And "herp what? that's ridiculous! derp," is not a valid contention: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy (The name of which is ironically an example of a reduction fallacy. Its unbiased name is Argument from Incredulity.)
Note: "Rejecting" a premise is a statement about how you feel, and is thus irrelevant. Assessment of soundness necessitates a -claim- of plausibility if it is to be relevant, else premises' antecedents could be questioned ad infinitum, their soundness dictated only by how "obvious" they are to the reader, ultimately arriving at whichever conclusion they wish. tl;dr Screeching "Prove it!" isn't a valid contention to the soundness of premises.
1 1. If God doesn't exist, nothing actually, objectively matters. 2. Things actually, objectively matter. 3. Therefore, God exists. (modus tollens from 1)
2 1. If God were not to exist, the only thing that could create consciousness would be some interaction between any or all of the four fundamental forces of the universe. 2. To assume the brain is evidence that this happens is a fallacy of the single cause, i.e. it is to assume fallaciously that because the brain causes consciousness, it is sufficient for consciousness. 3. There is no evidence, empirical, mathematical, or otherwise, that any interaction between any of the four fundamental forces of the universe could possibly create consciousness. 4. Therefore, to believe consciousness is only a product of the universe is irrational.
3 1. Subjective morality has no bearing on objective morality, including and up to ideas like "Whatever is most advantegeous for the survival of the species is what is objectively moral," as such an idea is itself only subjective. 2. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 3. Objective moral values and duties do exist. 4. Therefore, God exists.
4 1. Belief in some conception of God — that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due — is common to almost all people of every era. 2. Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not. 3. If our only reason for doubting is that people have understood materialistic causes for materialistic things — which is necessarily irrelevant to the immaterial — then it is most plausible to believe that these people have not been wrong. 4. Therefore it is most plausible to believe that God exists.
5 1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents. 2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree. 3. So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree. 4. Hence God exists.
6 1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire. 2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, nor creature can satisfy. 3. Therefore, there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire. 4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."
7 1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. 2. Truth properly resides in a mind. 3. But the human mind is not eternal. 4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.
8 1. Good things exist. 2. The cause of this goodness is either one or many. 3. But it can’t be many, for then there would be no way to compare their goodness, for each would define its own goodness. But some things are better than others. 4. Therefore, one Supreme Good (God) causes the goodness in all things.
Isaiah Gutierrez
9 1. If God doesn't exist, nothing actually, objectively matters or has meaning. 2. If nothing actually, objectively matters or has meaning, neither does the proposition "Nothing actually, objectively matters or has meaning." 3. Therefore, the proposition is self-refuting. 4. Therefore, things actually, objectively matter or have meaning. 5. Therefore, God exists. (modus tollens from 1)
10 1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. 2. The universe — the collection of beings in space and time — exists. 3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist. 4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time. 5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.
11 1. Human beings have a natural, innate desire for God, as implicated by history. 2. Natural selection only selects for advantageous traits. 3. To desire something that doesn't exist would be disadvantageous. 4. Therefore, to desire something that doesn't exist wouldn't have evolved. 5. Therefore, what humans naturally, innately desire, exists. 6. Therefore, God exists.
12 1. Our senses reveal to us an order of efficient causes in the world. 2. Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself because then it would have to exist prior to itself, which is impossible. 3. In a series of efficient causes, each member of the series is the cause of the next. 4. Because of this, if there is no first cause in the series, there will be no series at all. 5. The series of efficient causes cannot extend infinitely into the past, for then there would be no first cause and therefore no series. 6. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
Luke Fisher
13 1. An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed. 2. If an infinite number of moments had to elapse before today, then today would never have come. 3. But today has come. 4. Therefore, an infinite number of moments have not elapsed before today (i.e., the universe had a beginning). 5. But whatever has a beginning is caused by something else. 6. Hence, there must be a Cause (Creator) of the universe.
14 1. If the multiverse doesn't exist, there is sufficient scientific reason to believe life is impossible. 2. Stephen Hawking and many other science cucks are advocates for the existence of the multiverse for this reason. 3. If there are an infinite number of universes with random properties, which the multiverse entails, all possibilities exist. 4. If all possibilities exist, God exists. 5. If God exists in any universe, being God, He necessarily exists in all universes. 6. If scientists like Steven Hawking are right about the existence of the multiverse, then, ironically, God exists.
15 1. Logical absolutes exist. 2. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature--are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature. 3. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. 4. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different--not absolute. 5. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. 6. This mind is called God. 7. Furthermore, if there are only two options to account for something, i.e., God and no God, and one of them is negated, then by default the other position is validated. 8. Therefore, the atheist position cannot account for the existence of logical absolutes from its worldview.
Aaron Wilson
16 1. We have ideas of many things. 2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us. 3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God — an infinite, all-perfect being. 4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and, because causes necessarily assume the greatness of their effects, no effect can be greater than its cause. 5. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God. 6. But only God himself has those qualities. 7. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him. 8. Therefore God exists.
17 1. All physical things have a logical cause. 2. An infinite regress of logical causes is impossible, as any such infinite regress would itself beg a logical cause. 3. Therefore, there is an uncaused first cause. 4. The only possible cause that isn't itself caused is will. 5. Therefore, such a cause necessarily has agency. 6. To have caused the universe and life, it is necessarily omnipotent. 7. Omnipotence implies omniscience. 8. To have caused the universe and life and to be omniscient, it is necessarily omnibenevolent. 9. Evil is only an absence of good. 10. Therefore, omnipotence implies omnibenevolence. 11. Therefore, the uncaused first cause is God. 12. Therefore, God exists.
Ryan Hernandez
18 1. We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies. 2. Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; non-being is a real possibility. 3. Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that non-being is a real possibility for everything. 4. Then right now nothing would exist. For 5. If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed — literally — nothing at all. But 6. From nothing nothing comes. So 7. The universe could not have begun. 8. But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be. But 9. If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So 10. There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary. 11. Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being. 12. This absolutely necessary being is God.
Jacob Butler
19 1. Only the mind gives descriptions of the world meaning. 2. Emergent properties are descriptions of the world, i.e. in defining emergent properties, we are describing the world. 3. Therefore, only the mind gives emergent properties meaning. 4. Descriptions of the world that only the mind gives meaning don't objectively exist. 5. Therefore, emergent properties don't objectively exist. (from 2, 3, and 4) 6. Therefore, matter is never objectively more than its parts, and matter cannot produce consciousness, e.g. an electron, or any number of electrons, passing between any number of points, in any permutation, through any combination or permutation of mediums, cannot produce consciousness. 7. Therefore, our consciousness can only be a consequence of consciousness. 8. The age of the earth is limited. 9. Therefore, there is a consciousness that precedes consciousness on earth. 10. What precedes that consciousness?: 10a. It's possible an infinite consciousness could "precede" itself. 10b. An omnipotent, aspacial, atemporal being would not necessitate a logical cause, and therefore would not necessitate a precedent consciousness. 10c. Irrelevant. It can't be inferred from the necessity of a consciousness that there is no consciousness.
Ryan Scott
20 1. The fine-tuning of the fundamental physical constants of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design. 2. Proponents of the anthropic principle assume that because observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it, it is unremarkable that this universe has fundamental constants that happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life -- which is a modal scope fallacy, i.e. it equivocates the necessity of the universe if conscious and sapient life that observes it exists, with modal necessity, i.e. it confuses "necessary if" and "necessary." 3. All physical things have a logical cause. 4. All logically-caused things are contingent, i.e. it is possible for them not to be caused. 5. Therefore, all physical things are contingent. 6. The fundamental physical constants are a physical thing. 7. Therefore, the fundamental physical constants are contingent. 8. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity, and the universe, as it is, is not the only possible world. 9. There are an infinite number of possible worlds in which the fine-tuning of the universe and all its antecedents do not exist or are in an infinite number of possible states. 10. There is a finite number of possible worlds in which the fine-tuning of the universe and all its antecedents exist or are in a state thought to be compatible with life. 11. Therefore, the probability of a possible world in which the fundamental constants exist and fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life is n/infinity, which is 0 or asymptotically tends to 0. 12. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance. 13. Therefore, it is due to design.
Charles King
21 1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious. (p ^ p' = everything) 2. We know inductively that the inanimate (nonconscious) is not moral. (Observation) 3. In some possible world, there is only the nonconscious. (Premise) 4. In some possible world, there is no morality. (From 2 and 3) 5. Morality is contingent. (From 4) 6. Morality is not contingent on the nonconscious. (From 2) 7. Morality is contingent on the conscious. (From 1, 5, and 6) 8. Consequence is objective. (Premise) 9. Consequence can be significant. (Observation) 10. Objective, significant consequence implies objective meaning. (Premise) 11. Objective meaning implies objective purpose. (Premise) 12. Evil is defined as absence of goodness. (Definition) 13. Purpose is good or evil. (From 12) 14. Good and evil are objective. (From 11 and 13) 15. Good and evil are only moral concepts. (Premise) 16. Good and evil are contingent on morality. (From 15) 17. Morality is objective. (From 14 and 16) 18. Consciousness is objective. (7 and 17) 19. Knowledge is objective. (From 18 and 23) 20. Objective morality is contingent on objective consequence and objective consciousness. (Premise) 21. Objective consequence and objective consciousness imply objective agency. (Premise) 22. Agency is objective. (From 21) 23. Objectively absent things don't exist. (Premise) 24. God exists. (From 12, 14, 19, 22, and 23)
Jackson Sanders
Existence independent of God would imply His limitation and thus that He doesn't exist. Our creation implies God cares, which implies He would want us not to be fooled, which implies a 'religion' is true, and Christianity is the largest, most successful movement of all time. Jesus showed up just before the exponential explosion in the world’s population, so 98 percent of us have walked the earth since his ressurrection, which was witnessed by more than 500 people.
The historicity of the bible is proven by contradictions of its otherwise irrelevant details, as it is 66 different narratives, letters, and writings written by 40 different people, five of whom witnessed Jesus after His resurrection, over about 1,500 years, that are all theologically synchronous.
Christianity is one of the first to teach of one rational, all-perfect God, and is the only theological understanding in which we're not expected to work our way to heaven for some superficial reward, nor are we saved by the merit of our actions, but only by the grace of Jesus Christ. "Faith without works is dead," in that he who has faith in Jesus will simply bear the works, i.e. repentance, not Catholic tradition. It is only through this that we are able to know Jesus, but faith in Him and humility that men are not their own god must come first.
>Assessment of soundness necessitates a -claim- of plausibility if it is to be relevant, else premises' antecedents could be questioned ad infinitum, their soundness dictated only by how "obvious" they are to the reader, ultimately arriving at whichever conclusion they wish.
You are confusing the concepts of soundness and validity. Arguments being valid has nothing to do with whether the premises are true; arguments being sound requires the premises be true.
Hudson Turner
1. This isn't even logic. Great job googling some logic phrases. 2. 4 does not follow from 3 3. Assumes 1 which is not proven. Nice bait.
Asher Miller
It's very funny that you link to the divine fallacy and then commit it. From your link:
> I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true; therefore P must be false.
Your argument #2:
>There is no evidence that any interaction between any of the four fundamental forces of the universe could possibly create consciousness. >Therefore, to believe consciousness is only a product of the universe is irrational.
Dylan Powell
Logic does not count as math because it is based on math /thread
Christian Davis
Nice
Alexander Davis
More explicit:
Existence independent of God would imply His limitation and thus that He doesn't exist. Our creation implies God cares, which implies He would want us not to be fooled, which implies a 'religion' is true. Christianity is the largest, most successful movement of all time. God necessarily being competent, this attests to the likelihood of Christianity's truth
Jesus' resurrection was witnessed by more than 500 people. The historicity of the bible is proven by contradictions of its otherwise irrelevant details, as it is 66 different narratives, letters, and writings written by 40 different people, five of whom witnessed Jesus after His resurrection, over about 1,500 years, that are all theologically synchronous
Christianity is one of the first to teach of one rational, all-perfect God, and is the only theological understanding in which we're not expected to work our way to heaven for some superficial reward, nor are we saved by the merit of our actions, but only by the grace of Jesus Christ. "Faith without works is dead," in that he who has faith in Jesus will simply bear the works, i.e. repentance, not Catholic tradition. It is only through this that we are able to know Jesus, but faith in Him and humility that men are not their own god must come first
It is irrational to believe anything without sufficient reason. "It's very funny" that you think that commits the divine fallacy.
Michael Edwards
>tl;dr Screeching "Prove it!" isn't a valid contention to the soundness of premises. What is, then, in your mind? Certainly I could make an argument that starts with false premises.
Jackson Richardson
>You are confusing the concepts of soundness and validity t. someone who has no idea what these are. Let me illuminate you. Soundness is the "trueness" of premises. Validity refers to the structure of the argument, e.g. all p are q, p, therefore q is a modus ponens syllogism and is valid regardless of what these variables represent. What they represent is what's sound or unsound.
Christopher Flores
Once a valid argument is posed, the only valid response is an assessment of plausibility of the premises, i.e. to argue why a premise is less plausible than not, vice versa, or neither, not to merely "reject" a premise. Such is to excuse one's self entirely from the dialectic.
Camden Kelly
If Jesus existed then he would be pissed at any religion on this earth. Congratulations on paraphrasing excerpts of Walter Russell OP. I find it funny however that you seem to be pushing Christianity.
If we are all one then why do we need mediators?
If we are "Created in his image" then are we not God ourselves? Like everything else that grows, we are self-similar and holographic in nature. We are part of the whole that is "God", the image in this picture is what I'm talking about.
God is not an entity or a "Being" that understands materialism. Christians are so guilty of materialism and they don't even know it. It is the very worship, praising and the holding of Jesus himself to be more valuable than all humans. This is an illogical notion that Jesus was disgusted with, even in the bible he flipped shit on the rabbis for charging non Jews to go to synagogue and peddling shit. Several of his "miracles" were simply him telling the unfaithful to just have faith. To be one with God is to understand that there is no death,
We don't "need" God, we are God with low potential.
Christopher Walker
>I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true; therefore P is false.
Literally in your own link.
Ryan Richardson
>Does logic count as math? I wanted to pose this to the should-be more logically-minded
No, this goes on Veeky Forums or /x/ Please take your copypasta/schizophrenia/ramblings there.
Jordan James
>the only valid response is an assessment of plausibility of the premises, i.e. to argue why a premise is less plausible than not, vice versa, or neither, not to merely "reject" a premise. What about "this seems implausible (or even, false) to me, please convince me"? Because that's pretty much what rejecting a premise is shorthand for.
If you argue that it is the responsibility of the doubter to argue against the plausibility, this leads to an environment in which it is much more work to disprove a flawed argument than it is to pose one, and thus flawed arguments go unchallenged. For if Alice poses an argument based on flawed premises, and Bob doubts this premise, then it will generally be far more work for Bob to point out exactly why the premise is implausible (or indeed false), than it was for Alice to pose the argument in the first place. Meaning that Alice can invent flawed arguments much faster than Bob can argue against it.
For this reason, the common etiquette of argument requires Alice to provide convincing support for the premises she argues from, when challenged; NOT for Bob to provide antisupport. By saying "I reject your premise (3)", Bob can communicate that they accept the other premises and the validity of the logic, but are not convinced of the correctness of that particular premise, putting the responsibility at Alice to support that named premise.
Wyatt Morales
Lol. You aren't disagreeing with me, except when you say
>Soundness is the "trueness" of premises.
which is not correct--it's only half of the definition of soundness. Soundness implies validity.
Aiden Barnes
>If we are "Created in his image" then are we not God ourselves? You don't think it's possible to have the likeness of something and not be that thing? >We don't "need" God, we are God with low potential. How does this follow? >Because that's pretty much what rejecting a premise is shorthand for. Perhaps it would be tolerable if this were true, but many think "rejection" of a premise constitutes the argument's refutation. >If you argue that it is the responsibility of the doubter to argue against the plausibility, this leads to an environment in which it is much more work to disprove a flawed argument than it is to pose one Why? And perhaps forcing people to think, e.g. explaining their "rejection" of concepts is a good thing. >and thus flawed arguments go unchallenged False, and we would merely be excusing ourselves from participating in an "absurd" dialectic. >then it will generally be far more work for Bob to point out exactly why the premise is implausible (or indeed false) Why? If a premise is easily demonstrably false, then bob only need say that, and possibly explain why it's demonstrably false. >Meaning that Alice can invent flawed arguments much faster than Bob can argue against it. This assumes it would be easy to construct valid arguments in this fashion, and again, one need not participate. >For this reason, the common etiquette of argument requires Alice to provide convincing support for the premises she argues from The premises are the support. Else one could demand substantiation of substantiation ad infinitum, and fallaciously conclude they are somehow victorious in their questioning. >By saying "I reject your premise (3)", Bob can communicate that they accept the other premises and the validity of the logic, but are not convinced of the correctness of that particular premise, putting the responsibility at Alice to support that named premise. It is one thing to sincerely ask for clarification, and another to question as contention
Carson Gray
>Soundness implies validity. The soundness of an argument maybe. Where is the implication of your supposed discovery of any confusion between these concepts on my part?
