In answer to: How do you know you are right?

Can I point out that when you talked about global warming you presented rational, logical, and well documented arguments for both sides, however one was wrong.

An ad hominem argument. (An argument to the man and not to the argument.) A fallacy of reason. I need rebut this no further.

Both are very plausible, however one vantage point is wrong. You cannot be without a doubt sure that you are right based on the strength of your argument; we call that ignorance.

Certainty is, as I recall explaining above, the level of confidence reached when all evidence points toward a conclusion and none away. Of course there can always be more evidence outside of the scope of existing knowledge, but the same is true for any statement. That is why we debate such things. To determine the validity of the statement and the validity of the scope of the knowledge defined as being relevant to the statement.

So, unless you have any real counterarguments to make against my argument, your input is neither welcome nor appreciated.

 

[Faskist]

If something is a contradiction, how does it exist?

There is no such thing as a round square. It is a contradiction, and therefore cannot exist.

Because saying something is a contradiction makes it so every time!

This is backed up by facts, although those facts are not the subject of this thread.

The contradiction is clear:

Therefore god is a contradiction, therefore god cannot exist in reality.

Presumably God could create paradoxes, and interact with them in ways we cannot comprehend. Can you comprehend four visual dimensions?

 

[Shawn_]

An ad hominem argument. (An argument to the man and not to the argument.) A fallacy of reason. I need rebut this no further.



Certainty is, as I recall explaining above, the level of confidence reached when all evidence points toward a conclusion and none away. Of course there can always be more evidence outside of the scope of existing knowledge, but the same is true for any statement. That is why we debate such things. To determine the validity of the statement and the validity of the scope of the knowledge defined as being relevant to the statement.

So, unless you have any real counterarguments to make against my argument, your input is neither welcome nor appreciated.

Okay, you claim that you are limited to the the knowledge at the time of the argument, and I agree, however this does not make you right. Out of the two people in the argument, the person who has the best hypothesis is going to be the one who can defend their argument with logic, and evidence; This does not make them right.

"Because I have a valid rational argument, based on valid rational premises, to prove that I am right. And by debating with me, you automatically accept that all valid rational arguments, based on valid rational premises, are correct by the objective measure of absolute truth."

You can have a valid rational argument, with rational premises, that indicate you are correct, however that does not make you correct, it means you have the best current guess at the correct answer. You cannot prove yourself correct if all knowledge about a certain topic has been discovered, and on the contrary you cannot ridicule someone for being wrong if they didn't have the means to discover more about said topic. You can have an argument that is completely valid, and rational at the time of the argument that is later debunked by science, therefore you are not right based on a valid, rational argument, with rational premises.

 

Because saying something is a contradiction makes it so every time!

Presumably God could create paradoxes, and interact with them in ways we cannot comprehend. Can you comprehend four visual dimensions?

It has nothing to do with comprehension. God himself is a contradiction and therefore cannot exist. The creation and understanding of contradiction in reality, even if it were possible, presupposes the existence of god. Your statement is a fallacy. Your premise is: god exists. Your conclusion: god can create paradoxes. I reject your premise on the grounds that contradictions cannot exist in reality. What say you?

 

[insausage68]

A false assertion. Where is your evidence that free will is attributable to an entity who's existence is impossible by its very definition. We are debating in the realm of reason, not mystic chatter. Either put up (the facts) or shut up.

Debating in the realm of reason? Well then, you leave no one that can oppose your opinions. Its like asking someone to prove you wrong when you leave out vital points, and the entire spiritual aspect. If you arent allowing something that effects your argument to effect it, then the final verdict can and is flawed.

You are absolutely correct in your belief system. Since you hold all the keys, you cannot possiably be wrong. However, you arent right if the "mystic chatter" enters at any point.

Like I said before, I cant prove you wrong in your argument. It is not possiable unless you choose to lose.

 

[Faskist]

It has nothing to do with comprehension. God himself is a contradiction and therefore cannot exist. The creation and understanding of contradiction in reality, even if it were possible, presupposes the existence of god. Your statement is a fallacy. Your premise is: god exists. Your conclusion: god can create paradoxes. I reject your premise on the grounds that contradictions cannot exist in reality. What say you?

I reject your notion that anything you don't understand does not exist.

 

[justkillme787]

You cannot make this argument. You are using rationality to deny rationality. You are in contradiction with yourself.

sythe ....... you CANNOT compare spiritual and physical.

