>>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.
>
>I didn't walk away... I do a lot of shows. All apologies.

No problem. It was just a surprise.

>>>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.
>
>Logic is philosophy. Is this not clear?

Logic is a branch of philosophy; one of many. Theology is another branch of philosophy. Logic and theology are generally considered distinct (some would even say disjunct) fields of study.

>>>>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.
>
>What is unclear?

supernatural
being
perfect
omnipotent
omniscient
originator
ruler
universe

I don't ask you to define any of these concepts rigorously. In fact, I contend that to do so would be impossible, or at the very least unfulfilling. This is why theology is not the same thing as logic.

>>> 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.
>
>No, we're talking about "existence". Mine, yours and God's.

I don't remember doubting your existence, or my own. And I will point out that there are plenty of people out there who believe God "exists" without believing that he "thinks" in any sense like we do.

>>>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.
>
>Actually, you are completely wrong. That's a webster's
>definition.

Hahahahahaha! Webster was not a logician. You'll have to try harder than that. An assertion of synonymy can serve as a definition only if the synonym is itself well defined.

>>>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.
>
>Name one.

The pythagorean theorem is the first one which comes to mind.

>>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.
>
>OK.
>
>>>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 defined truth by a friggin dictionary. If you don't
>understand the dictionary's definition, I simply cannot help
>you. As far as your consistent logic argument, that is just
>a lie.

I advise you to close your friggin dictionary and open a fuckin encyclopedia. Look up "nonclassical logics", "modal logics", "quantum logic", "topos theory", "multivalent logics." You will see that I'm being quite honest. What is it with you always assuming that people are lying to you? Have some faith in your fellow man.

>>>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.
>
>Thanks, but I don't need pity. Having lived where an
>atheist lives and where I live now, I certainly pity the
>atheist.

Okay, let's leave it up to testimonials. I was raised a Christian. Looking back to "where a Christian lives", I pity the theist.

>>>>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.
>
>I have never used logic to prove or disprove God's existence
>throughout this entire conversation. I have used logic to
>prove that there either IS or IS NOT a God (one way or the
>other, it is a FACT that there either IS or IS NOT a God...
>do you disagree?).

I thought you said nothing could be proven, even in principle!?

And I resolutely disagree with your assertion that the subject matter of theology must conform to a bivalent logic. Even the physics of the real world does not conform to a bivalent logic. It seems pretty foolhardy to hold to this assumption in theology after it has failed in so many other contexts.

>You're reading way too into this simple
>equation. I'm not playing tricks.

You are criticizing other people's arguments on logical grounds, despite the fact that you clearly have a very shallow knowledge of the subject.

>>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.
>
>As far as logic is concerned, possibly yes. But we disagree
>in terms of rationality, and if "purpose in life" is a means
>for a valid premise in a logical equation, then I probably
>disagree with you on a logical level as well.
>
>>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.
>
>I just haven't heard an answer to the question of what the
>meaning of life is from your perspective... and you still
>haven't given me one. This is the only thing I've pointed
>out.

Okay, your only criticism of my argument is that I haven't told you "the meaning of life." Sorry, dude, I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Why don't you tell me what the meaning of life is "from your perspective."

>I'm not going to try and logically prove anything like God
>or love or air or existence. I can rationalize these things
>to a valid point, IMHO, but I will never be able to prove
>them.

Now you're making my argument.

>>>>>>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.
>
>If sure means, "certainly knowing or believing", then you
>are not sure, by definition.

I'm 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.
>
>You chose the word "maybe", which was weak to begin with. I
>chose the phrase "could be", which was the only appropriate
>response to your ambiguity.

It wasn't the ambiguity that bothered me. Indeed, it is my contention that a vast ambiguity is necessarily inherent in the subject matter. What bothers me is the fact that you are so quick to dismiss statements on the assumption that you are being lied to. Seems pretty paranoid.

>>>>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.
>
>Where does it come from?

Where do I come from? Where do you come from? Why assume that everything "comes from" something else. There are counterexamples.

>>>>>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?
>
>Some of the greatest existentialist thinkers in history
>didn't care whether or not the world existed, so no, those
>statements are not contradictory. See Nietzsche.

Let's not trivialize.

>>>>>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'.
>
>OK.
>
>>>>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.
>
>No, YOU may not be (and I don't believe you are a bad
>person), but your philosophy certainly lends itself to
>validate the crimes of others. If we live in a relativist
>world (which, if I'm not mistaken, you believe we do) then
>every single moral principle is as valid as yours and mine.
>I understand that you don't support the crimes of others,
>personally, but your philosophy does. Dig?

Okay, I'll admit that my philosophy *could be used* to validate crimes, as soon as you admit that your philosophy *has been used* to validate (and to commit) 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.
>
>Wait... define "exist".

Haha. I'm not the one pretending that logical rigor is available to us.

>>>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.
>
>And, after however many posts now, you have not answered the
>question. peace,

What question, the meaning of life? I'll get that to you as soon as I figure it out. Why don't you tell us what you think it is, and we'll see if anyone finds it compelling. Maybe you could start an OkayCult.