Does God exist?

[Distruzio]

Yes, taken together, they each wield the authority of God. However, independently none hold any authority whatsoever.

Still fallacious. The Three derive their authority from God, and from this authority, the pronounce that God exist.

Mav accused me of circular reasoning. I was not guilty of that. Circular reasoning concludes an argument by restating the premise instead of deriving the conclusion from the premise. Tautologies state the same thing twice. The logical validities of an argument determine the way the conclusion can logically derive from the premise, without merely restating the premise. I did not merely restate the premise. Nor did I assume the premise as my conclusion. The authority of the Holy Church depends upon the validity of the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition in tandem and their authority from God is logically derived from the arguments made at their behest only when taken together. Any conclusion arrived at from the three that assumes agreement from the three is said to carry Holy Authority. Each is not an authority separated from the other.

Now, when I said that God exists. I did make a circular argument.

When I said that His existence is proven logically, I did not. What your post implies is that I am guilty of a rhetorical fallacy. I am not. I made a logical tautology. Which is an axiomatic statement. The premise that the three wield authority because they speak on behalf of God and only when their conclusions are taken together is unfalsifiable from any interpretation except to disregard the statement entirely. Logically, God exists because the Church sought to satisfy the premise of their hypothesis (that God exists) by consulting two separate authorities whose authority was only recognized in tandem with the Church. No one derives authority from the other two.

It may be moderately sacrilegious to suggest that God exists because the three say He does, but for the purposes of argument, it is a statement I will make.

[Anachronous Rex]

I specifically did not focus on geographical regions, but purely on Europe. Which is, predominantly, the same religion.

Tell me there's no correlation.

The sudden yellowness of Eastern Europe correlates with level of Soviet Control in the past more than it correlates with religion.

Indeed it does. I did offer the possibility of a third explanation.

[Conscentia]

Matthew 19:24 suggests he was far more extreme than that.

Hah I guessed it, that was what your talking about! Well, there is a reason why Carnagie said
"The man who dies rich, dies disgraced"

There's also that the early Apostolic church in Acts held all things in common, and Jesus making people give up their possessions on many occasions.

[Scholencia]

What?

You mean like Khmer intellectuals? Muslims and ethnic Chinese in Cambodia? Or secretly nazi eugenics controlled Argentine Penguins from the Falklands?!

Pol Pot killed about 50% of its people (imagine some loonie atheist kills about 40 million people in the UK just because they are christians or part of the aristocracy). Seeing that her haters have symapthy some that maniac shows that she was right when she privatised the companies and disciplined the syndicalist (who were by the way all fans of teaching of Karl Marx).

The Falkands are Britain and it was attacked by fascist Argentina and it was a duty of every moral British citizen and patriot to defend the possesion of Her Majesty. She did not start the war.

[The Rich Port]

Well, I noticed that most countries doing badly aren't Christian but rather Muslim or a local traditional relgion. I doubt it has anything to do with the religion but instead with geographic differences. Guns, Germs, and Steel explains it pretty well.

I specifically did not focus on geographical regions, but purely on Europe. Which is, predominantly, the same religion.

Tell me there's no correlation.

I'm pretty sure there isn't a correlation. Saudi Arabia, for example, is doing relatively decent when it comes to economy and they're a bastion of modern-day Islamic practices.

Political stability and religiosity, on the other hand... There's probably a direct correlation.

Those Muslims sure do like to commit human rights violations. Arranged marriages, pedophilia, wanton murder, assault, oh my!

[Lemanrussland]

Still fallacious. The Three derive their authority from God, and from this authority, the pronounce that God exist.

Mav accused me of circular reasoning. I was not guilty of that. Circular reasoning concludes an argument by restating the premise instead of deriving the conclusion from the premise. Tautologies state the same thing twice. The logical validities of an argument determine the way the conclusion can logically derive from the premise, without merely restating the premise. I did not merely restate the premise. Nor did I assume the premise as my conclusion. The authority of the Holy Church depends upon the validity of the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition in tandem and their authority from God is logically derived from the arguments made at their behest only when taken together. Any conclusion arrived at from the three that assumes agreement from the three is said to carry Holy Authority. Each is not an authority separated from the other.

Now, when I said that God exists. I did make a circular argument.

When I said that His existence is proven logically, I did not. What your post implies is that I am guilty of a rhetorical fallacy. I am not. I made a logical tautology. Which is an axiomatic statement. The premise that the three wield authority because they speak on behalf of God and only when their conclusions are taken together is unfalsifiable from any interpretation except to disregard the statement entirely. Logically, God exists because the Church sought to satisfy the premise of their hypothesis (that God exists) by consulting two separate authorities whose authority was only recognized in tandem with the Church. No one derives authority from the other two.

It may be moderately sacrilegious to suggest that God exists because the three say He does, but for the purposes of argument, it is a statement I will make.

Wow, this almost reminds me of how Mises used to write. Dressing up a argument which is fallacious at it's core in a complicated tangle of meaningless babblings.

[Distruzio]

Mav accused me of circular reasoning. I was not guilty of that. Circular reasoning concludes an argument by restating the premise instead of deriving the conclusion from the premise. Tautologies state the same thing twice. The logical validities of an argument determine the way the conclusion can logically derive from the premise, without merely restating the premise. I did not merely restate the premise. Nor did I assume the premise as my conclusion. The authority of the Holy Church depends upon the validity of the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition in tandem and their authority from God is logically derived from the arguments made at their behest only when taken together. Any conclusion arrived at from the three that assumes agreement from the three is said to carry Holy Authority. Each is not an authority separated from the other.

Now, when I said that God exists. I did make a circular argument.

When I said that His existence is proven logically, I did not. What your post implies is that I am guilty of a rhetorical fallacy. I am not. I made a logical tautology. Which is an axiomatic statement. The premise that the three wield authority because they speak on behalf of God and only when their conclusions are taken together is unfalsifiable from any interpretation except to disregard the statement entirely. Logically, God exists because the Church sought to satisfy the premise of their hypothesis (that God exists) by consulting two separate authorities whose authority was only recognized in tandem with the Church. No one derives authority from the other two.

It may be moderately sacrilegious to suggest that God exists because the three say He does, but for the purposes of argument, it is a statement I will make.

Wow, this almost reminds me of how Mises used to write. Dressing up a argument which is fallacious at it's core in a complicated tangle of meaningless babblings.

Meh, if I'm wrong, he'll tell me.

[Conscentia]

I specifically did not focus on geographical regions, but purely on Europe. Which is, predominantly, the same religion.

(Image)

(Image)

Tell me there's no correlation.

I'm pretty sure there isn't a correlation. Saudi Arabia, for example, is doing relatively decent when it comes to economy and they're a bastion of modern-day Islamic practices.
Political stability and religiosity, on the other hand... There's probably a direct correlation.
Those Muslims sure do like to commit human rights violations. Arranged marriages, pedophilia, wanton murder, assault, oh my!

Has little to do with Islam.

[Distruzio]

The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil.

- Bertrand Russell

What I said, however, isn't necessarily a fallacy. If I were to say that God exists because God exists, that is a fallacy - much like if I had said that a man is dead because he is dead. However, I didn't say that. I said that God exists because the tandem authority of the Holy Church, Holy Scripture, and Holy Tradition each conclude that He exists, it is no different than saying that a dead man isn't alive because he isn't breathing.

Three old extremely biased sources say so, so it must be true?

There is no such thing as a source without a bias.

[Distruzio]

What I said, however, isn't necessarily a fallacy. If I were to say that God exists because God exists, that is a fallacy - much like if I had said that a man is dead because he is dead. However, I didn't say that. I said that God exists because the tandem authority of the Holy Church, Holy Scripture, and Holy Tradition each conclude that He exists, it is no different than saying that a dead man isn't alive because he isn't breathing.

Please stop confusing your logical fallacies. What you described is tautology. which isn't the same thing as circular reasoning.

What you argued, is circular reasoning.

Incorrect.

[Conscentia]

Three old extremely biased sources say so, so it must be true?

There is no such thing as a source without a bias.

Is math a biased source?

[The Rich Port]

I'm pretty sure there isn't a correlation. Saudi Arabia, for example, is doing relatively decent when it comes to economy and they're a bastion of modern-day Islamic practices.
Political stability and religiosity, on the other hand... There's probably a direct correlation.
Those Muslims sure do like to commit human rights violations. Arranged marriages, pedophilia, wanton murder, assault, oh my!

Has little to do with Islam.

They do those things in the name of their God the same way African Christians are doing it to homosexuals.

You can't say they don't just because.

How do you mean it doesn't have anything to do with Islam?

[Conscentia]

Has little to do with Islam.

They do those things in the name of their God the same way African Christians are doing it to homosexuals.

You can't say they don't just because.

How do you mean it doesn't have anything to do with Islam?

For a start, Islam prohibits murder & assault. And there's no mandate for arranged marriage in Islam. That's cultural, as it is in India.

[Lemanrussland]

Three old extremely biased sources say so, so it must be true?

There is no such thing as a source without a bias.

There is no such thing as a source without a bias, therefore, it's logical to point to the Bible and Church as proof that God exists, which means the Bible and Church are correct because God exists.

Sorry, no it isn't, just because you add one more leg to the circular logic race doesn't make the logic any less circular.

[Mavorpen]

Please stop confusing your logical fallacies. What you described is tautology. which isn't the same thing as circular reasoning.

What you argued, is circular reasoning.

Incorrect.

Brilliant debating skills. You have me convinced.

[The Rich Port]

They do those things in the name of their God the same way African Christians are doing it to homosexuals.

You can't say they don't just because.

How do you mean it doesn't have anything to do with Islam?

For a start, Islam prohibits murder & assault. And there's no mandate for arranged marriage in Islam. That's cultural, as it is in India.

You don't count executions and corporeal punishment as murder and assault, respectively? I do, especially on made-up charges like "apostasy".

I'm certain the child brides are glad there's a distinction. Yeah, nobody may follow it and they still do it, but whatever, it's not mandated.

[Blekksprutia]

I can’t for the life of me imagine that God would say, “I will punish you because you are black. You should have been White. I will punish you because you are a woman; you should have been a man. I will punish you because you are homosexual. You ought to have been heterosexual.” I can’t for the life of me believe that is how God sees things.

-Archbishop Desmond Tutu

[Mavorpen]

Mav accused me of circular reasoning. I was not guilty of that. Circular reasoning concludes an argument by restating the premise instead of deriving the conclusion from the premise.

Which is of course, false. That is an example of circular reasoning, but that isn't the definition of circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is, as per Wikipedia:

Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with".

An example of this is, "God exist because God exists" because you are beginning with what you want to end up with. However, "God exists because The Holy Church says so, and the Holy Church says so because God grants it the authority to say so, and God grants it the authority to say so because God exists" is STILL circular reasoning, because you begin with the premise that you are trying to end up with.

[Mavorpen]

There is no such thing as a source without a bias.

There is no such thing as a source without a bias, therefore, it's logical to point to the Bible and Church as proof that God exists, which means the Bible and Church are correct because God exists.

Sorry, no it isn't, just because you add one more leg to the circular logic race doesn't make the logic any less circular.

Precisely. Circular Logic doesn't only consist of two parts. It can consist of multiple parts. As long as you begin with the premise you are trying to end with, it is circular reasoning.

[Conscentia]

For a start, Islam prohibits murder & assault. And there's no mandate for arranged marriage in Islam. That's cultural, as it is in India.

You don't count executions and corporeal punishment as murder and assault, respectively? I do, especially on made-up charges like "apostasy".
I'm certain the child brides are glad there's a distinction. Yeah, nobody may follow it and they still do it, but whatever, it's not mandated.

· The Qur'an suggests the death penalty, it doesn't command it.
· Restitution is an acceptable alternative in Islamic law.
· Murder is defined in terms of law as unlawful intentional killing. Execution is lawful in states were it is practised.

· Blame the forced marriages on society, not Islam.

[Distruzio]

There is no such thing as a source without a bias.

There is no such thing as a source without a bias, therefore, it's logical to point to the Bible and Church as proof that God exists, which means the Bible and Church are correct because God exists.

Sorry, no it isn't, just because you add one more leg to the circular logic race doesn't make the logic any less circular.

Oh I didn't suggest that, because the Church is biased in favor of the existence of God, God exists. Did I?

I acknowledge it's bias.

It isn't, in fact, logical to point to the Bible and the Church as proof of His existence. The statements I've thus far made merely explained the way those entities with the authority to speak on God's existence derive their authority and that, when they speak authoritatively, their statements are true (unless you reject their axiomatic premises).

They say that God exists. I have yet to expand upon how God exists.

[Mavorpen]

Oh I didn't suggest that, because the Church is biased in favor of the existence of God, God exists. Did I?

Yes, you did. Because that was the purpose behind DaWood's question.

Logically, rights exist.

Logically, the government exists.

Logically, God exists.

However, not everyone accepts mere logic as an affirmation of existence. Atheists exist because they compel we theists to exercise restraint with our logic. They are correct, in that regard. Sometimes logic can be incorrect. After all oxygen is what we breathe, correct? So, logically, breathing a more pure oxygen should be better for you - but it aint. Skeptical science proved this to people. Those skeptical of religion have much to show people, as well.

show me the logic for the existence of god please.

He asked you to provide the logic that demonstrates the existence for God. One who has a desire to engage in intellectual honesty would understand that he was in essence, asking you to back up your assertion that God logically exists, i.e. back up your damn claim that He exists.

So either you misread his intentions, or you're being intellectually dishonest on purpose after being caught using circular reasoning.

[The Rich Port]

You don't count executions and corporeal punishment as murder and assault, respectively? I do, especially on made-up charges like "apostasy".
I'm certain the child brides are glad there's a distinction. Yeah, nobody may follow it and they still do it, but whatever, it's not mandated.

· The Qur'an suggests the death penalty, it doesn't command it.
· Restitution is an acceptable alternative in Islamic law.
· Murder is defined in terms of law as unlawful intentional killing. Execution is lawful in states were it is practised.

· Blame the forced marriages on society, not Islam.

Once again, I'm certain everybody who dies because of their government's interpretations of the Qur'an are grateful you make the distinction.

Oh, goody, so that means anybody who can't pay restitution is fucked and the distinction is fucking stupid.

Semantics. I don't believe in killing a human being unless in self-defense. A killing is a murder is an execution is a killing. Also, I'm tolerant of execution so long as the reasons are good for it. Apostasy, for which people have been executed for, is such a flimsy charge, it might as well be imaginary.

Society creates religion. I can blame the religion by extension.

[Cosara]

I can’t for the life of me imagine that God would say, “I will punish you because you are black. You should have been White. I will punish you because you are a woman; you should have been a man. I will punish you because you are homosexual. You ought to have been heterosexual.” I can’t for the life of me believe that is how God sees things.

-Archbishop Desmond Tutu

That's not how god sees things. He will punish you for acting Homosexual (IE, engaging in Homosexual Acts). Blacks aren't discriminated against in the Bible (there are verses against slavery). Women aren't discriminated against in the bible too terribly much.

[Ordya]

1) God is not obsolete until He has been proven to be obsolete.

no all thing are obsolete until demonstrated as useful enough to counter any costs.
in Science anything without any evidence is completely useless, thus obsolete.

2) Why do you say no?

because many people study biology out of curiosity not religious drivel.
Although many biologist do come to dislike religion, mostly due to repeated abuses of biology by religion.

1) Yet God has no evidence.
2) [citation needed]