one way you could know what you claim to... :lol:

[slayer]

In the last three posts, written by Asheera, Asheera corrects my interpretations of her post, the one Sonrisa described as perfectly comprehensible. Even my best effort at interpreting Asheera-speak -- and it was a sincere effort -- has proved futile, which makes me realize that I was too generous when I said that her post (7 April, 12:48 AM) was almost completely unintelligible -- I should have left out the "almost."

Sonrisa, you are desperate indeed if you are trying to champion Asheera by claiming that her post was perfectly comprehensible. Wasn't it you who mistook her intent when she posted an apples-drawing? Of course it was you, and Asheera corrected your assumption. Yet something as obvious as your assumption, which was perfectly understandable, was mistaken. So how then do you manage to think that you can interpret her bizarro-English? especially when you yourself have been the recipient of many "that's not what I meant's" by Asheera? You know better, yet your desire to better me has gotten the best you.

Just give up trying to seem intelligent, Sonrisa, and then maybe you'll not commit yourself to such foolish claims.

should shouldn't perhaps imagining or not smiley face on my buttocks eating popcorn,

slayer

[a random hack]

Sonrisa is trying to seem intelligent?:o

[sahyo]

slayer:

You scribbled: does slayer enjoy im agining all playing posts, the thread,
adopt an affected attitude of playful mockishness, in order to hide their failings.

You scribbled: Of course this only highlights their insecurities ?

My translation: You think this type of behavior somehow highlights their insecurities?

the post was:


does slayer enjoy im :blink: agining all playing posts, the thread,
adopt an affected attitude of playful mockishness, in order to hide their failings. Of course this only highlights their insecurities ?


"adopt an affected attitude of playful mockishness, in order to hide their failings. Of course this only highlights their insecurities ?" called slayer posted

the responsing post responded that slayer read mistaking

is slayer reading/listening posts, or searching for proof to dispute which slayer desires to imagine?

does seem quoting, slayer? ;)

[sonrisa]

now this is gross....


Originally posted by slayer@Apr 7 2004, 10:33 PM

should shouldn't perhaps imagining or not smiley face on my buttocks eating popcorn,

slayer :P


please keep your sorry no acoount pimply butt inside your pants- including the butt crack.....

[slayer]

Sonrisa,

In the quote you give above, of me, there is included a smiley face, which is a misrepresentation of what I wrote, because the happy face wasn't part of my post. Please do not quote me and augment the quote with something I didn't include, unless you make it clear that that's what you have done. E.g., the use of brackets for certain such purposes.

sincerely,

slayer

[sonrisa]

asheera! :D finally saw this! Thanx!

Originally posted by asheera@Apr 7 2004, 04:50 PM
:D sonrisa

http://wholeo.net//Trips/Art/MN/writing/mf...faSection10.htm (http://wholeo.net//Trips/Art/MN/writing/mfaSection10.htm)

researching paintings didn't reading

they weren't apples, were they? oops! :uninvolved:

[sonrisa]

missed this one 2:

Originally posted by a random hack@Apr 7 2004, 10:43 PM
Sonrisa is trying to seem intelligent?:o

Random B) don't need to try don't need to seem B)

[sahyo]

they weren't apples, were they? oops! :uninvolved:

cats? :uninvolved:

;)

:D

[sonrisa]

'n'dogs!!


:D

[sahyo]

:D

[a random hack]

missed this one 2:

QUOTE (a random hack @ Apr 7 2004, 10:43 PM)
Sonrisa is trying to seem intelligent?


Random don't need to try don't need to seem

:lol: :lol: :lol:
not with slayer here to do it for you, anyway :D

[sonrisa]

:goodlaugh:

[thirst4sun]

So do you beleive :think:

[sonrisa]

bee-leeve wut?

[Mental Gremlin]

God exists outside mans ability to understand. The fact that you try to argue God doesnt exist, shows a devotion to the idea that anything that wont play by our rules doesnt exist. Silly at best. Bad philosophy at worst.

[vicente]

Mental Gremlin,...I'm sure the believers will like that one. I'd say philosophers prefer:

http://www.geocities.com/aparthib/rational...al_faq.html#3-3 (http://www.geocities.com/aparthib/rational_faq.html#3-3)

However for myself, I don't have to agrue that no god exist, because the truth is that no god exists. Anyone who believes in a god is being dishonest, and therefore cannot recognize truth.

:)

[sahyo]

Anyone who believes in a god is being dishonest, and therefore cannot recognize truth.

vicente believes as though "an entity" which can "recognize truth" as though separate?

[vicente]

vicente believes as though "an entity" which can "recognize truth" as though separate?


That's untrue asheera, and I would add that such a statement after some 4 years of posting, maybe hundreds between us, back to Spiritweb, suggests that you yourself (not the self you "think" you are, but your real unseparated self) are obscured by dishonesty.

Truth cannot be recognized through "an entity", anymore than an automoble can drive itself.

Shame on you Asheera for seeking words that feed separation, instead of contributions that point to the ecstasy beyond duality's reality.

:)

[sahyo]

vicente believes as though "an entity" which can "recognize truth" as though separate?



That's untrue


did the post say was true nottrue, vicente? :)


Truth cannot be recognized through "an entity"


did the post say imagining believing as though "an entity"
could recongnize truth?

did reading the post? ;)


Shame on you


"Shame"? "you"?


Anyone who believes in a god is being dishonest, and therefore cannot recognize truth.


if imagining believing as though a self entity has ceased,
so has imagining as though separate "recognized"

[NeverMind]

that proof is too confusing for me, I'm gonna go beat up yoda on ebaumsworld.com

[sahyo]

"proof"?

[pnklphnts]

right on! Yoda ****ing sucks!

[NeverMind]

Yeah, a proof. I looked at this and read it and it looked like a mathematical proof for God's existence but as i read it it started to seem more like an example. I disagree with this "argument" and i think you suck. And Yoda sucks too. That speach impediment shit really pisses me off. Oh, but when he was fighting in episode 2, that was off the hook.

Anyway. Your little argument is easily disproved.

mmkay:

G=God exists
~= is is true that

so
~G would mean it is true that God exists. See, I win. Bitches.

[sahyo]

I disagree with this "argument"

argument?
...what post are referring?

:)

[NeverMind]

I'm referring to the post this whole discussion is centered on, yknow, the big <>G`~ means that there is no god blah modal argument. You know, the thing we're all talking about. You wanker. Go die. Wheee! God is good. You are crappy. :angry: :ph34r:

Quote from me "Out of your mouth, the words of Satan are spewing!"

[sahyo]

:lol:

did nevermind read a post this thread
asheera saying is or isn't god?