You walk away from an argument without a word, and then you come back four and a half days later as if nothing had happened? I'd given up on you days ago. Luckily, I spend way too much time at the computer, so I noticed you anyway.


>This is what you said:
>
>We're talking philosophy
>>>>here, nobody is "wrong."
>
>The first rule in philosophy (logical truth-value) disagrees
>with what you said.

I don't know where you studied philosophy, but as far as I know, philosophy is bigger than logic, and logic is much bigger than buzzwords.

>>But seriously, you argue that if you say God exists, and I
>>say God doesn't exist, then one of us must be wrong. That
>>statement is simply . . . um, what's the word? . . . wrong.
>
>that was stupid and unnecessary.

Well, stupidity is in the eye of the beholder. And apparently it was necessary, since we're still arguing the point.

>>First of all, neither of us has defined what we mean by
>>"God."
>
>Here's mine:
>
>the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and
>omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the
>universe.

Great! Progress! Before there was one ill-defined buzzword. Now there are eight.

> Second, neither of us has defined what we mean by
>>"existence."
>
>I think, therefore I am.

Cute, but useless in the present context. We're not talking about your existence here. We're talking about God's.

>Third, neither of us has defined what we mean
>>by "truth."
>
>Exact accordance with that which is.

Come on, now. You're just using the word "is" as a surrogate for the word "truth." You haven't defined either one.

>Is a true statement provable in principle, not
>>disprovable in principle, verifiable in principle, not
>>unverifiable in principle?
>
>Nothing is provable by principle.

That's almost true. There are actually all sorts of things which are provable not only in principle, but in fact with a great deal of ease. Open up Euclid and you'll see a long list of such things. However these things are not very profound in a religious sense. So I think I agree with you that provability is not an acceptable standard of truth. It is too restrictive.

>I cannot prove to you
>that there is a God, but the question of God's existence is
>either in accordance with that which is or it is not.

Again, you have not defined "that which is." And since you have not defined truth, you have also not been able to justify your assumption that a boolean logic is relevant. Believe it or not, there are consistent logics out there which are not as trivial as "is or is not."

>I
>believe there is a God and do not see any reason for living
>if there is not.

Sounds to me like you lead a very sad life. I'm sorry.

>>Logic is a serious business. People shouldn't attempt to
>>use it as a weapon until they are sure they can handle it.
>
>If this was an ambiguous reference in my general direction,
>I do not care.

Not just you. It was a reference to all those people who think they can use childish tricks of pseudo-logic to justify their FAITH. There is nothing wrong with faith. You said yourself that God's existence cannot be proven. More precisely, it cannot be proven without axioms, nor can it be disproven. We all need to choose our own axioms. You choose to assume God exists, I do not. I'm happy to admit that your view is probably just as valid as my own, as far as logic is concerned. You, on the other hand, repeatedly seem to imply that we are being illogical, yet you have never been precise enough to point out where.

>>>>The common bond among all humans is pretty clear from
>>>>ordinary experience. If I see a dude on the sidewalk, walk
>>>>up and crack him in the jaw, he'll crack me right back.
>>>
>>>Are you sure?
>>
>>As sure as I need to be.
>
>So you aren't sure.

As sure as I need to be.

>>>>It's better for all of us, including me, if I just smile and
>>>>keep walking.
>>>>
>>>>The "common bond" among all of humanity is that we're all
>>>>stuck here together. We have to cooperate, or rather, in
>>>>the long run, we want to cooperate.
>>>
>>>So your morality is a based on your own survival?
>>
>>Not only that. My own happiness and well-being, those of
>>the people I care about, etc.
>
>>>I don't
>>>believe you. Would you rather walk up to the dude and crack
>>>him in his jaw than keep walking?
>>
>>Why would I? Maybe that lack of inclination bothers you.
>
>Not really. You could be lying.

Pretty weak. You hear something you can't accept, so you shut your eyes, plug your ears, and say it isn't so.

>>Okay, let's not talk about cracking a dude in the jaw, let's
>>talk about stealing his wallet. Sure, I might like to have
>>that money in the dude's wallet, but I know it comes at a
>>serious price. If I was to take the wallet, first I run the
>>risk that he might notice me and retaliate. But more
>>importantly, if I was to steal the man's wallet, I would be
>>contributing to a society in which I do not want to live.
>>If I take the man's wallet, I am inviting him, or others, to
>>take mine. Or even if they don't do that, they would at
>>least lose trust in me, and lock me up for their own
>>protection. My fear is not that God would judge me, it's
>>that society would judge me, and that I would judge myself.
>
>And what basis would you or society judge you on?

Nobody's around to ask them to have a "basis." They can come up with their own, they already have.

>>>I was an atheist... I know atheists are not childish.
>>
>>You say you don't think atheists are childish, but you also
>>said that there is no reason an atheist should care if the
>>world continued to exist or not. Those statements, it seems
>>to me, are contradictory.
>
>Throughout the duration of this argument, you have given me
>no reason to think otherwise.

? So you agree that those statements are contradictory?

>>>I
>>>just couldn't ever answer the "childish" question when I was
>>>one.
>>
>>So you distrust all other atheists because you weren't
>>successful at it yourself.
>
>No. That's not what I said at all.

I was playin'.

>>But that's the thing. I'm not validating a damn thing! On
>>the contrary, I'm the one saying those acts are despicable.
>>Not because God told me so, just because it's clear to me.
>
>But you stated their actions are as validated as your own
>previously. Are you going back on this statement?

I did not say that. I said that if there is no God, then God won't invalidate them. We, however, will.

>>>Then we have no right to judge them.
>>
>>Why not? I'll do all the judging I want. God sure isn't
>>gonna stop me.
>
>No, He's not. It's your choice.

Okay, so you agree that I'm not validating anyone's crimes.

>>>I'm not
>>>asking for justification from God... right now, I'm simply
>>>arguing the point that a Rwandan genocide is wrong. If you
>>>honestly believe their actions are as valid as your own (as
>>>you just stated), I simply do not believe you. peace,
>>
>>Again, that is the opposite of what I said! I made a point
>>of saying what they did was wrong, and that they deserve to
>>be judged, and punished. And again, I am the one saying it!
>> I'm not leaving the judgement up to some space alien that I
>>"believe" to exist.
>
>OK. Go back. You literally said that their beliefs were as
>valid as your own. Now you are going back on this.

I did not say that, literally or figuratively. You're welcome to "go back" yourself if you like. If I'm able to say that I exist without assuming I was produced by a conscious creator, I can just as easily say that morality exists without a conscious creator.

>Also, you said that your morality is based on your own
>survival... what is the point of survival without God?

I'm getting a kick out of it so far.