I will try not to offend!

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_marg

Re: I will try not to offend!

Post by _marg »

Aquinas wrote: Thus, here is my argument:

1. In God all goodness resides
2. Truth is good and
3. The goodness of truth is found by following true things
4. Therefore, truth leads to God

This argument is valid, but the soundness is what you are disputing. The soundness of a deductive argument does not depend on whether someone accepts a premise or not, but only if the premise is in fact true. You can deny the premises in this argument all you want:


You Aquinas have the burden to prove your premises true. Making assertions absent evidence is what you've done. In # 1 above..where is your evidence for a God. You've not even defined what God is. If the def'n of God is..."all goodness resides"...that doesn't tell anyone very much. Lots of things have goodness residing in them. In # 2 "Truth is all good"..that's your assertion...since when is truth all good? Truth that hurts isn't good.

# 3 is another assertion which doesn't make much sense. What are "true things"? What is "goodness of truth" and what evidence do you have that this "goodness of truth" your words can be found?

Your whole deductive argument is a pile of words saying and proving nothing. It's a pile of B.S. basically.


1. All men have bodies
2. George Bush is a man
3. Therefore, George Bush has a body

The denial of the premises in this argument only shows that the person denying them is a moron, it says nothing about the truth of the argument.



Well let's look at your deductive argument. I understand what men means..we can agree on that without going into lengthy def'ns and discussion. I understand what a a physical body is and again we can agree. If I didn't agree with you I'd expect evidence of men, and of bodies. I'd want a def'n and proof of those things existing, since we are talking reality here not fantasy.

For premise #2, I know who George Bush is ..I can accept the claim as true, but if I didn't know I'd want the information who he is and the evidence to confirm.

So both claims 1 & 2, I can agree are true. There's no problem, it's a valid sound deductive argument.

I already explained this to another poster in the other thread we posted in, but (surprise), you didn't read it. Whether an argument is compelling or not can be argued, but without posting counter argument(s) of your own, and based on the responses you have addressed to me, all you have really demonstrated to us at this point is that 1) you fail to read arguments before criticizing them and 2) you have a very shallow understanding of logic.


My goodness you are quite a character. It's really very simple Aquinas..you can not create truths of things existing or of reality of event happening with words. You can not set up deductive arguments, in which you present premises which include things which haven't been defined or proven and expect the premises or your assertions to be accepted as true. You have to prove the premises are true. In your George Bush example it was obvious the premises were true..but not in your previous example.

Edit: it looks as if you've changed your previous response to me, while I was posting this. It's really late right now, I'll have to look at it later, tuesday.
_Aquinas
_Emeritus
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:09 pm

Re: I will try not to offend!

Post by _Aquinas »

Can you say, strawman? When did I ever claim the original sentence I wrote proved anything? Please reread the most recent post of mine, as I edited it significantly after the first time I posted it. You were using one of the first responses I posted.
_marg

Re: I will try not to offend!

Post by _marg »

Aquinas wrote: Can you say, strawman? When did I ever claim the original sentence I wrote proved anything? Please reread the original post of mine, as I edited it significantly after the first time I posted it. You were using one of the first responses I posted.


What original sentence are you talking about? How can I reread the original post if you edited it significantly? All I know is I quoted the parts I responded to. No kidding I'm using the first response, it was there. While I was preparing a response you changed your post but I haven't read it yet, I just noticed it seem different and longer.

No strawman Aquinas, I'm not into disingenuous game playing like you apparently are.
_Aquinas
_Emeritus
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:09 pm

Re: I will try not to offend!

Post by _Aquinas »

marg wrote:
Aquinas wrote: Can you say, strawman? When did I ever claim the original sentence I wrote proved anything? Please reread the original post of mine, as I edited it significantly after the first time I posted it. You were using one of the first responses I posted.


What original sentence are you talking about? How can I reread the original post if you edited it significantly? All I know is I quoted the parts I responded to. No kidding I'm using the first response, it was there. While I was preparing a response you changed your post but I haven't read it yet, I just noticed it seem different and longer.

No strawman Aquinas, I'm not into disingenuous game playing like you apparently are.


The original sentence was:

If God is all good, then truth must lead to God, since all truth is good.


The statement of mine you keep trying to pawn off as a proof of the existence of God, or whatever you thought I was trying to prove. That is the strawman you are trying to knock down, I never claimed that to be any kind of proof about anything. The post I edited was the one that explained why you not accepting a premise of an argument doesn't make the argument unsound... the only reason I edited it was to add to it, nothing of substance was subtracted, plainly obvious if you read it again. For anyone else who is reading, you should know I already addressed much of what Marg put in her recent response, in the response I posted prior to it. I really don't care if you read it again or not Marg, I've given up on you here, everyone else is bored including me (yawn). If you actually read Aquinas and post a counter argument of your own, maybe I'll read it, otherwise, you aren't worth anymore of my time or threadspace.
_Tommy
_Emeritus
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:10 am

Post by _Tommy »

David is boring. He has no humility before God, which is expected since he does not know who God is. David, you are in my prayers.


Now son, that's not the way to address an apostle of the Lord. And you may address him as Elder Bedner. I do think David knows the Lord very well being that he is one of the Lord's special witnesses. Now, in the New Testament, it was the Greeks who prayed to an unknown God. And it was the Greeks who were responsible for the worldly philosophies that define the creeds of the Great Apostacy. The Lord was not happy with the false doctrines invented by the historical figure whose name you bear. Which is why there was need of a restoration. Repent, Aquinas, and receive ye his name.
_ozemc
_Emeritus
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by _ozemc »

David A. Bednar wrote:
marg wrote:David, are there toilets in your heaven, do people continue to pay tithing, wear clothes, wash, eat, sleep? Do people have t'v's, computers, listen to music, go skiing? Or do people sit around all day and night talking and if so what do they talk about?

David A. Bednar wrote:
I know these things to be true. Such a witness burns within me.


You might want to try pantoloc, it's good for heart burn. You should check with your doctor.


Well, these are certainly good questions. Well, we will have servants in heaven, so I guess they have to be doing something. That should answer your question about the toilets. Which of course necessarily answers the questions about eating.



Servants in heaven? Doesn't seem to much like heaven for them, does it?

<snip>

But, the grand principle and which our Brother Joseph paid for with his life was the principle of celestial marriage. That will be moving forward with great urgency. There are more worlds to be created and more children that will be created to people those worlds. Again, follow Brother BCSpace on this one. He sees the picture crystal clear. He is definitely being groomed for apostleship.



Hmmmm. I wonder how many of the women really look forward to popping out babies throughout all eternity. And being just one of many, many wives.


I spoke with my fellow apostle, Elder Nelson about that burning feeling. He said not to worry. It's the price we have to pay for being called as special witnesses. It seems to be a general condition with the brethren here, so I am feeling right at home. But, thank you for your tender concern on my behalf. May the Lord bless you. I can tell your heart is softening to my message. Come by and see me at the COB. I can give you a tour of the vault.

In peace and good will, your brother (skiing in Kolob), Elder David A. Bednar


That burning feeling can be helped with a good antacid.
"What does God need with a starship?" - Captain James T. Kirk

Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch. - Robert Orben
_Aquinas
_Emeritus
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:09 pm

Post by _Aquinas »

Tommy wrote:
David is boring. He has no humility before God, which is expected since he does not know who God is. David, you are in my prayers.


Now son, that's not the way to address an apostle of the Lord. And you may address him as Elder Bedner. I do think David knows the Lord very well being that he is one of the Lord's special witnesses. Now, in the New Testament, it was the Greeks who prayed to an unknown God. And it was the Greeks who were responsible for the worldly philosophies that define the creeds of the Great Apostacy. The Lord was not happy with the false doctrines invented by the historical figure whose name you bear. Which is why there was need of a restoration. Repent, Aquinas, and receive ye his name.


I will address David by the name his mother and father gave him, for these are the only authorities in his Mormon upbringing that are truly ordained by God. It is not meant as disrespect, but respect for true authority. I won't address anything else you have written, as it is nonsense and deserves no reply.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

Aquinas wrote:I will address David by the name his mother and father gave him, for these are the only authorities in his Mormon upbringing that are truly ordained by God. It is not meant as disrespect, but respect for true authority. I won't address anything else you have written, as it is nonsense and deserves no reply.


Does anyone have "true authority" ordained of God, in your opinion?
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Aquinas
_Emeritus
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:09 pm

Post by _Aquinas »

Does anyone have "true authority" ordained of God, in your opinion?[/quote]

Absolutely, mothers and fathers for one, as I mentioned.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

Aquinas wrote:Does anyone have "true authority" ordained of God, in your opinion?


Absolutely, mothers and fathers for one, as I mentioned.[/quote]

I like that. :-)

I was wondering if you believe that any religious leaders have authority from God. Obviously, you reject the authority of LDS leaders. Just curious.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
Post Reply