Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are you referring to quatona's argument or mine?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.
Afaik "life´s a game" is merely a metaphorical commonplace, hence not an adequate premise in a logical deduction.1st says who: me
2nd says who: me
What I meant: Is it a necessary attribute, by the definition of "game"? I don´t know that it is.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.
I´m pretty sure to yours.Are you referring to quatona's argument or mine?
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.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.
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.
1) Like I said before spectators are not needed. Usually does not mean necessarily.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.
Life is just a game.
All games have a creator (be it an individual or an organisation)..
Therefor..a creator exists?
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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?