• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof of God

Lisa said:
Did you know that you quoted a Canadian site, in French?

Maybe you should stick to American English and stop thinking that logic is poetry that you can play fast and loose with the language as an exercise in creative writing.
Click to expand...
The linked page appears to be in English when I click on it. The point about capitalization stands. You want another site? Find it yourself.
 
Lisa said:
Capitalization | Punctuation Rules
Click to expand...

Angel claims to be a grammar teacher who doesn't understand grammar and thinks dictionaries should never be used when trying to find the meaning of a word I should be up to him and him alone to decide

Basically he is a 14 year old poseur with delusions of grandeur. He will ignore reality for as long as he can then try to change the subject when he cant
 
Quag said:
Angel claims to be a grammar teacher who doesn't understand grammar and thinks dictionaries should never be used when trying to find the meaning of a word I should be up to him and him alone to decide

Basically, he is a 14-year-old poseur with delusions of grandeur. He will ignore reality for as long as he can then try to change the subject when he can't
Click to expand...

The idea that grammar and the definition of words are subjective would destroy the very concept of language as a tool to exchange and record ideas because that idea only works when there is a set definition of how the language is to be used and what words mean.

Who does Angel think he/she is? e.e. cummings and Lewis Carroll?
 
Lisa said:
The idea that grammar and the definition of words are subjective would destroy the very concept of language as a tool to exchange and record ideas because that idea only works when there is a set definition of how the language is to be used and what words mean.

Who does Angel think he/she is? e.e. cummings and Lewis Carroll?
Click to expand...

Oh no he thinks they are objective and like morals he is the arbiter of the truth. (Though he does change the meaning of words depending on what he wants them to mean at any given time. Did mention he is dishonest?)
 
Quag said:
Oh no he thinks they are objective and like morals he is the arbiter of the truth. (Though he does change the meaning of words depending on what he wants them to mean at any given time. Did mention he is dishonest?)
Click to expand...

Does he know the difference between subjective and objective? How can he enforce religious morality before he can prove that a god exists because religious belief does not create god? I'd explain in detail my argument that religious morality is impossible if his god is both omniscient and omnipotent but I've laid out that in another thread.

Saying that Angel is intellectually dishonest is akin to saying that Jeffrey Dahmer had an eating disorder.
 
Angel said:
The linked page appears to be in English when I click on it. The point about capitalization stands. You want another site? Find it yourself.
Click to expand...

Your linked site does not back your claim about capitalization. It is not a website about Standard Written English. It is a Canadian Government website about translating into English. You can't find any legitimate source to back your claim about the use of capitalization in Standard Written English. Your bluff has been called.

The site you linked says there are two reasons you may capitalize certain kind of words. It does not say that capitalization changes the meaning of any words. Stupendous Given does not qualify under the link you gave. It is not a personification or the capitalization of an abstract word. It is just you capitalizing ordinary words to try to make up something that you think is profound, but it isn't.
 
devildavid said:
Your linked site does not back your claim about capitalization. It is not a website about Standard Written English. It is a Canadian Government website about translating into English. You can't find any legitimate source to back your claim about the use of capitalization in Standard Written English. Your bluff has been called.

The site you linked says there are two reasons you may capitalize certain kind of words. It does not say that capitalization changes the meaning of any words. Stupendous Given does not qualify under the link you gave. It is not a personification or the capitalization of an abstract word. It is just you capitalizing ordinary words to try to make up something that you think is profound, but it isn't.
Click to expand...

Pride in ignorance is one of the more annoying traits of so-called Internet Skeptics.
As I indicated with my freedom/Freedom example, any common noun can be made a proper noun naming an abstraction, and proper nouns are capitalized.
 
Lisa said:
...Saying that Angel is intellectually dishonest is akin to saying that Jeffrey Dahmer had an eating disorder.
Click to expand...
Guess what, Miss? You've made one too many personal derogatory remarks about me, after being cautioned about this very thing. And so you join your sidebar circle of derogation in no longer having your posts recognized, read or replied to by me.
Goodbye.
Best of luck in your Internet Chatting.
 
Rumpel said:
Or one might substitute Russell's teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn for God.
Click to expand...
As I replied to the quoted post early in the thread:
Angel said:
One cannot make your substitutions. Their logical definition is different.
Click to expand...
Meaning affects the validity and soundness of a logical argument. One cannot just substitute terms and expect to maintain validity and soundness.
 
Angel said:
As I replied to the quoted post early in the thread:

Meaning affects the validity and soundness of a logical argument. One cannot just substitute terms and expect to maintain validity and soundness.
Click to expand...

Humans are both rational and irrational.

You are being inhumane in demanding this full logic being, which not even the God in the Bible can manage.







