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.
No, it's a claim. It is an assertion.
A proof is an argument. "There are only three" is not an argument or a proof.
Arguments are made up of claims, those are your premises. All premises must be proven true for an argument to be proven sound. The assertion "There are only three" is a premise. It is not the argument itself, it is not a proof.Because you're deliberately taking it out of the context of the actual argument.
Arguments are made up of claims, those are your premises.
All premises must be proven true for an argument to be proven sound.
That's not a premise.No, the premises is the Big Bang.
Yes, all premises must be proven true even in deductive elimination.Not in deductive elimination.
That's not a premise.
Yes, all premises must be proven true even in deductive elimination.
That's what I said:A or B or C
If you can't prove that it can only be A or B or C, then you can't deduce which it is by eliminating two of them.A or B or C
That's what I said:
If you can't prove that it can only be A or B or C, then you can't deduce which it is by eliminating two of them.
Sorry, here there are again in context:You quotemined all the elimination parts.
That's what I said with more proper formatting:Either A or B or C. Not B. Not C. Therefore, A
p1 A or B or C
p2 Not A
p3 Not B
c C
Sorry, that's how "or" works. Your link probably assumes you're familiar with terms like "and" "or" "if" "then" etc.Where does it even say that? Other than you making it up, I mean.
Sorry, that's how "or" works. Your link probably assumes you're familiar with terms like "and" "or" "if" "then" etc.
Logical Disjunction That's how "or" works.You're just asserting it and nothing more, because you have nothing that proves your made-up rule.
Logical Disjunction That's how "or" works.
Good; so you believe that Christians go directly to heaven when they die.Yes. Please review absolutely every word of your own question before replying.
"You[r] body dies, but. . ." <-- Don't strain yourself with that reach. You've already admitted to an initial (first) death here.
Look, if you don't want to explore the logical consequences of your beliefs, then I can't force you to. As you say, you don't want to talk about it.You had me at "if." The speculative "if" gives me the option to chase it or seriously question why an atheist is trying to disprove purely speculative fiction with. . .purely speculative fiction.
Yeah? Prove it.Goodness means God. It's literally exclusive to God alone. -Mark 10:18
Prove that this reality is His nature. If it's easy-peasy, you should be able to.Because that (really) is His nature. Easy-peasy. See, you're hung-up on this metaphysical standard of "good" that you yourself cannot account for. A theoretical morality, that even God Himself would be subordinate to. <-- But that would mean God is not omnipotent.
Yeah? Prove that, if you can. How do you know?There is no higher standard of morality than God alone.
You don't seem to be able to account for goodness yourself.Because you assume we're using "goodness" as a separate metaphysical descriptive. We are not. You cannot even account for moral "good" without God. Even the presuppositionalists get that.
Because you're the one who said you could resolve Euthyphro's Dilemma. All you've managed to do so far is say "Goodness is commanded by God because God is goodness. How? Why? It just is, that's why."^ I'm never allowed to get away with that dodge. What makes you so special?
Actual logic, yes. People playing silly word games, no.Logic is the biggest game in town. It's a game with rules. Either you're in or out.
It doesn't work like that.No. If you accept logic as universal, then the modus ponens and PSR put you through the wringer. You're more than welcome to reject logic to escape God, but that's a heavy price you don't want to pay. Logic is math-based. Proof is exclusive to math. Thus, the modus ponens is not only valid, but also sound.
Well, yes.^ Circular argument. If logic is invented, then there would be no reason to invent it in the first place. You're claiming that there was a time when no reason existed. . .for no reason.
Nonsense. Again: Logic is simply us observing ways in which the universe works.In which case, you're equivocating logic itself. Bad move.
You should think more about it. You seem to be determined to believe that descriptive laws are prescriptive.^ Is that a typo? Because that's actually my line.
Well, the universe isn't a computer program, so there we are."If program, then programmer." If the universe is a computer program, then it logically follows that there is a programmer.
Why?If the cosmos appears ordered, then it logically follows that there is an Orderer. etc.
I said:Why does your special pleading have to come into this?
That's exactly what you claimed. Your whole argument is based on trying to prove logically that the only possible cause for the universe is a deliberate act by a conscious entity. So yes, if you want us to believe that, you do have to prove that there cannot logically be any other option.Which I refuted. There is no such thing as a determined indeterminate. You people are just contradicting yourselves. I never claimed a negative, "that there cannot logically be another option," and I don't have to prove a negative. You're welcome.
