another question

[spideyman23]

ok so one logical/philosophical idea is that every premise must be justified by another premise.
but that doesn't always work because it is simply evident that some things exist,
and even if it weren't you'd still have to justify the idea itself with another premise, etc. so it's all a paradox.
does that logically mean that the opposite is true, and any belief or certain belief you have automatically makes it true? note, this is logically speaking.

[mykcob4]

ok so one logical/philosophical idea is that every premise must be justified by another premise.
but that doesn't always work because it is simply evident that some things exist,
and even if it weren't you'd still have to justify the idea itself with another premise, etc. so it's all a paradox.
does that logically mean that the opposite is true, and any belief or certain belief you have automatically makes it true? note, this is logically speaking.

Read the Hawkings paradox and you will find that there is NO answer to such a question.

[Plu]

Isn't this just the same question you asked last time, but using different words? What is your fascination with this topic, anyway?

[LoneQuietus]

I'm sorry. I was trying to type out a measured response to this question, but I just can't take it seriously. Whenever I try to explain something and I repeatedly feel as if I'm being patronizing even when I'm trying not to be, I have to assume the person is either ignorant or insincere.

I'm not entirely convinced you're ignorant. I suspect that your posts are all, basically, leading questions. Further, I think the discussions with you don't go anywhere productive because you try really hard to get the answers you expect. Round-and-round we then go.

It makes perfect sense when you consider that your topics are only a half-step away from each other in regards to subject matter.

[DunkleSeele]

[Icarus]

Isn't this just the same question you asked last time, but using different words? What is your fascination with this topic, anyway?

My thoughts exactly.

[aitm]

it would go away if and only if[spoil:2qhuv83i]YOU QUIT FUCKING PLAYING WITH IT!! FUCK MAN![/spoil:2qhuv83i]

[WitchSabrina]

[ Image ]

Been so long since I've seen this.  ROFLMFAO   Thanks for the laugh!!!!

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Spideyman doesn't really exist so therefor the question was never asked.. It's mass hallucination..

[Aroura33]

Spideyman doesn't really exist so therefor the question was never asked.. It's mass hallucination..

Aaaaaand...
/THREAD

[spideyman23]

needs more replies

[leo]

Welcome back funny troll ! You are really funny .

[spideyman23]

yea fuck you too :(

[Teaspoon Shallow]

ok so one logical/philosophical idea is that every premise must be justified by another premise.
but that doesn't always work because it is simply evident that some things exist,
and even if it weren't you'd still have to justify the idea itself with another premise, etc. so it's all a paradox.
does that logically mean that the opposite is true, and any belief or certain belief you have automatically makes it true? note, this is logically speaking.

I have yet to read your other thread but will respond to this.

GIGO.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Your logic, like a computer program, may be sound but if the information you insert is flawed then your outcome is invalid.

For example William Lane Craig's version of the ontological argument for the existence of god:

It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Now this may at first seem plausible. It presents a somewhat logical argument but is only as good as the accuracy of the information inserted.
I can use the same argument in reverse:

It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.
If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world.
If a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then a maximally great being does not exist in any possible world.
If a maximally great being does not exist in any possible world, a maximally great being cannot exist in the actual world.
If a maximally great being cannot exist in the actual world, a maximally great being does not exist.
Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.

Any argument, however logically plausible is only as good as the information inserted.

He has the correct mechanics but it could be argued he has it backwards and there for his argument fails to supply evidence of his claims.

[aitm]

ah, such a nice response. But be forewarned that he will drag you into a 12 page clusterfuck of jibberish with you under the impression that you are teaching him something.

consider pissing off a building, although it may not hurt you, every drop of urine that hits the sidewalk kills a kitten.