This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

So atheists what's the most compelling thing youve heard in favor of a religion

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. So atheists what's the most compelling thing youve heard in favor of a religion

User Info: LinkFanatic

LinkFanatic
4 months ago#71
I don't understand what HK is upset about. There's nothing wrong with the TCs topic, or his method of reasoning for rejecting evidence. I mean, we're talking about ethereal forces that can alter reality here. Claims like that don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, and asserting that doesn't make you an angstheist.
The first 2 forms of Cell flaunted his tail, like he's Ron Jeremy. But after he absorbed 18 his tail retracted and only seemed useful for reproducing. -Byron808

User Info: Nine_Breaker

Nine_Breaker
4 months ago#72
OrangeWizard posted...
Nine_Breaker posted...
Would you say an axiom is not inherently truthful? Or would an axiom act as evidence in an argument?


You don't establish axioms by asserting a premise, otherwise all arguments would automatically be sound, and there would be no difference between a valid argument and a sound argument.

If the premise is an axiom, then you assert it when you develop the argument. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

Are you saying that I'm essentially proposing 1=2, and defining it as axiomatic? That would be fine, I'm just essentially creating a different system of logic where by definition, 1=2 is an axiom. An argument within that system using 1=2 could still be sound and valid. I guess it would be impossible to relate such a system of logic to reality? I suppose then that by doing this, I remove meaning from the argument's conclusion with respect to reality.

User Info: Lord_Ichmael

Lord_Ichmael
4 months ago#73
Fatestaykitchen posted...
But my atheist sister recently....what's the word here? Reconverted? Relapsed? Reverted? Back into the Christianity of her youth with the flawless logic that "when I pray good stuff happens and if that doesn't work for others like child sex slaves and people with cancer that's their problem "(exact quote) needless to say I was bored and a bit dissapaoinfed that was all it took but it did intrigue me s bit since ive never really seen anyone "relapse" like that.


I'm guessing this section is what HK didn't like. Worded a bit aggressively/condescendingly.

User Info: LinkFanatic

LinkFanatic
4 months ago#74
Lord_Ichmael posted...
I'm guessing this section is what HK didn't like. Worded a bit aggressively/condescendingly.


Yeah, but he said that's literally what she said. I don't think his reaction was any more hostile than hers.
The first 2 forms of Cell flaunted his tail, like he's Ron Jeremy. But after he absorbed 18 his tail retracted and only seemed useful for reproducing. -Byron808

User Info: Lord_Ichmael

Lord_Ichmael
4 months ago#75
LinkFanatic posted...


Yeah, but he said that's literally what she said. I don't think his reaction was any more hostile than hers.


I don't think it's a big deal, but I don't know what else he'd be mad about.

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
4 months ago#76
Nine_Breaker posted...

If the premise is an axiom

It can't be, because
A) There would be no way to distinguish axioms as premises from non-axiomatic premises.
B) There would be no way to distinguish a sound argument from an unsound argument.

Axioms are established, implicitly or explicitly, before the argument, not during.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCevfumG9WSyr165n84HfwRQ

User Info: Nine_Breaker

Nine_Breaker
4 months ago#77
OrangeWizard posted...
Nine_Breaker posted...

If the premise is an axiom

It can't be, because
A) There would be no way to distinguish axioms as premises from non-axiomatic premises.
B) There would be no way to distinguish a sound argument from an unsound argument.

Axioms are established, implicitly or explicitly, before the argument, not during.

I'm not sure I follow necessarily. It's been a while so I was looking some stuff up:

http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/~heuveb/teaching/Logic/CompLogic/Web/Handouts/Axioms.pdf

This link outlines the Rosser System and its axioms:

R.S.1: A & (A & A) (so really ¬(A & ¬(A & A)) )
R.S.2: (A & B) > A
R.S.3: (A > B) > (¬(B & C) > ¬(C & A))

It takes two premises:

1. P > Q
2. ¬(Q & ¬R)

and uses R.S.3 to arrive show that this means:

5. ¬(¬R & P)

Which makes sense. I'm not sure if using R.S.3 in step 3 of the proof constitutes making it a premise as well. I could have constructed my argument earlier to be a lot better, for sure.

Does the above argument constitute arriving at a truth without use of evidence?

User Info: Nine_Breaker

Nine_Breaker
4 months ago#78
Actually you'd probably say that this argument is valid but not sound since it is possible for premises 1 or 2 to be false if assigned statements derived from reality.

How about this:

1. 5 + 4 = 9
2. 3 + 6 = 9
3. If B = A, and C = A, then B = C.
4. 5 + 4 = 3 + 6

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
4 months ago#79
Nine_Breaker posted...
I'm not sure if using R.S.3 in step 3 of the proof constitutes making it a premise as well.


I'd say that it exists outside of the argument, and rightly so, as an axiom, as opposed to a premise. Premises are steps 1 and 2 of a syllogism.


Does the above argument constitute arriving at a truth without use of evidence?

I don't know. I'm only here because I think I know the difference between soundness and validity.


How about this:

1. 5 + 4 = 9
2. 3 + 6 = 9
3. If B = A, and C = A, then B = C.
4. 5 + 4 = 3 + 6


Valid and sound. I'm not sure how this relates, unless something in here is an axiom, since I never got into that stuff in college.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCevfumG9WSyr165n84HfwRQ

User Info: Fatestaykitchen

Fatestaykitchen
4 months ago#80
Whoa what the hell happened?


Alright. Gotcha.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I8IVn0MQsWA
Just a reminder that we live in a world where "twerk assault" can be said unironically
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. So atheists what's the most compelling thing youve heard in favor of a religion

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived