Fun with the "I don't believe in God" shtick

[7djengo7]

Allah means God in the Islamic tradition.

By this, what do you mean if not merely that, "in the Islamic tradition", the Arabic word, 'Allah', and the English word, 'God', are thought of as interchangeable by people who have both words in their vocabularies?

But, again, the question I asked you, and which you've not answered, is:

Whom (if anyone), or what (if anything) are you calling "Allah" (when you say "Allah is considered God by millions")?

And, now that I think of it, I should also ask you:

Whom (if anyone), or what (if anything) are you calling "God" (when you say "Allah is considered God by millions")?

Seems 'God' is a multi-traditional term,

The English word, 'God', is "a multi-traditional term"? What (if anything) do you mean by that?

How would you relate your saying that the English word, 'God', is "a multi-traditional term", to a monolingual person whose mother tongue is not English?

Christian's can't rationally claim exclusive use of it.

Though, would it not seem that persons, alone, whose vocabularies contain the English word, 'God', can rationally claim exclusive use of the English word, 'God'?

 

[quip]

But, again, the question I asked you, and which you've not answered, is:

Whom (if anyone), or what (if anything) are you calling "Allah" (when you say "Allah is considered God by millions")?

And, now that I think of it, I should also ask you:

Whom (if anyone), or what (if anything) are you calling "God" (when you say "Allah is considered God by millions")?

I'm referring to Allah (God) Re: OP - "[The] eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind".
Are they or are they not the same God?

 

[7djengo7]

...the person said he/she doesn't believe in [highlight]God[/highlight]...

And so, the question is, is he/she referring, by the word 'God', to the God Who exists, namely, YHWH, or he/she is not?

Whenever somebody says the word, 'God', either he/she is referring to something by the word, 'God', or he/she is not.

Whenever somebody is referring to something by the word, 'God', either he/she is referring to the God Who exists, namely YHWH, or he/she is not referring to the God Who exists, namely YHWH (in which, latter case, he/she is instead referring to something other than YHWH, the God Who exists).

Your logical argument fails because you assume that [highlight]God[/highlight] exists.

To what (if anything), or to whom (if anyone), are you referring, here, by the word, 'God'?

If by "you assume that God exists", you mean that I believe the tautology, 'The eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists, namely YHWH, exists', you are correct. It could never be rational to deny, or to doubt, any tautology, whatsoever; it is always rational to believe a tautology.

That works for people who believe in [highlight]God[/highlight], but it won't be working for the person you quoted.

And, here again, whom (if anyone), or what (if anything) are you calling "God", here?

Are you referring to YHWH, the God Who exists? If you're not referring to YHWH, the God Who exists, then to what, or to whom, are you referring?

Yes, that is quite obvious. He means he doesn't believe [highlight]God[/highlight] exists.

If, by the word 'God', he means Whom Christians mean by the word, 'God', then, when he says, "I don't believe God exists", what he means is "I don't believe the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists, namely YHWH, exists." If, when he says, "I don't believe God exists", he does not mean "I don't believe the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists, namely YHWH, exists", then he does not mean, by the word 'God', Whom Christians mean by the word 'God'.

You have assumed the existence of the thing you're trying to prove.

And what (if anything) would you say it is to "prove" something. You'll, perhaps, notice that I've not even once, in this thread (at least), used the word "prove" in any way save in quoting someone else saying it. You'll notice that I do not go about saying, "I proved...", "I can prove...", "I'm trying to prove...", "You can't prove...", "Try to prove...", "You have not proved...", etc.

If it has to be believed than it is not a logical necessity to accept it as truth. Therefore, your statement is false.

I don't know what (if anything) you mean by "logical necessity". But, in my book, at least, I take it as axiomatic that for a proposition to be tautological is, necessarily, for that proposition to be true--that it's impossible for that proposition to be untrue, let alone false. If you can tell me that the tautology, 'The eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind Who exists, namely YHWH, exists' is not a tautology, or, if you can say "It is a tautology", and yet tell me that it might not be true, why then, you and I are operating on very different, and opposing, axioms, and attempting further discussion would seem to be an exercise in futility, for (without intending to hurt your feelings) I'd have to say that, if you reject that axiom, you're not operating in the realm of reason.

 

[7djengo7]

I'm referring to Allah (God) Re: OP - "[The] eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind".

To which one (if any) of the questions I asked you is what you wrote, there, supposed to be an answer?

Are [highlight]they[/highlight] or are [highlight]they[/highlight] not the same God?

"they"?? Plural? Why plural? To which two (or more) things (if any) are you referring by the pronoun, 'they'?

 

[quip]

"they"?? Plural? Why plural? To which two (or more) things (if any) are you referring by the pronoun, 'they'?

Good question. I'll defer the answer to you....
They: Allah; Christian God.
Are "they" competing Gods or do both religions worship the same 'God'?

 

[7djengo7]

Good question. I'll defer the answer to you....
They: Allah; Christian God.

Again, I do not assume that you are calling someone, or something, "Allah".
If you are calling someone, or something, "Allah", then whom, or what, are you calling "Allah"?

Again, I do not assume that you are calling someone, or something, "Christian God".
If you are calling someone, or something, "Christian God", then whom, or what, are you calling "Christian God"?

Are "they" competing Gods or do both religions worship the same [highlight]'God'[/highlight]?

I do not assume that you are calling someone, or something, "God", here. Whom, or what would you say you are calling "God", here?

 

[quip]

Again, I do not assume that you are calling someone, or something, "Allah".
If you are calling someone, or something, "Allah", then whom, or what, are you calling "Allah"?

Again, I do not assume that you are calling someone, or something, "Christian God".
If you are calling someone, or something, "Christian God", then whom, or what, are you calling "Christian God"?



I do not assume that you are calling someone, or something, "God", here. Whom, or what would you say you are calling "God", here?

I do not assume you have a cogent answer....anymore.
Good luck having fun with your thread. :wave2:

 

[7djengo7]

Good question. I'll defer the answer to you....

I ask quip what (if anything) quip is referring to by a word spoken by quip, in a context spoken by quip. Rather than answer the question, quipself, quip "defers" to me (someone who is not quip) to answer the question as to what (if anything) quip is referring by the word spoken by quip, in the context spoken by quip. Forgive me, but I'm not equipped to give an answer as to what (if anything) quip is referring to by a word spoken by quip, in a context spoken by quip, as I am no mind-reader.

 

[7djengo7]

I do not assume you have a cogent answer....anymore.
Good luck having fun with your thread. :wave2:

Fortunately for you, you never even asked me any question(s). You see, the stuff you have been writing in this thread is meaningless. But, whatever is meaningless is not a question. Questions are meaningful. Every question is about something, or someone. In order to ask a question, you would need to be talking about something, or someone. Since, when you say the word "Allah" (for instance), you are not referring to anything by it--you are not talking about anything--then, whenever you say "Is Allah blah blah blah?", you are not asking a question--you are merely saying a meaningless string of words. There's no necessity that, just because you say something, you are saying something meaningful. There's, of course, no necessity that, just because you write some words with a question mark, you're, thereby, asking a question.

Good luck having fun continuing to say words meaninglessly, such as "Allah", "God", and other words, and then having to say to other people, who aren't you, "What do I, quip, mean by the word 'Allah', and the word 'God'....? Can't somebody please tell me what I, quip, am calling 'Allah' whenever I, quip, call something 'Allah', and what I, quip, am calling 'God' whenever I, quip, call something 'God'...?" In other words, have fun with your dadaism.

Remember, quip: You are the one saying the word, "Allah", as though you imagine you are calling something, or someone, "Allah". I, on the other hand, do not call anyone, or anything, "Allah".

Feel free to drop by, anytime, when you've cooled off.:jazz:

 

[chair]

I see (and, I confess, I foresaw) the problem you've got, here.

Your problem is that I, for one, do not call any person, place, or thing, "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists". Further, I do not believe that you are denoting any person, place, or thing by that phrase. Since I do not believe you mean anything by that phrase, I do not believe that, by what you have written in your brackets (viz., "The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'"), you have expressed a proposition (not even a false one), let alone a tautological one.

You see, propositions are about things: every proposition has a subject. While I don't believe that your phrase, "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists", is any subject's name--that is, that you are referring to some subject by means of your phrase--I'm certainly not going to be able to believe that you are affirming a proposition when you say, "The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'".

Do you have any idea of how formal logic works?
Do you know what a tautology is?

I think you are deliberately playing ridiculous semantic games as a way of wasting other people's time.
I've wasted enough of mine.
Have fun with your thread.

 

[7djengo7]

Do you have any idea of how formal logic works?

Yes. Unfortunately, you are manifestly a dunce concerning logic.

Do you know what a tautology is?

Yes. But you obviously do not know what a tautology is.

You imagine you know what a tautology is? Then why don't you tell me, Professor, what you would say a tautology is? Tell me what you would say makes something a tautology. Give me an example of something you would say is a tautology, and tell me exactly why you would say it is a tautology.

I think you are deliberately playing ridiculous semantic games as a way of wasting other people's time.

Translation: "Polly wanna cracker, grumble grumble."

I've wasted enough of mine.

You've obviously wasted some time, throughout your lifetime, during which you could have, instead of whatever you were wasting your time with, tried to learn the elementary principles of logic, and to learn what a tautology is. Why did you set out to try to waste MY time, by spamming my thread, while you do not even know what a tautology is?

But, don't worry: you didn't waste my time. You performed your idiotic role just how I had envisioned when I started this thread.

Have fun with your thread.

Have fun with the memory of your failure to deal with my thread. And, have fun with your irrationality--your professing to not believe the tautology, 'YHWH, the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind, Who exists, exists'. Only fools can profess to not believe a tautology.

 

[7djengo7]

Major Premise: [Every tautology] is [true],

'Every tautology is true', is, indeed, a proposition, and a true one, at that. But, in the context you wrote, it is not functioning as a premise, despite your having (mis)labeled it, "Major Premise"; what you wrote is no syllogism.

Minor Premise: [The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'] is [a tautology],

Since your string of words, "The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'", is meaningless, no proposition is expressed therein. Since no proposition is expressed therein, what you have (mis)labeled "Minor Premise", is no premise at all; what you wrote is no syllogism.

Therefore,
Conclusion: [The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'] is [true].

Since your string of words, "The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'", is meaningless, no proposition is expressed therein. Since no proposition is expressed therein, what you have (mis)labeled "Conclusion", is no conclusion at all; what you wrote is no syllogism.

Do you see the problem now?

As you and I both know, you do see your problem now. That's why you got up, turned tail, and left in a snit, like quip did.

 

[7djengo7]

I think you are deliberately playing ridiculous semantic games

Let's see, now....You and quip are the ones who, when I ask you whom (if anyone), or what (if anything) you are calling "Allah" and "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl", are forced to stonewall against my question. Y'all are trying to play some sort of shell game; you say a word, or phrase, meaninglessly, while pretending that you mean something by it, and yet, when I ask you to tell me what (if anything) you imagine is under that "shell" (that is, what (if anything) you mean by that word, or phrase), you can't do anything but snottily disregard my request. This is because you mean nothing by the word, or phrase, I've asked you about. I'm just the guy who comes along and points out that, despite all your shell shuffling, there's no meaning under your shells; you're scammers. Y'all initiated the game; I merely shed light on the fact that your game is rigged. And, what's super sad is that, though I wasn't even playing your game along with y'all, you, nevertheless, still lost at your own game.

Birds of a feather flock together. That, chair, is why you're far from the first parrot I've heard mechanically, meaninglessly, reactively squawk out a trite phrase like "semantic games" due to your embarrassment of yourself by your warring against truth and logic. It's simply a wound-licking measure on your part.

 

[Lon]

There is absolutely nothing "irrational " about being an atheist .

Er, yes there is. It is a man, who BLATANTLY has very little experience in the universe, saying something about what he CANNOT POSSIBLY assert with any sense of logical conviction. Also, Djengo is saying that if an atheist says this to a Christian, he/she is simply denying their tautology as if 'denial' is justified when again, it cannot possibly be. Thus is the arrogance and sadly, ignorance. of ANY atheist. They seriously, CANNOT be but by ignorance/arrogance. Impossible otherwise.

I'm an agnostic, not an atheist , so I neither believe nor disbelieve in a God .

If you are 'comfortable' in staying there, then it is a cop-out. An excuse to do and know nothing (either lazy or giving up).

But atheists are people w ho don't accept anything blindly , which is a good thing .

:nono: Its blatant and arrogant AND ignorant, frankly. BETTER to say "I don't know yet" or something of the sort:

"I don't know, cannot possibly know, but wonder...."

"I don't know but don't like Whom you are describing...."

"I, being a finite and relatively uneducated person as to the vast universe, don't really know, but He hasn't visited me yet...."

Etc.

People have the right to believe or disbelieve in whatever they choose to .

Who said otherwise? Djengo simply made a statement about the particulars of those rights. They can be cornered for whatever they don't keep to themselves.

 

[chair]

let's take a look at an interesting argument:

Major Premise: [Every tautology] is [true], Minor Premise: [The tautology, 'YHWH, the God Who exists, exists'] is [a tautology], Therefore, Conclusion: [The tautology, 'YHWH, the God Who exists, exists'] is [true].

Obviously, you despise the proposition that is the conclusion of this valid, sound argument. So, which premise(s) would you like to say is/are false?

This is your argument. It makes as little or as much sense when one replaces "YHWH" with the name of any other god.

As far as Tautologies, you can check the Wikipedia for an explanation:

In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. An example of a tautology is "(x equals y) or (x does not equal y)". A less abstract example is "The ball is green or the ball is not green". It is either one or the other - it cannot be both and there are no other possibilities.​

What is the point of this thread? It doesn't prove anything about God. It may be useful in that it builds up your ego, but only in a rather sad way, as you are not coming across as smart as you apparently think you are.

I apologize to myself for spending 5 more minutes on this.

I'll spend some extra time studying the tractate Tevul Yom to make up for it.

 

[7djengo7]

This is your argument. It makes as little or as much sense when one replaces "YHWH" with [highlight]the name of any other god[/highlight].

How many different things do you call "god"? And, what things are they that you call "god"? I only call YHWH, "God". Please tell me what thing(s) you think I should, along with you, be calling "god". And, tell me why you think I should be calling it/them "god".

Do you think that the tautology, 'YHWH, the God Who exists, exists', does not make sense? Why?
Do you think that your non-tautology, "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists, exists", makes sense? Why?

As far as Tautologies, you can check the Wikipedia for an explanation:

In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that [highlight]is true in every possible interpretation[/highlight]. An example of a tautology is "(x equals y) or (x does not equal y)". A less abstract example is "The ball is green or the ball is not green". It is either one or the other - it cannot be both and there are no other possibilities.​

You consider your non-tautology, "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists, exists", to be a tautology. And, since you apparently like, and revere what is written in your quote from wikipedia, surely you're willing to say, of your non-tautology, that it "is true in every possible interpretation"?? So, please list some things you would call "possible interpretations" of your non-tautology, "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists, exists".

Oh, and notice how you have just said that your string of nonsense ("Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists, exists") is true, in your saying that it is "true in every possible interpretation". Of course, no rationally-thinking person could ever say that "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists, exists" is true.

Oh, and notice that the magisterial professor(s) who wrote your wikipedia quote have this phrase, "formula or assertion". What (if either) would you call your non-tautology? A "formula"? An "assertion"? Both? And, what (if anything) would you say makes something a formula? And, what (if anything) would you say makes something an assertion?

What is the point of this thread?

Here, when you say "What is the point of this thread?", all you're actually doing is venting some of your emotion, and not asking a question; you're just grumbling.

Here's an actual question, though, for you: What is your point in saying your phrase, "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists", despite the fact that you are not even referring to anyone, or anything, by it? Was your point merely to make some meaningless noise by it?

It doesn't [highlight]prove[/highlight] anything about God.

Here is yet another word you say entirely meaninglessly: "prove". Again, it's purely emotive on your part. Whenever God-haters say things like, "Prove that God exists", or "You can't prove that God exists", or "You have not proved that God exists", etc., what you're saying amounts to no more than, "No matter what you do or say, I refuse to believe that God exists, and you can't force me to believe it, so there, idiot!!!!!"

What (if anything) would you say it is to prove the proposition, P? Were you to say, "The proposition, P, has been proved", what (if anything) do you imagine you mean by it?

It may be useful in that it builds up your ego, but only in a rather sad way, as you are not coming across as smart as you apparently think you are.

Um, I probably should start thoughtlessly parroting quotes from wikipedia (like you've done) just so that I can come across at least as smart as you apparently think you are.

I apologize to myself for spending 5 more minutes on this.

Oh, good. Thanks for sharing!

I'll spend some extra time studying the tractate Tevul Yom to make up for it.

How would that be any better use of time than playing Super Mario Bros.?

 

[chair]

How many different things do you call "god"? ...

There are idiots, and there are arrogant idiots. Such is the world.

 

[7djengo7]

It makes as little or as much sense when one replaces "YHWH" with the name of any other god.

How many different things do you call "god"? And, what things are they that you call "god"?

There are idiots, and there are arrogant idiots. Such is the world.

Were chair to respond to my question by protesting, "I don't call anything 'god'", then he, therein, would be admitting that, when he said "...with the name of any other god", he was saying the word, "god", meaninglessly, and thus, was saying the phrase, "...with the name of any other god", meaninglessly. In other words, chair would, thereby, be admitting to having done nothing more than emitting some meaningless noise, when he said "...with the name of any other god." We can understand why chair would want to not admit to having gabbled meaninglessly, like a parrot.

Were chair, on the other hand, to respond to my question by saying, "I call many things 'god', and I will enumerate some of them for you...", he would be putting himself in the position of needing to explain why, exactly, he calls this, that, and the other thing, "god". Of course, we can also understand why chair would want to not be in that position.

So, what does chair do? As you can see, chair finds it most palatable to his taste to choose to stonewall against these questions. Of course, instead of just holding his peace, and silently not reacting to the questions which embarrass him, we see that chair has chosen to try to vent his chagrin by (irrelevantly) telling us that there are idiots, and arrogant idiots. Perhaps he was trying to hint that he is one of such? That is, that chair's thinking in this thread has been idiotic, and that, though it's as plain as daylight that such is the case, chair is just so arrogant that he refuses to confess that his thinking has been idiotic.

 

[quip]

It is a man, who BLATANTLY has very little experience in the universe, saying something about what he CANNOT POSSIBLY assert with any sense of logical conviction.

Then the believer in God CANNOT POSSIBLY assert, with any possible conviction, an existing God. :idunno:
But is that a bad thing? If so..why?

 

[7djengo7]

Then the believer in God CANNOT POSSIBLY assert, with any possible conviction, an existing God. :idunno:
But is that a bad thing? If so..why?

One of your problems, here, is that the phrase, "assert without conviction", is an oxymoron, and thus, meaningless, just like the phrase, "a square that is a circle", is meaningless.

One cannot assert what one is not convicted of.