wiegraf:

Lol

This thread requires anony

Yeah, brah.. Miss that guy sha.

aManFromMars: That reminds me...

@Uyi, does gravity exist in our minds?

We might not require anony afterall....

Logicboy03:



fool,

you make claims then tell me to prove the claims.



What are the disputes in logic?

Numerous. You think certain things are logical; other people think they arent.

wiegraf:

You're still playing with words and false dichotomies. Anyone who thinks I am foo.lish for stating that the guy who jumped in front of the truck was foo.lish, is foo.lish, undeniably so. Considering the objective is clear, the solution glaring, and the actual solution chosen completely counter productive and backed by silly reasoning, our jumper was clearly foo.lish. There are no ambiguous axioms involved in this situation, unlike the picture you're trying to paint. This particular situation is like saying false is true, or 1 + 1 = 3. Simple.

However, you're close to my argument. Consciousness relies on emotions to set goals, emotions are not necessarily rational. So undoubtedly, I've relied on foo.lish notions at one time or the other to set/achieve goals. With god being the perfect consciousness, and consciousness being intrinsically foo.lish, then god is the perfection of folly, no?



No, I'm saying going by your definition, everyone makes up their own rules.

Everyone is making up their own rules, including you. It isnt me that made it so.

Why should everyone follow your rules on logic?

Why should you be the one to define logic for the world?

Mr Troll:
Bros, I think you are seriously fooolish but I'll try one last time.

Evidence/Facts make belief true. How? Listen...

I say I am a man, you say prove it. I provide a picture. Of course the picture can be falsified, but then, it is now on you to show how the picture is false. If you cannot do that then we have to assume that the picture is genuine until proven otherwise. That then shows that the evidence of my picture proves my belief to be true that I'm a man. Kapisce?

Its simple man, you just want to be fooolish. You have a brain, when you make a claim you have to prove it true or nobody will take you serious. I leave you to logicboy, there's only so much foolishness I can tolerate from one person. You've been jumping from one post to another, trying to shift the burden of proof, failing that then creating false dichotomies and asking asinine questions. I don tire for your nonsense.

You are saying a falsified "evidence" makes a belief true if the forgery is not proved.

If you are a woman and you produce a fake picture showing you to appear like a man but no one has proved it is fake, the picture makes you a man?

And you call me foolish?

Lol.

@italo

My point is beliefs are not neceesarily true for being contents of thought simpliciter.

However what makes beliefs true, is how they represent reality.

Kay 17: @italo

My point is beliefs are not neceesarily true for being contents of thought simpliciter.

However what makes beliefs true, is how they represent reality.

One man's "reality" is another man's "illusion."

So who defines reality?

Atheists?

italo:

Everyone is making up their own rules, including you. It isnt me that made it so.

Why should everyone follow your rules on logic?

Why should you be the one to define logic for the world?

You didn't make 1+1=2

wiegraf:

You didn't make 1+1=2

Dont pretend you dont know I was talking about logic.

Why should every one follow your own rules and definition of logic?

^^^

Don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about when I say this is objective.

There are no ambiguities here, else, please show which bits are subjective

wiegraf: ^^^

Don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about when I say this is objective.

There are no ambiguities here, else, please show which bits are subjective

I dont know what you are talking about.

What is objective?

^^

We're discussing the perfect foo.lishness of the great one, god??!!

Many people think God is all-wise.

Why should you be listened to?

^^^

Logic. Objective, unless you can point out where it's subjective.


And I've proofs other than that one actually. Ultimately, your god??!! could be all-wise, but it must be also be all-foo.lish. Or are you saying an all-wise being does not know how to be all-foo.lish?

wiegraf: ^^^

Logic. Objective, unless you can point out where it's subjective.


And I've proofs other than that one actually. Ultimately, your god??!! could be all-wise, but it must be also be all-foo.lish. Or are you saying an all-wise being does not know how to be all-foo.lish?

Those who think God is all-wise also point to objective logic.

Why should be subjected to your definition of objective logic?

italo:

Those who think God is all-wise also point to objective logic.

Why should be subjected to your definition of objective logic?

Can you show it is subjective, rather than claim it is so?

Again, you're conflating issues. I've provided solid mathematical proofs for my assertions, nothing subjective here

Logic doesnt work for Italo so here is a simple way of destroying his notions about god:

Italo, enumerate 3 reasons why you disbelieve in the toothfairy (3 short sentences)

wiegraf:

Can you show it is subjective, rather than claim it is so?

Again, you're conflating issues. I've provided solid mathematical proofs for my assertions, nothing subjective here

I am hardly making any claims.

Most of what I am doing is ASKING.

Why should the world be subjected to YOUR view of "objective logic" when their view of it is different.

You say 2+2=4 is proof of your position.

They say 2+2=4 is proof of their position.

Why should I believe you rather than they?