 

[insausage68]

This is backed up by facts, although those facts are not the subject of this thread.

The contradiction is clear:

Therefore god is a contradiction, therefore god cannot exist in reality.

This argument is a paradox (def. a statement that contradicts itself). A good example of this would be "I always lie." (if it's true that you always lie, then you are telling the truth.) Your argument can never have a right answer. Therefore, you can't base your argument on this, because it can never be proved true or false.

 

Debating in the realm of reason? Well then, you leave no one that can oppose your opinions. Its like asking someone to prove you wrong when you leave out vital points, and the entire spiritual aspect. If you arent allowing something that effects your argument to effect it, then the final verdict can and is flawed.

Why would I allow you to hold irrational premises in a rational debate? The premise that 'spirituality exists in reality' is false. If you can prove it to be true; if you can prove that non-corporal entities exist in reality, then you may rationally debate on those grounds. But if you can't (and I know you can't) then you cannot use spirituality as a premise for your arguments in rational debate. If you were to do so I would simply reject your premise and you would have no counterargument to my rejection. Your premise (spirituality) is arbitrary -- it has no basis in reality. It is therefore false.

You are absolutely correct in your belief system. Since you hold all the keys, you cannot possiably be wrong. However, you arent right if the "mystic chatter" enters at any point.

Mystic chatter is any collection or irrational statements. This is a rational debate: You cannot promote irrational statements in a rational debate.

Like I said before, I cant prove you wrong in your argument. It is not possiable unless you choose to lose.

Consider what you are saying.
"You are rational, but all my arguments are irrational, therefore I cannot win." -- is basically what you are stating above.

Irrational arguments have no basis in reality. To believe in an irrational argument is to believe in something that isn't real. You religious types need to grow up. Its time to understand reality and stop being children.

 

I reject your notion that anything you don't understand does not exist.

I never put forward any such notion. My argument was that contradictions cannot exist in reality. Find me a square circle or an automobile which is in two places at the same time and I will reconsider.

All knowledge you have ever learned through learned through reason. To invalidate reason, as you are doing, is to invalidate all of your knowledge including that required to form an argument, type it into the computer and click send. The only way to advocate irrationality consistently is to stop thinking and stop acting. Indeed, to stop being a living human.

 

sythe ....... you CANNOT compare spiritual and physical.

Yes I can. Watch me:
Physical nature is rational. Spirituality is irrational.

 

This argument is a paradox (def. a statement that contradicts itself). A good example of this would be "I always lie." (if it's true that you always lie, then you are telling the truth.) Your argument can never have a right answer. Therefore, you can't base your argument on this, because it can never be proved true or false.

There is no paradox or contradiction in the following argument:

Omnipotence is an attribute which means unlimited in power - without limitations to action. This attribute is paradoxical and can be shown as impossible through the following argument: Question: Can an omnipotent entity, X, create a rock that X can not lift? If yes, then X is not omnipotent; if no, then X is not omnipotent.
Therefore X is not omnipotent.

1. The premise is: god cannot exist because omnipotence is an impossible attribute.

2. The reasoning is that: omnipotence is an impossible attribute because an action which denies future action can either be taken or not taken, in either case complete power is not retained. Paradoxes cannot exist in reality.

3. The conclusion is that: god does not exist because omnipotence is an impossible attribute.

There is no contradiction in this argument. You misunderstand syllogistic reasoning.

 

[insausage68]

Why would I allow you to hold irrational premises in a rational debate? The premise that 'spirituality exists in reality' is false. If you can prove it to be true; if you can prove that non-corporal entities exist in reality, then you may rationally debate on those grounds. But if you can't (and I know you can't) then you cannot use spirituality as a premise for your arguments in rational debate. If you were to do so I would simply reject your premise and you would have no counterargument to my rejection. Your premise (spirituality) is arbitrary -- it has no basis in reality. It is therefore false.

Alright then, how would you like to try to prove that there isn't spirituality in reality? You cannot, and I cannot prove it exists unless you choose to believe. It is free will we have the right to choose. Obviously, if you choose not to see the spirituality, I cannot make you see it. It is your decision. But, I am not wrong. And you will never be able to prove that I am. This was a pointless discussion before it began.

