Originally Posted by RememberTwce

I'm so confused right now

EDIT: I feel bad that you're so confused, haha.

I said, "Man, you can be so offensive sometimes..." sarcastically, because for some reason Icecream (I assume, could be wrong I suppose) is flagging all of your inoffensive posts.

Then you made a sad face, and I was tempted to flag it to follow the trend. I suggested that you must feel like Rakim, what with all of the flags.

Cue confusion, I think.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Again, which means that God transcends the Universe. That in turn means that while we can't directly describe God, we can describe God through physical phenomena.

That's a fallacy of the consequent right there..

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P

Originally Posted by Icecream

Everything which is sensible is made out of atoms and verifiable.

What's wrong ? You are calling a fallacy when there isn't.

Now you've proposed an entirely new statement, and one which isn't acceptable. If you're trying to get that statement out of the previous one, then you've definitely committed the fallacy I was referring to earlier.
If not, you've manufactured a new and highly contentious statement - if everyone was as certain about that as you are, we wouldn't have a discipline of philosophy and methodology of science.

Originally Posted by Icecream

That's a fallacy of the consequent right there..

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P

Uhh...what? I don't think you understand what the fallacy of affirming the consequent is. In order to apply the fallacy, you need to have a conditional statement and infer a single statement from it. I generated a conditional statement from a single statement. The fallacy can't possibly apply.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Now you've proposed an entirely new statement, and one which isn't acceptable. If you're trying to get that statement out of the previous one, then you've definitely committed the fallacy I was referring to earlier.
If not, you've manufactured a new and highly contentious statement - if everyone was as certain about that as you are, we wouldn't have a discipline of philosophy and methodology of science.



Uhh...what? I don't think you understand what the fallacy of affirming the consequent is. In order to apply the fallacy, you need to have a conditional statement. I generated a conditional statement from a single statement. The fallacy can't possibly apply.

How is that not true ?

Most substance have a different smell because they have a different atomic arrangement.

We can see, touch, taste everything which is made of atom thanks to light bouncing off of it.


Your philosophical crap hasn't helped the World one bit. Tell me one thing philosophy contributed to someone or the world.

Science : Technology, Internet.

Religion: More of a personal thing but I have seen it bring people together.

These positive things it brings. Name me one good positive thing your philosophical crap did !

Originally Posted by Icecream

Your philosophical crap hasn't helped the World one bit. Tell me one thing philosophy contributed to someone or the world.

Science : Technology, Internet.

Religion: More of a personal thing but I have seen it bring people together.

These positive things it brings. Name me one good positive thing your philosophical crap did !

Alright, that's enough. I don't know how to respond seriously to this sort of nonsense.

Originally Posted by Icecream

How is that not true ?

Most substance have a different smell because they have a different atomic arrangement.

We can see, touch, taste everything which is made of atom thanks to light bouncing off of it.

Your philosophical crap hasn't helped the World one bit. Tell me one thing philosophy contributed to someone or the world.

Name me one good positive thing your philosophical crap did

LOL I lost whatever little respect I had left for you. I wish you had this conversation with a philosophy professor.

Edit: and I agree with Mahratta, no one should be expected to take you seriously anymore.

That's Commander?! I did not have that on my mental list of people and their alternate accounts. Sneaky, sneaky.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Uhh...what? I don't think you understand what the fallacy of affirming the consequent is. In order to apply the fallacy, you need to have a conditional statement and infer a single statement from it. I generated a conditional statement from a single statement. The fallacy can't possibly apply.

The problem is your conditional statement has no link to the original statement

God transcends (higher, has power over...) the physical realm (realm of atoms, or things which had a start)

Then explain how can God be described physically through physical phenomena ? Are you assuming God leaves footprints or fingerprints ?

EDIT : I am not a commander but I like the compliment.

NAME ME ONE THING PHILOSOPHY DID. I am not talking about logical fallacy. It shouldn't be too hard but you can run away.

Originally Posted by Icecream

I am not a commander but I like the compliment.

Is this you recognizing that you are a troll?

Originally Posted by Icecream

God is not physical at all.

And By physical I mean made out of atoms, or more precisely quarks and leptons.

Anything physical can be seen, touched, smelled, tasted or heard.

Having a role in human life ? So according to your definition truth or fiction is physical ?

I postulate that Osama Bin Laden is god.
Being a god, he isn't physical, so no physical proof is attainable, and thus not required.
Since I don't need to (or can't) produce physical proof, I don't have to prove what I postulated.
Checkmate.

I declare this this thread now be about how Obama basically killed a god. Only two years into his presidency. Thats intense.



im eating caramel ice cream

Originally Posted by W. Steinitz

Is this you recognizing that you are a troll?

People are calling me Commander, I don't know who that is but let me call you Osama bin Laden's second in command. Even though I have no proof of that like the rest of the people here do.

Originally Posted by Icecream

How is that not true ?



These positive things it brings. Name me one good positive thing your philosophical crap did !

Islam is a philosophy

Originally Posted by RyanC

I postulate that Osama Bin Laden is god.
Being a god, he isn't physical, so no physical proof is attainable, and thus not required.
Since I don't need to (or can't) produce physical proof, I don't have to prove what I postulated.
Checkmate.

I declare this this thread now be about how Obama basically killed a god. Only two years into his presidency. Thats intense.



im eating caramel ice cream

Stop trolling. Someone brought up God, and was asking for proof. Learn to read.

Osama is physical. Do you deny that ?

Originally Posted by healthsci1

Islam is a philosophy

No Islam is a religion. Philosophy is a study. Islam is not a study, it cannot be changed anyway.