Jeremiah Robinson
>The soundness of an argument maybe. Can you show me an example of premises being referred to as "sound" rather than "true" anywhere in philosophical literature? Soundness is a property of arguments.
>Where is the implication of your supposed discovery of any confusion between these concepts on my part? If by "soundness" you meant only that the premises are true, then I suppose you weren't confused, but I believe you are not using the term as conventionally accepted.
Aaron Anderson
>Can you show me an example of premises being referred to as "sound" rather than "true" anywhere in philosophical literature? Probably not, i.e. I care not, because I've head to be made aware of how this is conseqeuntial at all >Soundness is a property of arguments. Assuming you mean "Soundness is a property of only arguments," how and why? If soundness is essentially the "trueness" of arguments, why would this not apply to premises as well? And how is this consequential at all and not simply pedantic of you? >but I believe you are not using the term as conventionally accepted. If you can show me that soundness of premises isn't a conventionally accepted concept, then I suppose I'll have to start using something silly-sounding like "trueness."
Jeremiah Stewart
kek don't know how "yet" turned into "head." spoopy fingers...
The only interesting new part worth sharing is their reports about meme warfare
Share the Deep State stuff we already know elsewhere
Eli Wood
>oh, they all did it wrong
>because he has a computer that will tell him what the soviets did wrong. What a moronic interpretation. I said computers can help in planning and now we have better computational capabilities than during the cold war.
>but you'll do it right! you expect me to believe you, why? Look, I'm just arguing for the soundness of centrally planned economies. I'm here to argue on logic. I don't EXPECT you to believe me. I'm here to discuss and I'm open to valid counter arguments. Not shit tier arguments like communism leads to starvation or genocide - those are specific to power abusing individuals, not a tenet of communism - communism doesn't require you to starve people or genocide them.
"About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers." - Calvin Coolidge in 1926
Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: "We the People." "We the People" tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us. "We the People" are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the People" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the People" are free. - Ronald Reagan in his Farewell Speech
I want consent of the governed back. It has been replaced with elections which change nothing because the unelected parts of government control everything and a compliant media tells us it's what we voted for.
Aaron Perry
>You don't think it's possible to have the likeness of something and not be that thing? Right so I guess that settles it. I am not a human, I am God in the idea of a human.
>How does this follow? How can you expect to believe in God when you don't even follow in his footsteps? If you follow his footsteps are you not trying to become one with him? God does not worship one thing over another, that is materialism. There is no valued being or material above all others so why would God place himself above the rest? God is NOT MATERIAL. GOD IS IDEA, GOD IS MIND ITSELF. God does not use the beliefs of a certain group of people or mediators to prove his point, God simply uses nature.
Nicholas Cook
What is this? >inb4 bots can now solve captchas >>a gazillion non sequiturs >implies invalidity Well, which non sequiturs, hmmm? There are 5 well-known ones to choose from. Sorry if fuckreligion.com told you a non sequitur is only w/e frazzles your jammies.
Grayson Diaz
>inb4 bots can now solve captchas Bots have been able to solve re"captchas" for a long time. Anyone with basic math skills should be able to see this based on the weakness of the challenge given. github.com/Veeky Forums/4chan-API/issues/51 The administration regards this as a non-issue.
Joshua Miller
define God define objectively define matters define consciousness define subjective define morality define moral values define duty define natural and innate desire define truths define good define what it takes for something to exist define moment define traversal of a moment define science cuck define possibilities define logical absolute define mind define idea define greatness define logical cause define will define agency define have to be define significant define purpose
Note that I am not baiting and have only chosen words that I don't understand your usage of.
Grayson Foster
Appealing to is a fallacy on two charges.
1) It almost always supposes that something new is better than old, while failing to establish a basis for that claim.
2) It implies that the mertit of an argument is based on temporal positioning, which if we accept as true, implies that the soundness of the argument is arbitrary rather than logical. If being 2016 makes an argument correct, where being 1950 didn't, then why should we believe it was ever correct in the first place? It may turn out to be wrong when it's 2020. In general, an argument that is sound is not based off arbitrary distinguishers like time.
A last (but not always present) problem with current year, is that it relies on accepting that people before you were more primitive or less human than you are. It's incredibly insulting to the intelligence of any reader to think that simply stating that time has passed has made everyone more moral/intelligent/rational/etc. this is similar to the first problem, but is also effectively an ad hom and not actually an argument of substance, since you will almost never be able to establish a basis for this claim. We might """know""" more now, but consider the heliocentric vs geocentric models of the universe. People today are not generally smarter for believing a heliocentric model over a geocentric one as most people do not have any understanding of why either argument should be accepted. Ptolemy might have been wrong with his model, but it would be foolish to think that John Oliver knows more about Most topics in astronomy than Ptolemy does, only on the grounds that it's 2016 and we now believe a heliocentric model.
you can't demonstrate that something is real unless we can agree upon our mutual definition of what qualifies as real. Real might be well defined as 'truthful in accordance to observed and measurable criteria'. Common objections to such a state of reality include its reliance upon observation and therefore that the nature of reality is subjective, but you are then challenged (if you hold this position) to provide a testable demonstration of an 'objective' view of what is real.
The fact that thought process occurs is presumably not under debate. In technical terms, it is imaginable that we can investigate the nature of thoughts. They are a function of neurological connections, and thus can be investigated, and in the future perhaps accuracy can be provided.
There are schools of thought that offer solipsism; (that is the only thoughts we KNOW are real are the ones we experience, and the rest of experience could be fallible), but as it stands this model of reality that we see is the best information we have, so we might as well base some of our assumptions on consistent, verifiable processes as these can at least be investigated by others and examined for soundness.
>I know theyre retarded, I don't really know why well thats true, but then you believe in genies, so why should anyone care what you think, hmm? Go on, prove a skeptic wrong why dontcha :)
Exist? Theres different levels of 'existence' in just the meaning of the word exist. This computer 'exists' and so does the number four. However, the number four is not physically real, it only exists as a place-holder-short-hand. In essence, its 'existence' is purely conceptual.
One might point out that thor and leprechauns are similarly only purely conceptual. They exist, but they are not 'real' despite having the property of 'existing' (in at least some sense of the word).
People who would have you believe impossible nonsense for no good reason have a vested interest in debating this.
Benjamin Rivera
I was very frustrated by Penn and Teller's dishonest dismissal of Satanism based on sincerity and theological soundness, since these are guys who attack Christianity every day as obviating those things (but suddenly with Satanism these things are somehow a prerequisite), but also because there are numerous reasons to get into Satanism that have nothing to do with religiosity. Consider the use of religion in giving you a particular frame of mind that enables certain things and makes others less likely or important. Consider being able to control or intimidate a child. Consider the automatic convenient logic of useful things like secrecy.
Evan Miller
Is this sort of irrelevant nonsense something Veeky Forumsfags normally have to deal with? Is it some meme?
The rest of the UK aka England would have to agree to entering a currency union with a separate sovereign state. This means that any financial issue/collapse in Scotland could effect the Pound or the soundness England's banking system.
Personally I wouldn't want to be in a currency union with the kinds of jokers the Scots will be electing for the foreseeable future.
Zachary Lee
Moderate AKA degenerate
Anthony Hernandez
Enjoy staying poor and blaming the world for it instead of actually achieving wealth so you can provide your children with financial soundness instead of a world of stress and anxiety.
Lazy fuck, acquire some self responsibility. You've got plenty of time to bullshit don't you?
Christopher Gutierrez
>last 10 or so posts: some newfag notion of "shitting" on a thread Hope you're remembering to sage
Aaron Torres
He's a fucking slob, frosted tipped fuck, i'd hate him regardless
Jayden Richardson
>need consistency Now we come to evaluation metric. How does one measure consistency? Soundness, as we would call this from a mathematical standpoint, is still a surface reduction of a higher-dimensional abstract space.
Bentley Moore
Isaiah 1:4-7 (KJV)
>Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.
>Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.
>From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.
>Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers.
jesus fucking christ it's the current fucking year how do we still get potato quality pictures of people like it's 2003
Lincoln Johnson
It's been stated earlier that not all smart people are good writers, but all good writers are smart people.
Having a PhD in mathematics is more important than you think. Mathematics is all about logical connections, only using numbers. This means that continuity and logical soundness is of utmost importance if you wish to make any headway in maths. In writing, continuity is important in order to create a proper narrative, no logical leaps, no deus ex machina, no crap. This is why Futurama is so good, the writing was good -- the writing was logical (even though the premise of the show isn't).
There is soooooo much more -- like that huge proof with the Globe Trotters.
I remember it now, that proof was regarding an episode where the heads and bodies of the main cast were swapped. And the proof showed the least number of switches needed to put the proper head on the proper body for each person -- and it worked, and it was never even explicitly shown.
Julian Powell
Anything not involving kettle logic is logically consistent.
Hugh Jackman and Debora Furness have been married how long? 20 years? seems to me like serious business, certainly a marriage of amazing soundness for "show biz".
Ryder Lee
Classical music helps you think. Communists don't like thinking, so they want nigger music that promotes cultural marxism
>must provide some historical basis This means that you do not appreciate deductive reasoning in it's ability to propound truths. You would only require historical examples if you thought there was a possibility that historical examples could contradict a sound syllogism. I don't mind if you don't believe in the soundness of deductive reasoning, but please do not act like you do.
If the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. If you can invalidate the premises then I will agree you are right. But saying "there is no example of this happening" doesn't hold up as an argument.
>>If the premises are true, then the conclusion is true Only if the argument is valid.
I don't understand this meme. Are these posts just some idiot "shitting" on this thread, or some idiot trying to imply that the topic of the thread is equivalently incoherent, or some idiot getting off on being lul random and my presumed frustration like this is grade 6?
Robert Phillips
your feelings about them being uninteresting don't change the soundness of their mechanics faggot-kun
Michael Morales
pretty much agree, with anyone who tries to contest that begging the question is "uninteresting," which implies soundness is irrelevant.
Logan Rogers
>The evidence for Jesus is flimsy at best Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 5][13][nb 6][15]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[17][nb 8][19][20][21] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
The soundness of an argument is 100x more important than whether the argument is valid. Anyone can throw together notation in such a way that the conclusion follows true premises. But if these premises are not defined (like in OP's picture without reading external explanations), or if the premises can't hold true (like the explanation of the OP's pictures), then who cares about the conclusion?
Just because you can abstract something and make it logically consistent does not mean it holds true at all in our universe.
For example, All x are y All y are z Therefore, all x are z. This is logically consistent. Now if I plug in x=people, y=dogs, z=tables, it's a meaningless argument. Similar same holds for OP's picture.
Bentley Hernandez
>Christ myth theory not just >Christ theory I hope that insinuation isn't actually allowed.
Ryder Williams
>Go tell some islamic scholar that sahih hadiths are not 100% valid. Enjoy your beheading for apostasy. Burden of proof lies with the claimant. You are incredibly dense just do 5 minutes of research and you'll understand what hadith science is and what Imam Bhukari assembled. It is a collections of quotes each with it's description of how valid it is. Even Imam Bhukari himself didn't consider it 100% fact. He just did his best finding the best ones. >Quality and soundness of the chain of narrators of the selected ahādīth. Muhammad al-Bukhari has followed two principle criteria for selecting sound narratives. First, the lifetime of a narrator should overlap with the lifetime of the authority from whom he narrates. Second, it should be verifiable that narrators have met with their source persons. They should also expressly state that they obtained the narrative from these authorities. This is a stricter criterion than that set by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj. >It simply clarifies its meaning. I could write an annotation on the Bible, wouldn't make it true. >all other tafsirs Including the ones that came before him? Great logic my man. >mongoloid Great insult m8. >Fitnah is defined by all the most illustrious islamic scholars as including even simple disbelief. Again, read any tafsir. They all agree. Did you not read the article. You're denser than a rock. This is COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. You are choosing only the information that fits your narrative. YOU ARE IN DENIAL. >Except when you state that the most famous and followed tafsirs (which have shaped islam for centuries, since they're the core of the ijma) must be ignored because they conflict with your personal opinions. Didn't say that and someone's commentary isn't binding upon me. >And no, english isn't my first language. I mostly use it to put little shits like you in their place. It shows. Just on a personal note, try to find a native speaker to speak with irl.
Ian Barnes
So many words to imply nothing but "Soundness matters." In any case, how is this a relevant negation at all?
Isaiah King
I think I get the meme: A superintelligent being is mocking the dialectic of lesser beings because they have the power of science! Inspired.
Jaxson Stewart
>1 If both 1.1 and 1.2 were proven to be true in reality (which they haven't) then sure... You used logic. >2 divine fallacy >3 3.1 has nothing to do with 3.2-3.4 Again If both 3.2 and 3.3 were proven to be true in reality (which they haven't) then sure (many cases like this through your whole spiel)... You used logic. >4 argumentum ad populum >5 5.1 contradicts 5.2 >6 6.2 is not innate >10 10.1 is just an endless loop. >11 11.1 argumentum ad antiquitatem 11.2-11.3 are false >17 17.1 and 17.2 imply all physical things are impossible 17.1 contradicts 17.3 ... anyway. There's way too much for me to go over. I don't have the patience.
Camden Moore
I don't have the necessary stupidity nor patience to appreciate this post. Perhaps tomorrow, if this thread is still alive, I will explain to you, objection by objection, just how incredibuly stupid you are.
Elijah Mitchell
t. The spitting image of god you are. :P
David Garcia
This thread is really gay.
Also since the OP cannot define the terms listed in , I believe that OP is a faggot pseud that just took Discrete Mathematics for first-year CS students and finished the section on "logic".
Also if you've ever read any academic textbook, all relevant terms are defined before use. So fuck off with this nonsense
Joseph Campbell
in washington a mom and pop shop owner is going to prison for shooting (and killing) a nog goblin who tried to rob his store.
this happened right on the tail of his wife getting shot during an attempted robbery by another nog goblin about a month prior.
shop owner is getting 8 years in prison for defending his shop
Epochrasite disappears for a couple turns when it does then comes back in its stronger form.
Reassembling Skeleton can be called back from your graveyard arbitrarily. Mortus strider will come back to your hand whenever it dies, which goes infinite with Aluren.
Haakon, Stromgald Scourge lets you play knights from your GY freely but doesn't work like you want him to as a Commander, sadly (You CAN do it, but it's a lot of work for what will probably top out as Nameless Inversion spam)
Advanced Stitchwing and a number of other Innistrad zombies can get back up at cost, but they're usually tougher than Reassembling Skeleton
Bloodghast returns whenever you drop a land.
Coffin Puppets return at the cost of two lands
Anything with Persist comes back a little weaker. Only once unless shenanigains. Ditto Undying but they get stronger instead.
Anything with the "Unearth" ability can come back for exactly one turn.
with special consideration to Mitotic Slime, Reef Worm, and the eggs.
Nothing perfectly like what you want, but sacrifice outlets being what they are it's easy to see why. Your best options are Mortus Strider+Aluren or (Persist Creature)+Melira, Sylvok Outcast. The latter is actually a fairly potent combo for instant winning.
Noah Taylor
Reminder that this is the guy shilling commie threads and denying Jewish cultural marxism
Atheist here. Sam Harris is actively calling progressive liberals on their bullshit by rightly calling them regressive liberals. Islam is not compatible with western ideals, and people have been silenced into not openly talking about the idiocy of muhammad. These regressive liberals would rather put their heads in the sand and tolerate intolerance.
With that being said, isn't sweden one of the most atheist countries on earth? This alone makes me question the soundness of the claims in the OP.
Fuck Islam. I'd rather live around christians.
Andrew Fisher
>If real Jesus He existed. His existence has been independently verified by multiple sources:
Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 5][13][nb 6][15]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[17][nb 8][19][20][21]
>inb4 hur hur hur wikipedia.
Look, I'm not a Muslim, but I don't go running around denying that Muhammad actually existed. I don't know if you are or not, but you can be an atheist while not turning into the religious equivalent of a moon landing denier.
Dylan Jenkins
The baltics bring over the best Pussy too so I have literally no problem with Fellow Europeans. My ranking of European Soundness in lads is as follows: >Spanish >/pol/land >Danes >Italians >Lithuanians >Latvians >Germans >Yugoanons >Estonians >Norwegians >Czech's >Greeks >Swedes >Dutch >Finns >French >Portuguese
William Sanchez
An interesting idea, but I'm doubtful of its soundness.
Facial features are not independent of each others - you couldn't have a direct mapping from an unknown variable to a facial feature, as that would result in quite caricatural faces (consider the facial customization of video games, where you pull a slider to determine the character's nose length).
On the other hand, if the mapping from the unknown variables to facial features was more subtle and realistic, determining a correlation would become harder. Especially so if there were multiple different combinations of those unknown variables which resulted in similar faces - which is almost guaranteed if there are two unknown variables which both affect the same facial feature, even partially.