The universe is "just here." That is not open to question. As yet, I have no explanation for its existence.I literally said the fallacy of begging the question. Quote: "You're more than welcome to imply the universe is "just there" without explanation, as a question-begging fallacy."
"I don't know" is never the answer to anything? Are you serious?1. Claiming the statement, "We don't yet know why," and then claiming that this statement is equivalent to the determinate answer is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. IOW, "I don't know" is never the answer for anything. It's like taking an exam and filling out all the write-in answers with "I don't know," and then expecting your teacher to give you a passing grade. Ridiculous.
Don't try being a mind-reader.2. You should at the very least feel some purely rational frustration with the universe begging the question of its own existence. But you don't, because the logical fallacy makes you feel good about being an atheist. You just have to wake up every morning and force it on the rest of the world as-if it were rational, when it really isn't.
You can keep saying it all you like, but that doesn't make it true.Logic stacks. MUH is rational. <-- The wider reality that governs material nature is unfalsifiable. Supernature is rational.
It would be nice if you were, but truthfully, your arguments are so shallow it's boring to keep explaining them.Only objective refutations count. This isn't about your will. Any moron can "nuh-uh" their way out of a jam. I'm holding you to a higher standard than that.
Perhaps it's because I know how to do it and you don't.*ahem* "Nuh-uh!" <-- Did the magic work? Or is it just when you do it?
Evidence is objective, but you seem to have an extremely subjective view on what counts as evidence.- You're not the judge of what is "good" evidence and what isn't. Flaws in evidence can only be submitted as objective flaws. Not subjective flaws.
- Evidence is objective; not subjective. So your subjective assessments never count.
- You have cited no objective flaws in the causal argument. Assertions without evidence to the contrary don't count. "Flawed" is not a magic word that creates real flaws.
Conceding, for the moment, that the universe has a cause, we now come to the question: what was that cause?Yet you are admitting "cause." <-- The deductive proof follows from there.
Again: if you want me to believe that God is real, you have to give some reason for why I should think so. Just as if I want you to believe that there is a teapot orbiting Pluto, I have to give you a reason to believe rather than just "you can't prove there isn't."No. They're all materialistic empirical claims; every one of them. And they always come around every generation or so to replace the old tired-out one that preceded it.
That was supposed to be significant in some way? I feel underwhelmed.Hold up. Pay attention here and don't skim-past this: The definition of terms is always necessary before proof can even be demonstrated. I agree with igtheists and ignostics. They are correct on one highly relevant detail you are missing here--the definition of "God." I only define "God" as an omnipotent being. Not, "The God of the Bible," because I'm not a presuppositionalist. The Bible is Special Revelation; not General Revelation in nature. Your definition of "god" or "god(s)" doesn't count here, because I'm accepting the burden of proof. So in the end, it's first definition of terms in the claim; then prove the claim.
You can look outside the universe and examine it? Goodness me. I'm impressed!^ Special pleading. You can examine the universe and see.
God can't be known "exhaustively"? How generous of you.The existence of "God" can obviously be examined when contrasted against a finite universe. Granted God cannot be known exhaustively, but that's not necessary, we already know enough that we are without excuse.
You never spoke a truer word?Then how do you know I'm even capable of making logical arguments to begin with? You've never seen any.
Sigh.Why contradict yourself? You reject law of causality. You reject modus ponens. You reject PSR. You reject pretty much all the logic that I'm appealing to. You think appeal to ignorance is "the answer" for literally everything. You think gainsaying is rational. You think logic is invented without the prior existence of logic itself (quack-quack). You essentially reject law of identity. You think an indeterminate is a determinate claim. Need I go on? I think it's pretty clear where the misology really comes from here.
You are already.What a convenient loophole you discovered! Since your "internet disability" doesn't allow external (neutral POV) verification, then this means I can pretty much ignore everything you argue on those very same grounds.
There. That wasn't so hard, was it?I'll copypaste it in the next post, but then you can then immediately move the goalposts and reject it because you can't verifiy it for certain that Harris wrote it, or that I didn't doctor the contents.
That was your big argument? An amusing conjecture that Sam Harris says "gave him pause for a moment" and "is not an entirely serious conjecture"?Should We Be Mormons in the Matrix?
by Sam Harris
April 20, 2011
Should We Be Mormons in the Matrix? | Sam Harris
Many people have noticed that there seem to be no new arguments for the truth of any of the world’s religions. I recently stumbled upon one, however, and it has given me a moment’s pause.
The Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom has argued that our entire cosmos could be running as a simulation on a supercomputer of the future. This, needless to say, is a bizarre claim, but it can be defended with a few surprisingly plausible assumptions:
Bostrom’s first premise is that human consciousness is the product of information processing in the brain. If this is correct, there is probably nothing magical about having the wet stuff of neurons doing the work, and it should be possible to instantiate minds like our own on a computer. Human consciousness, therefore, would be platform independent.
There are smart people who will leap off this train before it leaves the station—the mathematical physicist Roger Penrose thinks that consciousness cannot be the result of mere computation; the computer scientist David Gelernter* believes that consciousness is a matter of computation, but there must be something special about biological neurons. However, these appear to be minority opinions in the scientific community. The assumption that minds like our own could, in principle, be realized on a computer seems to be on reasonably firm ground.
Bostrom’s second assumption is that if we survive the next few centuries without annihilating ourselves, it is just a matter of time before we build computers capable of running virtual worlds populated by virtual people. Our descendants will likely do this, the way we create video games like The Sims. They might create virtual worlds where simulated ancestors live in circumstances very much like our own. In his paper, Bostrom justifies this assumption using known principles of computation and without assuming any breakthroughs in physics.
Given these premises—that human consciousness is purely the product of computation; that our computing power will continue to grow; and that our descendants will build simulated worlds—it seems tempting to conclude that simulated people will eventually outnumber all the real people who have ever lived. Statistically, therefore, it is more likely that we are simulated ancestors, living in a simulated world, rather than real ancestors of the real, supercomputing people of the future.
This is, of course, a very strange idea. And here is my own contribution: add to this strangeness the possibility that the supercomputing people of the future will build into their virtual worlds the truth of Mormonism, or some other faith that seems like it could not possibly be true at present. In which case, we may, in fact, be living in a world in which Jesus will return on clouds of glory to judge the living and the dead. Perversely, this could be a self-fulfilling prophecy: given how beguiled people have been by religious mythology throughout our history, our descendants might engineer specific religious doctrines into their virtual worlds just for the hell of it.
Of course, this is not an entirely serious conjecture, but it is not entirely unserious either. It isn’t obvious to me that there is something wrong with Bostrom’s simulation argument. It really does seem that one of these propositions must be true: Either (1) consciousness is not a matter of computation and cannot be simulated, or (2) we never do simulate it as a matter of fact (perhaps because we destroy ourselves in the interim), or (3) we stand a good chance of living in a simulation—to which I add a theological twist: This simulated cosmos might be every bit as ridiculous as Joseph Smith said it was.
* [Note: A reader, Graham Warner, has pointed out that my original inclusion of the philosopher John Searle along with David Gelernter was misleading, and I agree. Searle often argues that “information” and “computation” do not exist in the real world, the way synapses and electrical potentials do, and this view leads him to resist any description of the human mind as the product of “information processing” or of the brain as a biological “computer.” However, Searle does not actually deny that consciousness could be instantiated on a nonbiological “computer” that emulated all the causal properties of the human brain.]
Again: how much Paul loved Onesimus is quite beside the point. The point is, he sent the runaway slave back to his master.That is, in fact, the entire point. You don't love a mere slave as "my son" (verse 10). As his own heart (verse 12). As a beloved brother (verse 16). You're blind to the love, man.
...
As a brother, wanting Philemon to accept Onesimus, no longer as a slave but more than a slave—a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
You keep using that word in the wrong way.Boom. Your cherrypicking here is done.
You're right. Paul didn't violate any law. He sent a runaway slave back to his master. That was the wrong thing to do; Paul should have simply helped to free the runaway slave. But Paul was pro-slavery, so instead he entreated the slave's master to free him, out of the love he bore them both.As slaves. Paul did not violate any law. Onesimus was emancipated at his salvation, his status changed, and returned to Philemon as a "slave no longer" - Philemon 1:16 You're now doubling-down and accusing a "Hebrew of the Hebrews" and a Pharisee of blatantly violating Deuteronomy 23:15-16. I was waiting for when you'd throw Paul under the bus. No surprise.
But the HCSB translation's heading is a later inerpolation. The original verses are talking about how you should behave when you attack an enemy, and one of the things they say is that any slaves escaping the enemy should not be returned.Deuteronomy 23:15-16 does not say, "slave from the enemy you're attacking. . ." Now you're desperately trying to add more specific context than is even in the verse. The HCSB translation even heads the passage RE: "Fugitive Slaves." Doesn't matter where they originated. It's all slaves in-general. Direct verbatum quote:
Not at all. It's simply what the Bible says. All you have to do is read it.There is no extra "enemy" context in that passage. You added "enemy" to it and made it your own imaginary "context."
It's in the context, something you really should try to familiarise yourself with.*reading*
1. It doesn't say, "And do not return said aforementioned enemy slaves to his master when he has escaped from his master to you."
Uh...no.Escape would necessarily happen at home, after the slave has been taken back and/or sold to a master. In war, they're just a POW. They're not a slave yet, because none of the soldiers have been decommissioned to civilian duty.
Because if you're attacking a people it benefits you if their slaves run away from them. Why would you aid the enemy by returning their resources to them?Why would enemy slaves get an exemption exclusive only to foreigners, but not a native-born Hebrew?
Nope,
Again, those verses don't mean what you think they mean. Read them in context. They're just talking about strangers who happen to be visiting you.there's only one law, both for the stranger and the native. Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:22, and Numbers 15:16. You can't push a double-standard on the law of Moses.
At least they know how to read in context and draw reasonable conclusions based on what they read.19th century commentaries aren't canon either.
1-3 above have been fully addressed already.Then the commentator needs to address 1-3 above. How do I know this commentator didn't have a bias towards the Fugitive Slave Acts of the 1850s? I don't.
I'm totally within my rights to argue with these commentators, and it doesn't include all of them on that page either. There is no consensus that this was exclusive to just foreign captives. How can you be a slave when you're still a POW who hasn't been sold into slavery yet?
I've already shown that the bible is pro-slavery.His justification for Civil Rights from scripture. Not on his authority alone, but on his reliance of the Bible.
I have the greatest respect for Martin Luther King. If he was able to make people behave better by making them think that the Bible was against slavery, then good for him. But whether he actually believed it or not, he was wrong.Wow, you're becoming more Confederate every day! Way to throw MLK under the bus there, or should I say you just threw him in the back of it?
Of course it isn't. There are plenty of things that are part of our world that we don't expect to have in heaven.This is like saying Jesus is just fine with sin because He didn't abolish all sin while He was still alive, right then and there.
Where does he preach that?He's a double-standard heretic; preaching that some people are only 3/5ths Imago Dei.
Nonsense. Jesus and the aspostles were clear and direct on what was sinful. There are many examples of them being outspoken against sin, regardless of the consequences. If they had thought that slavery was sinful, you can be sure they would have said so. But they didn't. Instead, they praised it, and exhorted slaves to be obedient.To convert them. To keep the peace. Not because he was "pro-slavery." Listen, baby-killing abortionists exist. Just because I concede that fact, and allow them to live peacefully right next door to me doesn't make me "pro-choice." It's about priorities. Paul's priorities were clear in 1 Corinthians 2:2, "For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." Activism against Rome was illegal. Paul could not legislate against sin. <-- The gospel subverts it.
The part where you think it is a commandment to end slavery, rather than a commandment to be just and kindly masters to slaves.What part of, "do the same things," and, "giving up threatening" are you failing to comprehend here?
Read it again, and think about it a little more.Quote: "Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; 6 not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free."
9 And you, masters, do the same things to them, [in addition to] giving up threatening," <-- "Them" refers to the bondservants. Not other masters.
So to the masters, it would literally read as, "Masters, be obedient to those who are your bondservants according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; 6 not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free, in addition to giving up threatening."
No, that's a different form. This would be an argument using disjunction elimination:Click link, then see quote: "Classical proof theoretical treatments are often given in terms of rules such as disjunction introduction and disjunction elimination."
Then click, "disjunction elimination." <-- Because that's what I did.
Disjunction elimination
It's a compulsory rule for all arguments of any form that every premise must be true for the argument to be sound. SoundnessW00T! No specific, nor compulsory rule that requires proof of disjunctive statements before or after elimination.
No, that's a different form. This would be an argument using disjunction elimination:
@Moral Orel , it's a pleasure reading your dialogue with Paulomycin.
That was your big argument? An amusing conjecture that Sam Harris says "gave him pause for a moment" and "is not an entirely serious conjecture"?
It's a pure hypothetical. Interesting and amusing, no doubt, and worth a moment's read, but no more than that.
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?