Dang, I knew I shouldn't have trashed that old refrigerator.

So now that we are both right, can we be friends?

__________________

Liberals believe it is okay to kill babies, but not terrorists.

democrats believe it is okay to taser a 10 year old if this stance will get their guy elected.

Sure, I'll bake us some cookies!

I'll bring the Tequila.

__________________

Liberals believe it is okay to kill babies, but not terrorists.

democrats believe it is okay to taser a 10 year old if this stance will get their guy elected.

Because this thread is about logical arguments that prove absolutes that cannot be absolutely proved, there is no real basis of "proof" to rely upon. In the realm of absolutes you delve into ideology and you can use whatever proof you want to substantiate your argument but it doesn't make it 100% right. You are only confirming your belief amongst those who believe like you.

My argument is basically this, there is no proof of God nor is there proof of his non-existence. What you are arguing is that God either does or doesn't exist using philosophical/logical arguments that have no existing proofs. Its essentially a black and white issue that I take case with because its not a matter of "proving" existence or non-existence, rather its about believing.

So no matter how you try to spin it, religiously, scientifically, philosophically, logically... whatever, you are playing a zero-sum game that adds up to one side winning and the other losing. Essentially, unless you can basically prove the other side is completely wrong, you lose in the realm of an argument substantiated by proofs. All you are doing is meddling with ideologies wether atheism or monotheism.

__________________
Signature:

You sounded very intelligent in that post, I think we had come to that conclusion but neither of actually sounded like we knew what we were talking about. So thank you for proving that I was right.

__________________

Liberals believe it is okay to kill babies, but not terrorists.

democrats believe it is okay to taser a 10 year old if this stance will get their guy elected.

Yeah, I read all your posts and I realized that I basically just said what you guys came to the conclusion to in much simpler words and shorter time.

Sorry for the over-statement.

__________________
Signature:

I see your point, but what you are in effect doing is summarily dismissing all logical arguments on the subject. As far as I'm concerned, you cannot do that. If you want to say an argument is wrong, you have to prove it by finding flaws in the argument itself, not by a blanket statement that all discussion on the topic is pointless.

Also, I believe that you can prove things through logical arguments alone. That was the basis for most of Einstein's theories. If you had a logical argument that disproved God, and it was sound enough that no one could object to it, you would prove the other side completely wrong. I think that's a good enough reason to continue the discussion.

What over-statement? I seriously was impressed! I'd give you rep points for it but it seems they limit how much you can give out. Actually, some of your other posts ticked me off and I thought I was going to have a new arch-nemesis but I now think you are someone that has reason.

__________________

Liberals believe it is okay to kill babies, but not terrorists.

democrats believe it is okay to taser a 10 year old if this stance will get their guy elected.

Oh dear Mas' did I let you down in the nemesis stake's as well

Ps what time is it with you?

__________________
None. Mod edit to remove profanity. Fools to the left of me, Jokers to the right, here I am stuck up the middle of you!
"Some people have recurrent behavior issues" Catz, proof please?

Not all Religion is a load of bollocks,The United Church of the Latter Day Tangental Tarts is moist yet crisp

Im a Tart, What! you want some of this

I don't dismiss logical arguments, I just don't believe they summarily qualify as an absolute proof. Now I don't know much about Einstein, so I won't pretend I do. My only problem with your logic is that A logical argument that can't be disproven doesn't necessarily make it right. It may be a good argument because of other people's ignorance. In fact, many of Einstein's theories (from what little I know) were good logical arguments using standard physics, but were disproven in the field of quantum physics. So another example would be Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica proof for God that was accepted as fact for centuries because his argument couldn't be disproven. It was literally like a Supreme Court Case when being referenced by theologians.

Its just that when dealing with absolutes, I don't believe one logical argument will win the day. That's not to say discussion is pointless, I do think we need discussion, but to assume that there will be a winner at the end of this post I think is highly unlikely, if not down-right impossible. There is just too many arguments on either side that either won't be addressed or won't be analyzed thoroughly since its SUCH a complex question not to mention the answer... which I actually believe is 42.

and @ Mas Tequila, thank you very much for the nice comments. I see myself and you having some heated discussions in the future, but I am far more reasonable than some of my "BUSH IS AN IDIOT" counterparts

__________________
Signature: