Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e8vlkF35kp4bU1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e7cq6F37i0c2U1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e2936F36t2tdU1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e0mm5F35klmiU1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5dvbepF36df09U1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:objj73d97s7ta8aj1ljjugje6fl695rnpf@4ax.com...
'No X' (whatever the proposition in question) is the only
reasonable default presumption (that which is reasonably
taken for granted by default) in any case.
So .. come on then .. don't be shy sipp .. Is it impossible
for any god to exist?
Define god.
Who are you?
The one who asked you to define that which you ask
me to declare impossible.
Anyway .. are You saying that you cannot say it is impossible
for any god to exist, because you don't know what god is?
You've got to define what it is you're asserting before we can
discuss further details.
So if we don't know that its impossible,
What's not impossible?
it might well be possible
What might be possible?
(note: that is
not saying definitely that a god DOES exists, only that we
don't know its impossible)
You haven't defined what you mean by god.
I can certainly declare that what the Judeo-Christian cults
have defined as "god" is utterly impossible. Is that the god
you are referring to?
No .. I was referring to any god.
Define "any god".
You pick whichever definition you like.
Pick from what assortment?
Any and every god.
Any and every god posited by man? OK, they'll all a laughable
fallacy.
I didn't say they had to be limited gods that man has previously
claimed existed
What other god(s) have been proposed then?
But the point is .. BEFORE you pick .. can you say that it is
impossible for any god to exist?
Any posited by man? Yep.
I didn't say they had to be limited gods that man has previously
claimed existed
What other god(s) have been proposed then?
The answer .. of course you can't.
The answer is you can't posit one that does exist.
How do you know?
Because you haven't, and you are seriously deluded.
And after you pick .. it depends on how you define what 'god' means,
and what 'exists' means, and what evidence or logical argument there
is.
Why do you digress into utterly meaningless sophistry?
Why do you ask pointless questions?
In some cases, one can say a particular god can be shown not to
exist.
Yep, those particular gods proposed by man's superstition.
Yeup .. I'd say many of those could be shown not to exist .. perhaps
even all.
What other ones have been proposed?
And some definitions of god can be logically impossible to
exist.
Like the Jude-Christian god.
Yeup
For other cases, the best we can do is say that logically we
don't know,
For which cases? Like exactly.
Ones where the definition is not specific enough to specify
attributes or properties of a god tht we can test for.
Then it isn't a god, by definition.
One could say a god is a being with superior intelligence and
knowledge to any human.
Yet that isn't what any theologists assert, so some being merely smarter
and more knowledgable than man (how could they not be? LOL! )
isn't a god in the philosophical/theological discussion of the term.
We don't know that there may exists some
creature like that within our universe. Some may even say it is
fairly likely
One would hope so.
and make assumption of non-existence.
No assumption needed, if you can't/won't define it, then it is
meaningless to the topic at hand.
It's not my job to define god.
Yes, it is. You are making the assertion of existence, you bear
the obligation to define it.
It is the job of those putting
forward the case that "god exists"
Yep.
or "god doesn't exist"
That's the default starting point.
So you would agree, it seems, that one cannot correctly say that
the existence of any god is impossible.
If you define your terms, I can certainly answer it.
So you cannot say it is impossible?
What's not impossible?
Well .. looks like you are nicely proving my point, as you cannot
legitimately say it it is impossible for any god to exist.
Sure I can.
So without defining what god is .. you can legitimately say outright
that it is impossible. Nonsense.
If you can't define it, or won't define it, then you have NO WAY
to falsify my claim of impossibility.
Instead you have to ask for a good definition of it.
You're the one asserting existence,
No .. I'm not
Yes you are.
it's incumbent upon you to define the
characteristics of what you are asserting.
It's not my job to define god.
Yes it is.
It is the job of those putting
forward the case that "god exists"
Yep, and they have ALL been shown to be laughable fictions.
or "god doesn't exist"
That's the default starting point.
Thanks for showing my argument as being correct
Your "argument" is as bogus as the first time you uttered it.
Its as valid .. one cannot legitimately say "it is imposisble for any
god to exists"
Yes, one can, especially to a pettifoggin ninny who refuses to
define their purported god.
without a definition of what god is.
Then define it.
Similarly it is
not legitimate to say "god exists" withut a definition of what god is.
Exactly.
Indeed, it is the opposite .. it IS possible that some god
exists,
Not if you don't define what a "god" is.
That's is the whole point I am making .. how can you say it is
impossible for gods to exists .. or even that gods do not exists,
without an definition?
We can clearly state that the god(s) heretofore defined and
quantified by man DO NOT exist.
You have a list there of every definition of what a god?
You have an example of a god that lacks any definition or
characteristics?
Do you ? if you claim no god exists..
Wrong. I claim there is no god.
surely you must know what it
is you are talking about in order to be able to legitimately make
that claim.
All the heretofore asserted gods fabricated by superstitious mankind.
Or are you talking about particular examples of proposed gods (as
opposed to definitions of what a god is)?
Tell us your definition then.
It's not my job to define god.
Yes it is.
It is the job of those putting
forward the case that "god exists"
Yep.
or "god doesn't exist"
That's the default starting point.
Some say the sun is a god .. and it exists.
Yes, the sun exists, but it isn't a god.
How do you know?
Because I said so.
So your argument fails again.
No .. it doesn't
Yes it does.
If God is just a title,
Then it isn't a god.
How do you know .. why cannot "god" be a title .. like "king" or
"president".
Then it isn't a god as discussed by theologists.
then that means a sun god exists
Nope, doesn't exist now any more than it did when some superstitious
ignoramus proposed it.
If that is what "god" is defined to be .. then it exists.
Then it isn't a god relative to the modern day philosophical/theological
theme.
as soon as someone gives the sun the
title 'God'. Of course, you may not recognise the title.
You may not recognize rational argument.
You certianly don't
Sez the nutter who won't define what he's asserting as possible.
Perhaps we need to define 'God' as being conscious (which would
presumably rule out the sun).
Is there anyone who defines their god as being unconscious?
Those who worhip the sun worksip an unconscious entity .. pantheism
has a god that isn't really conscious.
Utterly irrelevant to the modern day theological discussion of god.
But the Egyptians claimed their
pharoah was a god .. and he was a conscious being.
Yet he clearly was a mortal human.
That dosen't mean he wasn't a god .. or does the deifnition of 'god'
have to necessitate "immortal" and/or "not human"
What religions assert that god is human?
It sounds like you already have an idea of what a god is or is not ..
as you seem to be abel to dismiss some gods as not really being gods
at all.
The idea came from those superstitious nincompoops who asserted god(s)
in the first place.
Or are you just redefining what 'god' means each time so you end up
defining it out of existence by only accepting definition for 'god'
that cannot exist?
It's up to the person asserting god to define it, that their definitions
have failed 100% throughout history is their problem.
It sounds like you're doing the same (but opposite) thing to what
theists do
Falsifying what theists do isn't the same as what theists do, unless
you are bat-***** crazy. Well, are you?
exactly due to the fact that I have not defined what god means.
I could define "god" to mean "rocks", and then gods exist.
No, rocks exist and fools like you call them god.
The fools are those who claim gods don't exists without even
knowing what they are talking about.
We are talking about the god(s) that have been asserted by man.
If you have some new definition of god you would like to be
disabused of, go ahead and post it.
I don't need to in order to make my argument.
Yes you do, otherwise you are arguing about nothing.
No .. I don't.
Yes, you are.
If you had enough brain to follow a simple argument,
you would see that. The extent of your logic seems to be
contradiction.
If you had enough of a brain to assert a cogent and logical argument
then perhaps people could follow it.
If it exists, it is possible.
Yet the Judeo-Christian god does not exist.
Irrelvant to the truth of the statement I made
What statement, exactly, are you referring to?
Dear oh dear .. please try to keep up .. the one that you responded
to above .. "If it exists, it is possible" .. that is true for
whatever "it" you choose.
So you are asserting that there is no god that has the power to
exist, yet is impossible? How can you be sure?
I am making a statement of logic ..
You assert that, but there is nothing logical about refusing to define
something that you assert as a probability/possibility.
regardless of what you apply it
to. But you wouldn't recognise logic.
Perhaps you should try some logic.
So it is possible that it is possible that
some god exists .. ie it is possible some god exists.
Not in any objective use of the word.
Do some reading on modal logic
Try applying some logic.
I am. You've not pointed out any flaws in the logic.
Without a definition of what's being asserted, there is nothing
to argue.
Dear dear .. how sad. You just completely miss the whole point. Do
you often have problems with comprehending things?
How often do you have problems communicating your ideas?
The point is, one cannot validly say that it is impossible for
there to be no gods UNLESS you have a working definition of what
'god' means.
And we have 100s of definitions throughout the record of human
religious history. All those posited so far are absurdities.
Absurd doesn't necessarily mean non-existent.
Absurd and non-existent. Go ahead an post the definition and
characteristics of this new god you want us to disprove.
What new god are you talking about?
A god that hasn't already been show to be a manmade fiction.
