A philosophical idea of mine questioning atheism. debate.

[sluimers82]

Your argument suffers from blatant fallacy of equivocation. Two words that are spelled in the same way can have different meanings. A good example is the word 'bank'. It can mean the place that stores your money, or the thing by the river. Equating the two to form the premises for your argument leads to a fallacious argument.

My suggestion: get a new argument.

Are you referring to quatona's argument or mine?

If mine which word is it you are referring to? game?
They both mean the same in both sentences:

a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

 

[quatona]

1st says who: me
2nd says who: me

Afaik "life´s a game" is merely a metaphorical commonplace, hence not an adequate premise in a logical deduction.

Having a creator is not part of the definition of game, it is an attribute of a game, unless I mistake attribute not being part of the definition of a game.

What I meant: Is it a necessary attribute, by the definition of "game"? I don´t know that it is.

 

[quatona]

Are you referring to quatona's argument or mine?

I´m pretty sure to yours.

If mine which word is it you are referring to? game?
They both mean the same in both sentences:

a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

Then "life is a game" is begging the question, in that the very question is whether life is a competetive activity for persons to play according to a set of rules.

 

[Lucretius]

Are you referring to quatona's argument or mine?

If mine which word is it you are referring to? game?
They both mean the same in both sentences:

a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

This definition just makes the issue even more ambiguous, and the argument even more fallacious. The rules, in a game like basketball or baseball, are set up by some outside committee. This committee exists or has existed, and this is rather obvious. Spectators are people who come in for the sole purpose of observing said game.

You think you can equate this with the rules "laws" of nature, and the spectators (who?)? That is ridiculous. Here's why:

1)There are no spectators, you haven't defined them. If life is a game as a general rule, there must be a spectator in everyone's life. Besides crazy psychotic killers who might keep people in their basements for long periods of time, I know of no one who would care to do nothing but observe someone else for their entire life. Just because people exist around you doesn't mean they are spectators of your life. Your 'definition' is still insanely ambiguous.
2)The rules have two different origins. One is human made; the other is natural law, something not arbitrary. The two "rules" are different. You've just committed another fallacy of equivocation.
3)Games are played to achieve some end; which is also defined in the rules of the large majority of most games. Think about baseball: people have a set objective: hit the ball, round the bases, score a point. In life there is no objective rule to follow; the best you could do is "pass on genes".

You're still ambiguous; your "argument" still fails.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

False premise. You prove neither that life is a game, nor that if it is a "game" that a higher power made this game.

 

[sluimers82]

This definition just makes the issue even more ambiguous, and the argument even more fallacious. The rules, in a game like basketball or baseball, are set up by some outside committee. This committee exists or has existed, and this is rather obvious. Spectators are people who come in for the sole purpose of observing said game.

You think you can equate this with the rules "laws" of nature, and the spectators (who?)? That is ridiculous. Here's why:

1)There are no spectators, you haven't defined them. If life is a game as a general rule, there must be a spectator in everyone's life. Besides crazy psychotic killers who might keep people in their basements for long periods of time, I know of no one who would care to do nothing but observe someone else for their entire life. Just because people exist around you doesn't mean they are spectators of your life. Your 'definition' is still insanely ambiguous.
2)The rules have two different origins. One is human made; the other is natural law, something not arbitrary. The two "rules" are different. You've just committed another fallacy of equivocation.
3)Games are played to achieve some end; which is also defined in the rules of the large majority of most games. Think about baseball: people have a set objective: hit the ball, round the bases, score a point. In life there is no objective rule to follow; the best you could do is "pass on genes".

You're still ambiguous; your "argument" still fails.

1) Like I said before spectators are not needed. Usually does not mean necessarily.

3) You've never played the SecondLife or the Sims have you? There are no objectives in there either.

2) Ah, now there's a argument that makes my proposition incomplete or incorrect.
Not that all collections of rules show share a common structure and behaviour including
natural laws according to the first definition of the dictionary, I
could make a computergame which replicates the same rules as the ones in the universe and to the NPC those rules would be natural law,
but I would have to prove those rules need a creator as well.

So, back to the drawing board for me...

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Existence precedes essence, human nature, therefore human purpose does not exist. The game you have defined therefore is non-existent because the idea of purpose to the "game" of life is defiled by the non-existent human purpose.

 

[variant]

Life is just a game.
All games have a creator (be it an individual or an organisation)..
Therefor..a creator exists?

Premise 2 is circular as we have no idea whether all games would need a creator if we accept premise 1 that life is indeed a game.

Life is free to be the exception to the proposed rule "all games have a creator", and to suppose that all games have a creator supposes your conclusion as one of your premises.

See you have to contain this argument:

1. Life is a game
2. Life has a creator
3. All other games have a creator
… All games have a creator

All games have a creator is a sub-conclusion that requires the premise “life has a creator”

To get to your conclusion so your argument goes like this:

1. Life is a game
2. Life has a creator
3. All other games have a creator
...All Games have a creator
….Life has a creator


So, you have effectively listed your conclusion as one of your premises.

 

[Veratis]

life is not a game. it is a ride. you make it yourself. whos to say that you are not the almighty creator? how do we know that the universe existed before you did? what proof do i really have that the universe didnt begin the moment i was born?

do i believe that? no. but its an idea.
dont let anyone tell you whats real. because no one knows.

 

[phsyxx]

Doesn't any game force the competitors to :

1.) Actively and consciously choose to participate.
2.) Abide by a set of rules (and if broken, the diqualification should be made clear)
3.) Strive towards achieving a goal, so that one side, or player may "WIN".


I see no way to "win" this 'game'.
And if there are rules, shouldn't they be made abundantly clear so that I can be brought up about it when I break them?

 

[phsyxx]

life is not a game. it is a ride. you make it yourself. whos to say that you are not the almighty creator? how do we know that the universe existed before you did? what proof do i really have that the universe didnt begin the moment i was born?

do i believe that? no. but its an idea.
dont let anyone tell you whats real. because no one knows.

You ever heard of Socrates?

"All that I know is that I know nothing".

And what about : "I think therefore I am", but it's impossible to prove that anything else exists for certain.
You are your own solipsist until you accept the existence of others.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

You ever heard of Socrates?

"All that I know is that I know nothing".

And what about : "I think therefore I am", but it's impossible to prove that anything else exists for certain.
You are your own solipsist until you accept the existence of others.

Socrates with that quote thus made it clear no one knows anything which lead to his socratic method...when asked a question he would answer with a question...and thus gain a way to show the person a way to answer the question on their own and at the same time grasp his understanding of the subject also.

The Cartesian Cogito is a standpoint of existing, it disproves the idea that "we" dont exist because when the "I" of the consciousness thinks it realizes it exists because the entire standpoint of the conscious-being is to question, and it is the soul reason we know we exist. Without the consciousness we would not realize we exist and would be purely with purpose...a rock is a rock it does not or cannot think about being a rock....a cat enacts it neither questions how it enacts or wonders why it enacts....we are doomed to question, and thus never have complete control because there is no stopping the questioning, there is no way to subjegate ourself to complete self-identity such as non-conscious creatures.