Search results

Something illogical.... could possibly exist. Totality+1.... could possibly exist. Totality cannot include something, (totality itself or totality+1 for example) so the definition you gave for totality is not logical. As totality cannot include totality+1 (you said so!)...

I define it so... wicked as in "awsome" :) Of course valid. When ones thoughts don't just keep going " duh, ugh - therefore God" like Optional- 'the' - man's clearly do, valid is the reasoned sensible ground.

My point is you cannot successfully define a tautology as something else. Totality IS totality. It's own definition is tautological. It is a logical statement that is necessarily true. The definition as described by Optional777 / ( the ..'the' fetish guy ) is of totality . The definition of...

Wicked :D

Titality (LOL that's what you are) ..Totality has totality, and it is totality.... so God can't be. Get that treadmill gif out of your toy cupboard. You're in it.:p

ok up to here... "But that returns to a more refined definition of Totality. If it is a self-referential synonym for God, then it must by it's own definition be true. I did say..... "therefore "totality is God" would not be true , even if it could be at all true, perhaps in some sub...

Agreed. "totality - is what totality is." ...that is a tautology. A tautology being a logical statement that is necessarily true. Therefore "totality is God" would not be true , even if it could be at all true, perhaps in some sub context. According to a definition of the word...

yeah it is exactly like that - at all, at all! You define totality so the totality you define IS what totality is. Then you say God is totality. Well no actually, totality is what totality is. You can define God as having the attributes of defined totality , but that does not define...

No it doesn't. You've defined totality and you've defined God. You have not shown that either of those definitions exist as anything other than definitions. I can define totality too. It's different to your definition and if I define totality as Gilbert, then Gilbert exists. Problem then...

Here are two of those quotes Leonard Susskind : "....the small fraction that 'looks as if ' it were intelligently designed. " I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence. " and some more ... "Can science explain the extraordinary fact that the universe appears...

No. God defined as totality is actually still totality, not God. Otherwise totality would not itself be defined and called totality in the first place. Also you can't define things into existence. You define something, then demonstrate that something's existence separately. All you...

Leonard Susskind : "....the small fraction that 'looks as if ' it were intelligently designed. " I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence. " But how could anyone genuinely get that out of context at all, never mind repeatedly as jem does? Susskind can be seen...

Why the hell are you still wittering on about this ? This is what you said..... This is what Susskind actually said in a video which you supplied and in which anyone can see and hear him say..... Leonard Susskind : " I don't believe that the universe was designed by an...

So we now have a theist who finds he has to rule in flying pigs so he doesn't have to logically rule out God, asking if atheists have mental illness. you really couldn't make this stuff up :D

Quite true, you can't say impossible until you have ruled out all possibilities of flying pigs being possible. Since flying pigs are logically possible, then flying pigs are not logically impossible. If you can show how flying pigs (as I define flying pigs...not the Judeo Christian view of...

marketsurfer was talking of word play. he could just as well have said.... the word game are phrases like "Saying God is impossible is illogical." when the unreasonable comment .... "Saying something is logically possible also includes the existence of God." was the thing actually being...

This is unreasonable..... "Saying something is logically possible also includes the existence of God." Is there any particular reason why you are being so unreasonable about that? But for truly unreasonable, go read all those Patently unreasonable posts of your own.

Translation: "Just like U Optional777, I realize we both have no real argument "

No it doesn't. Logically possible excludes flying pigs and God.

If you can show me a way to falsify flying pigs..... In the meantime not being able to falsify God or flying pigs says more about God than any religion or a stack of its Bibles ever could.