OOPS!
 
Angel said:
As I replied to the quoted post early in the thread:

Meaning affects the validity and soundness of a logical argument. One cannot just substitute terms and expect to maintain validity and soundness.
Click to expand...

Nope, that fails by #6 & #7 which basically say that whatever is not impossible (to exist) is certain (to exist). You have now added a new "rule" that substitution of another (any other?) imagined being is "cheating" to test your axioms ("logical" assertions?).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, that fails by #6 & #7 which basically say that whatever is not impossible (to exist) is certain (to exist). You have now added a new "rule" that substitution of another (any other?) imagined being is "cheating" to test your axioms ("logical" assertions?).
Click to expand...
Here's all I meant to point out:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Above is the classic example of a valid and sound logical argument.
One cannot preserve the validity and soundness of this logic by substituting any terms for Socrates that are not men.
Substituting a leprechaun or Dick Tracy or Russell's teapot or the Golden Gate Bridge or Zeus for the term "Socrates" does not preserve the valid and sound logic.
Leprechauns and unicorns and Bigfoot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster have different meanings (different senses and referents) from the term "God" and cannot be substituted for the term "God" while at the same time preserving the validity and soundness (such as they may be) of a logical argument for the existence of God.
Now, the argument for the existence of God may fail, but it fails on its own terms. One cannot substitute non-divine terms to demonstrate that failure.
 
Angel said:
Here's all I meant to point out:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Above is the classic example of a valid and sound logical argument.
One cannot preserve the validity and soundness of this logic by substituting any terms for Socrates that are not men.
Substituting a leprechaun or Dick Tracy or Russell's teapot or the Golden Gate Bridge or Zeus for the term "Socrates" does not preserve the valid and sound logic.
Leprechauns and unicorns and Bigfoot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster have different meanings (different senses and referents) from the term "God" and cannot be substituted for the term "God" while at the same time preserving the validity and soundness (such as they may be) of a logical argument for the existence of God.
Now, the argument for the existence of God may fail, but it fails on its own terms. One cannot substitute non-divine terms to demonstrate that failure.
Click to expand...

One may obviously substitute one being alleged to possess supernatural powers for another. In order for something (someone?) to be considered "divine" it (he/she?) must possess godlike superpowers powers, but that presupposes that such a godlike being exists - back to your use of circular logic which is that if something (anything?) can be defined/described then it exists as more than a concept.
 
Angel said:
Pride in ignorance is one of the more annoying traits of so-called Internet Skeptics.
As I indicated with my freedom/Freedom example, any common noun can be made a proper noun naming an abstraction, and proper nouns are capitalized.
Click to expand...

You have it backwards. Common nouns do not transform into proper nouns by capitalizing them. The rules of capitalization state that proper nouns should be capitalized. And capitalizing the adjective "stupendous" does not alter its meaning. Nor is the word "given" a proper noun that requires capitalization.
 
Angel said:
As I replied to the quoted post early in the thread:

Meaning affects the validity and soundness of a logical argument. One cannot just substitute terms and expect to maintain validity and soundness.
Click to expand...

So what does the word god mean? And if you know what it means, how can it have no nature?
 
devildavid said:
You have it backwards. Common nouns do not transform into proper nouns by capitalizing them. The rules of capitalization state that proper nouns should be capitalized. And capitalizing the adjective "stupendous" does not alter its meaning. Nor is the word "given" a proper noun that requires capitalization.
Click to expand...
Like I said, only on in Internet does ignorance dig in out of pride and talk rubbish with full authority.
 
devildavid said:
So what does the word god mean? And if you know what it means, how can it have no nature?
Click to expand...
We've had our dance on this. Remember "cat"? My reply shut you up. Now you're hoping no one remembers. Get along.
 
Angel said:
Like I said, only on in Internet does ignorance dig in out of pride and talk rubbish with full authority.
Click to expand...

It is too bad that you don't understand the basics of grammar, such as what a proper noun is and why they are capitalized. Instead, you resort to personal attack that has no basis.
 
Angel said:
We've had our dance on this. Remember "cat"? My reply shut you up. Now you're hoping no one remembers. Get along.
Click to expand...

Your replies never shut me up. What is a cat? And do you really think anyone thinks enough of our posts to remember them?
 
devildavid said:
It is too bad that you don't understand the basics of grammar, such as what a proper noun is and why they are capitalized. Instead, you resort to personal attack that has no basis.
Click to expand...
Whereof one doesn't know, thereof one should remain silent.

Look to it, boss. The word "freedom" is a common noun which, when capitalized, becomes the proper noun "Freedpm."

Indeed, your own beloved "Flying Spaghetti Monster" gives the lie to your view in this matter.

Say good night, David.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom