luckydog1
Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006 Status: offline
|
Well I am back from a weekend of no internet, no cell phones, and paryting out in the woods. Glad others ran with the ball while I was gone. Cl you said" I'm going to let the "if God will die"/validity-of-statistics argument go.. I'm not sure if we're willing and able to come to an agreed conclusion on it. For the proof part, though, the proof's saying that, since God can't be immortal, but part of his definition is that he is immortal, he can't exist by definition, making him defined as fictional. (Being the conclusion of the proof, that God isn't real.) This is exactly error B. You have never proved that God is Immortal (nor even prooved that Christianity does, they use the different word "eternal" perhaps in your made up language they are the same, but they are not in the real world). You statistical sample of life, other than what we have observed on our world is ZERO. You have no statstistical argument at all. You have no Data whatsoever to use, yet claim a result as Fact. Any person would laugh at your assertion of a conclusion from a data set of zero. This is Error B in all its glory. I am glad you have admittted that it is the crux of your argument. It is simply your opinion, and not a valid proof of anything. It would get you a F in any logic class. I see why you have to use a made up language (that avoids any need for review of your arguments rather nicely) to pretend to be smarter than us poo flinging apes ( ironically I scored 2 points below Genius on my IQ test also), while being unable to answer simple direct questions to your argument. That such a certified expert as a HS guidance councilor says you are a super genious means not much to me. You have more than once in here stated that only people with something to lose (thoelogians or faithful) could disagree with you. But it is obvious to most everyone here that you have far more to lose than either of them. Consider the possibility that people do not get your arguments or like you not because you are so smart, but because you are arrogant and not very smart at all(strawmen arguments and error B come on). You have much to lose in admitting error. Which is why you have been afraid to adress my direct questions to you. You have a data set of zero on the make up and charactaristics of non corpreal beings, yet pretend you have a ststistical argument that they must die. Not a fact or valid premise, pure opinion on your part. For the proof part, though, the proof's saying that, since God can't be immortal, but part of his definition is that he is immortal, he can't exist by definition, making him defined as fictional. (Being the conclusion of the proof, that God isn't real.) So the premise of your agrument is "I said so, and I am a super genious, my HS councilor said so". Not much of a proof at all.
< Message edited by luckydog1 -- 5/28/2007 12:14:01 PM >
|