Sounds interesting .. tell me about it
You're the one making the assertion, you define it.
It not up to me to define god.
It is if you want to assert its existence.
I am NOT asserting its existence.
Then non-existence wins.
You're just confused again. Poor
thing.
Projecting again, eh?
That there isn't a good working definition of what a god is means
any further argument on your part is utterly vacuous.
You mean like every reply you have made
Arguing with yourself again?
one cannot say it is impossible.
Yes, one can.
Then you'd be deliberatley lying .. how can you say something is
impossible if you don't know whta it is?
Easy. Now to falsify my position, all you have to do is assert and define
a god that exists.
<cue crickets chirping>
Or do you claim to have knowledeg of what 'god' means
You tell me. If you won't/can't define it, then you can't falsify my
position of non-existence.
Go ahead -- insert your definition here.
Or do you have one?
That I (and you) do not know of any gods that exist, that does not
make the existence of all gods (with all possible definitions)
impossible
It makes the heretofore asserted gods laughably impossible.
That is not all possible gods.
Assert a god that exists then.
Its not my job to do so ..
Yes, it is.
if you want ot make claims that ift is
impossible for a god to exists. then you have to be able to back that
claim up
I have backed it up. Every god heretofore asserted by mankind has
been shown to be a laughable fiction. If you have some evidence of
a god that hasn't been disproven, then go ahead an post it. If not,
then you lose.
If you have some new definition of god, then go ahead and post it.
It not up to me to define god.
Yes it is if you are asserting existence.
I'm not .. so it isn't
You are ... so it is.
With a particular definition, one can then see if such a god is
impossible, or if possible, whether it actually exists.
Yep.
Sipp, however, continually says it is impossible for any god to
exist,
By the objective measure of what humans throughout history have
asserted to be the characteristics of god(s).
See above
by claiming that the logically correct conclusion from the
question of existence of gods, ie "because we have no evidence,
then as far as we know there might or might not be such a thing"
is wrong. You seem confused
Not at all
Further evidence of your confusion.
Try to keep up .. its a very simple logical proposition
No, its pettifoggery on your part.
Is a logical argument ..
No, it isn't.
not my fault if you lack the brains to
follow it
not my fault you can't posit a logical argument.
What, exactly, are you attempting to prove?
That one cannot say the existence of all gods (with all possible
definitions) is impossible.
Yet we can.
How can you . .when you don't know what god is
There is no god.
How do you know?
Been there, done that.
Whre is your proof .. what do you mean by "god"?
The proof is that all the gods ever asserted by man have been
shown to be an absurd fiction.
Now go ahead and assert a definition of god that
you claim exists.
I don't claim one exists.
Then there is nothing to argue about.
Yes there is ..
What?
there are your claims that you can legitimately say
that it is it impossible for any god of any definition to exist.
What definition are you asserting now?
Now .. if we can define what we mean by god (and existence), then
the issue can be addressed.
If you don't do that, the entire argument is utterly meaningless.
Thanks again for exactly proving my point.
Your point is that your argument is meaningless?
My point is that any argument that godsare impossible, or exist, is
pointless without a deifntion for wht a 'god' is.
And even the religious nutters are logical enough to define their god(s).
Only sophistic numbskulls like you refuse to define what it is
you claim exists or may exist.
Until then the (Huxley) Agnostic position
that we should reserve judgment and say that we don't know is
really the only logical response to such an ill defined question.
Yet we do know that all the heretofore asserted gods of man are
laughable fiction.
Have you disproved every example of a god ever produced?
I and/or other humans.
And what about the gods that have not yet been proposed?
Which gods are those?
No need to take the cowardly agnostic position on what we already
do know.
It's not cowardly .. its logical.
It's pure intellectual cowardice.
Its pure intellect .. something you lack
Sez the nutter who refuses to define what it is
he claims exists or may exist.
If there is no logical argument
that prove it is impossible for gods to exist,
For the gods defined by man, yes there is.
Show me all the defnitions of god ..
Google them, jackass.
and for each one show how it is
impossible for such an entity to exist
You can Google that too. No need to repost 1000s of
years of theological debate here.
then how can we say
that they don't? Or do you HAVE a logical argument that proves it is
impossible for gods to exist?
Sure, every god invented by man has been shown to be nothing but
superstitious fiction.
That does not answer the question
You haven't posited a proper question.
And please ensure you define what you
mean by 'god' and 'exists' in order to make that statement.
The definition and characteristics of any asserted god are the
obligation of the person making the assertion of existence.
And equally of the person saying that every god is impossible.
Then show me one, just one, that isn't.
LOL!
.
