ITT: I prove God exists

[IAMRED]

Link to thread, here's the argument since no one really bit in the R/P:

P1. If man's knowledge is discursive, he must learn from an eternally omniscient being.
P2. Man's knowledge is discursive.
C. Man learns from an eternally omniscient being.

In layman's terms: We learn. From whom or what do we learn? If from a person whose knowledge is in turn learnt, from whom did he learn? Repeat to your satisfaction until you see a precondition for knowledge is an eternally omniscient being [whose knowledge is intuitive], i.e. God.

That's a short argument off the top of my head, so there is some nuance to it I don't feel like fleshing out at the moment. But if you have an objection to one of the premises (the argument itself is valid), feel free to respond

[futureMOUNTIE]

First page, here we go

[everglide123]

pls go

[ExileSkim]

Im in.

[Buckley50]

This gun' be good..

[Likestolift]

Atheist dun goof'd

[ChannerT]

[Alchem]

I've always thought about that OP. GDJM.

[cldfreak10]

in for comedy gold

[AliensAreHere]

Silly humans.

It's called misunderstood technology.

[soloS]

Its called research OP...people do research....phucking /thread.

[proti3n]

lol thats now proof pll learned by needs you need to eat so we hunt you need shelter so we built etc have you never taught yourself anything with out being taught?

[Alchem]

inb4 aliens taught us

[Seldini]

From whom or what do we learn? If from a person whose knowledge is in turn learnt, from whom did he learn?

And what if not from a person? We can learn from observing the world around us...

[bwoh]

ok.

[Likestolift]

5 star thread

[IAMRED]

And what if not from a person? We can learn from observing the world around us...

Knowledge is propositional. Your post implies a correspondence theory of truth, in which case we never possess truth.

[DMI_Blaze]

Thank god I'm atheist

[skinny1ne]

But... you dont have to learn from people, if you put your hand in a fire you'll learn that its hot no?

flawed argument is fla- oh nevermind

[IAMRED]

But... you dont have to learn from people, if you put your hand in a fire you'll learn that its hot no?

flawed argument is fla- oh nevermind

Induction is fallacious.

[jagcwhata]

only God could make this

[dmc90]

ITT: The lack of the definition of 'experience'


EDIT: Also, Zeus exists. Prove me wrong.

[grignasty]

Thank god I'm atheist

i see that there wat u did

[IAMRED]

ITT: The lack of the definition of 'experience'

ITP: the lack of a point.

[Reformed90]

http://www.examiner.com/gnosticism-h...-potter-review



In Jesus Potter Harry Christ, Derek Murphy associates the two wonderworkers and identifies their striking parallels, some that include:

--A supernatural father and mortal mother.
--Miraculous birth foretold by prophecy.
--Supernatural powers in the service of helping others.
--Symbolized by the lion, while their foes were represented by the serpent.
--Descended into the underworld.
--Went willing to their death after great suffering, and then rose back to life in victory.


Lol'd

[TheDude1987]

I see two rocks. I bang rocks together and one rock breaks. I've learned the one particular rock is stronger than another. Why must a god exist for this to have happened? What am I missing?

[Jaroctor]

Induction is fallacious.

Leave fellatio out of this dicussion, we're talking about God here.




But srsly, idk how people can believe in any sort of holy scripture... god is another thing entirely, which is understandeable I guess, but holy scripture is all bull**** (in my view so is god...).

[hiimzac]

lmao, this is such a practically flawed argument that it's a perfect example of why philosophers and the sophistic morons who revel in this sort of blabbery are either teachers or baristas.

[IAMRED]

I see two rocks. I bang rocks together and one rock breaks. I've learned the one particular rock is stronger than another. Why must a god exist for this to have happened? What am I missing?

A sound philosophy of science:

I have few questions relating to your philosophy of science:

On your theory, by what valid process could an observation statement - a proposition - be abstracted from an observation (sensation)?

Do you hold to a correspondence theory of truth?

It seems to be assumed that one's observations and tests (instruments?) are reliable. A problem with this is that, given there is no eternally omniscient being, to assert one's observations can be known presupposes an answer to the following insoluble dilemma: how do you know the truth of your observation statement isn't predicated on the truth of an observation you missed?

If it is indeed the case you are forwarding a form of empiricism, further criticisms could be made: nominalism, internal critiques (the subjectivity of sensation, e.g. inverted qualia), etc.

[dmc90]

ITP: the lack of a point.

It seems you're just implying one being learns from another one, and so on, and so forth. Am I reading this correctly?