Logicboy03: Logic doesnt work for Italo so here is a simple way of destroying his notions about god:

Italo, enumerate 3 reasons why you disbelieve in the toothfairy (3 short sentences)

I will answer when you answer my question which you ran away from.

What are those laws and principles of logic that make one man logical and the other illogical?

italo:

I am hardly making any claims.

Most of what I am doing is ASKING.

Why should the world be subjected to YOUR view of "objective logic" when their view of it is different.

You say 2+2=4 is proof of your position.

They say 2+2=4 is proof of their position.

Why should I believe you rather than they?

Aha, but it's objective logic. It isn't mine, or yours, it's objective. Unless you can show otherwise.

2 + 2 is 4 everywhere, yes?

italo:

I will answer when you answer my question which you ran away from.

What are those laws and principles of logic that make one man logical and the other illogical?

Simple the kaws of logic

Identity
Non contradiction
Excluded middle.




There are also fallacies to avoid
Circular argument
Non sequitur ie ‘does not follow’
Reductio ab absurdum
False equivalence

Etc




So when someone tells me that his god is real because his holy book says so, i point out the obvious circular argument he is making. A fallacy

wiegraf:

Aha, but it's objective logic. It isn't mine, or yours, it's objective. Unless you can show otherwise.

2 + 2 is 4 everywhere, yes?

Yes.

But your views of God and objective logic are not the same everywhere.

Logicboy03:


Simple the kaws of logic

Identity
Non contradiction
Excluded middle.




There are also fallacies to avoid
Circular argument
Non sequitur ie ‘does not follow’
Reductio ab absurdum
False equivalence

Etc




So when someone tells me that his god is real because his holy book says so, i point out the obvious circular argument he is making. A fallacy

When you say man evolved from fish because a science journal says so.

Thats circular reasoning too.

When you say it is logical because logic says so, thats circular reasoning too.

italo:

But your views of God are not the same everywhere.

True

italo:

objective logic are not the same everywhere.

False

2 + 2 = 4 is objective logic for instance


........and those are not my views. Logic--logic ♪ ~~~~ logic LoGIC ♪♫

italo:

When you say man evolved from fish because a science journal says so.

Thats circular reasoning too.

When you say it is logical because logic says so, thats circular reasoning too.

This guy is not serious.

That has never been the explanation of human evolution and its evidence. Thre is fossil evidence and dna evidence to prove evolution- not just because it is in a science journal.


Your question has been duly answered, now answer mine

Logicboy03: Logic doesnt work for Italo so here is a simple way of destroying his notions about god:

Italo, enumerate 3 reasons why you disbelieve in the toothfairy (3 short sentences)

italo:

When you say man evolved from fish because a science journal says so.

Thats circular reasoning too.

When you say it is logical because logic says so, thats circular reasoning too.

Imagine who as talking to. Mcheew!

italo:

You are saying a falsified "evidence" makes a belief true if the forgery is not proved.

If you are a woman and you produce a fake picture showing you to appear like a man but no one has proved it is fake, the picture makes you a man?

And you call me foolish?

Lol.

You are too foolish italo. How do you know the picture is fake? How did you determine that I was a woman who provided a mans picture? Do you think you can just wish evidence into reality like your god?
I'm done with you man.

italo:

One man's "reality" is another man's "illusion."

So who defines reality?

Atheists?

I will let you know what deteremines reality/truth, you have to follow me keenly.

1. We can't make sense out of contradictions within a context, we can't accept a yes is the same as a no within the same context.

2. By following the above, all beliefs cannot be true, because contradictory beliefs are necessarily false.

3. Hence we must accept the reality of truths.

Any objections?

Mr Troll: Imagine who as talking to. Mcheew!

You are too foolish italo. How do you know the picture is fake? How did you determine that I was a woman who provided a mans picture? Do you think you can just wish evidence into reality like your god?
I'm done with you man.

So if a lie is not proved to be a lie, it becomes true?

Kay 17:

I will let you know what deteremines reality/truth, you have to follow me keenly.

1. We can't make sense out of contradictions within a context, we can't accept a yes is the same as a no within the same context.

2. By following the above, all beliefs cannot be true, because contradictory beliefs are necessarily false.

3. Hence we must accept the reality of truths.

Any objections?

No.

@italo

Continuation;

Now we are faced with identifying what's true beliefs from false one, it becomes obvious there are self evident truths like your existence, laws of thought/logic, mathematical truths.

Agree?

Kay 17: @italo

Continuation;

Now we are faced with identifying what's true beliefs from false one, it becomes obvious there are self evident truths like your existence, laws of thought/logic, mathematical truths.

Agree?

You could say so...even though some scientists would tell you that you dont really exist so there is really no math or logic.

Some scientists say...

italo:

You could say so...even though some scientists would tell you that you dont really exist so there is really no math or logic.

Some scientists say...

You ran away from my last post