 

Alright then, how would you like to try to prove that there isn't spirituality in reality? You cannot, and I cannot prove it exists unless you choose to believe. It is free will we have the right to choose. Obviously, if you choose not to see the spirituality, I cannot make you see it. It is your decision. But, I am not wrong. And you will never be able to prove that I am. This was a pointless discussion before it began.

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or is only false because it has not been proven true.

Again, this is a rational debate. You must present rational arguments. An argument unable to be proven or disproved is not a rational argument.

To argue rationally that "I must believe" is to argue rationally for the dismissal of reason. That is a self contradiction using reason to dismiss reason. You assume the supremacy of reason when you decide to take up debate with me. You are in contradiction with yourself, yet again. Your argument is a fallacy.

 

[Shawn_]

There is no paradox or contradiction in the following argument:



1. The premise is: god cannot exist because omnipotence is an impossible attribute.

2. The reasoning is that: omnipotence is an impossible attribute because an action which denies future action can either be taken or not taken, in either case complete power is not retained. Paradoxes cannot exist in reality.

3. The conclusion is that: god does not exist because omnipotence is an impossible attribute.

There is no contradiction in this argument. You misunderstand syllogistic reasoning.

1. An omnipotent god cannot exist.

2. Does not disprove the existence of God, disproves the existence of an omnipotent entity.

3. Omnipotence is not a necessary characteristic of a God. Greek gods, for example, were far from omnipotent.

Your applying an argument against omnipotence to an argument against all gods, which is irrational as omnipotence and god are not interchangeable. If you had said that a christian god is impossible, then you would be correct in your argument, however it is not a necessity that all gods must be omnipotent.

 

[insausage68]

Paradoxes cannot exist in reality.

I'm happy to say you are wrong. There is a rare gentic paradox that occurs in some reptiles. This paradox details that sometimes an animal can have the traits of an albino animal, such as pink eyes, but can have black splotches on other parts of its body, or have half mallanin-half albinic eyes. In the future please research a subject before posting about it.

 

[insausage68]

Again, this is a rational debate. You must present rational arguments. An argument unable to be proven or disproved is not a rational argument.

To argue rationally that "I must believe" is to argue rationally for the dismissal of reason. That is a self contradiction using reason to dismiss reason. You assume the supremacy of reason when you decide to take up debate with me. You are in contradiction with yourself, yet again. Your argument is a fallacy.

I'm not arguing that at all! If you would have read my post carefully, I said that I choose to believe in God. It is my choice. I have not said that I'm right because of my choice. It is my belief that I am right, but I have not based any of my arguments on my choice to believe. You choose to not believe in God. That's fine with me. But the entire argument boils down to what you put faith in. I put faith in something I belive in, as do you. I can't prove you wrong, and you can't prove me wrong.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I'm happy to say you are wrong. There is a rare gentic paradox that occurs in some reptiles. This paradox details that sometimes an animal can have the traits of an albino animal, such as pink eyes, but can have black splotches on other parts of its body, or have half mallanin-half albinic eyes. In the future please research a subject before posting about it.

That is not a true paradox. A true paradox would be the statement "This statement is false".

I choose to believe in God.

It is an irrational choice. You have no empirical evidence to support it whatsoever.

 

I'm not arguing that at all! If you would have read my post carefully, I said that I choose to believe in God. It is my choice. I have not said that I'm right because of my choice. It is my belief that I am right, but I have not based any of my arguments on my choice to believe. You choose to not believe in God. That's fine with me. But the entire argument boils down to what you put faith in. I put faith in something I belive in, as do you. I can't prove you wrong, and you can't prove me wrong.

Its not an argument, but you present it as one. What you put 'faith' in, is what you believe without justification. Faith is not knowledge. Faith is irrational belief -- Belief in something that is not real, something that is arbitrary (has no connection to reality.)

Isn't it time you grew up? Most sane adults cease believing in unrealities by their early teens. You however, do not. Why is that?

 

[insausage68]

Its not an argument, but you present it as one. What you put 'faith' in, is what you believe without justification. Faith is not knowledge. Faith is irrational belief -- Belief in something that is not real, something that is arbitrary (has no connection to reality.)

Isn't it time you grew up? Most sane adults cease believing in unrealities by their early teens. You however, do not. Why is that?

Your definition of sane. See, I think you are crazy. You think I am crazy. It is our opinions of each other. You cannot prove faith does not exist. You could make no argument against something that you don't think is real. How could you? You don't think it existis, so why are you even arguing it? You can't win, because, to you, you already have before you even started.