[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 272 KB, 771x1080, godcreatingadam.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3064723 No.3064723 [Reply] [Original]

1) I possess an idea of God as a perfect being
2) This is not obtained from sense-experience
3) Nor is it derived from the imagination
4) This idea is innate (see: Regulative Ideal)
5) There exists as much formal reality in the cause of an idea as there is objective reality in the idea itself
6) Only God has enough formal reality to be the cause of my idea of God
7) Therefore, God exists.

>> No.3064739
File: 28 KB, 294x294, boy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3064739

>> No.3064741

That's not the scientific method or maths therefore it's off topic.

Reported, hidden, for the love of God (lol) noone reply!

>> No.3064750

>>3064723
I possess an idea of Troll as a perfect art
This is not obtained from sense-experience
Nor is it derived from the imagination
This idea is innate
There exists as much formal reality in the cause of an idea as there is objective reality in the idea itself
Only a troll has enough formal reality to be the cause of my idea of trolling
Therefore, I troll.

>> No.3064751
File: 69 KB, 501x433, 1301791167249.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3064751

>> No.3064845

1)blablalbabla
2)blablabla
x)blablablabullshit
n) therefore, God exists

>> No.3064858

>>3064723
As you make no scientific claims, aka falsifiable claims, and you are not making moral claims, and you are not making claims about math or other fiat truths, and you're not making definitional claims, I do not care.

>> No.3064864

You forgot this OP:

8) And the god that exists is exactly the same as the one described by my religion. All other gods are wrong because hurr durr.

>> No.3064871

1) wtf does that mean
2) yes it is
3) yes it is
4) fail
5) fail
6) fail
7) nope; fail

>> No.3064878

2), 3) and 4) are objectively false. You're not born knowing the concept of the judeo-christian god, and even if you were, it wouldn't proove shit.

>> No.3065973

Learn2Hume

>> No.3066028

>2) This is not obtained from sense-experience
>3) Nor is it derived from the imagination
>4) This idea is innate (see: Regulative Ideal)
>5) There exists as much formal reality in the cause of an idea as there is objective reality in the idea itself
>6) Only God has enough formal reality to be the cause of my idea of God
All of these are [proof needed]

>> No.3066052

Isn't this the Descartes' shit? I really liked his "meditations" until I've read this one

>> No.3066061

Logical fallacy alert!

Every mathematician learns on his mothers knee that before you use the properties of something, you need to prove that that something exists. You use the properties of God in item 6. This is not allowed unless we already know God exists.

>> No.3066079

>>3064858
And yet you post.

>> No.3066084

>>3066061
If that were true, no mathematical proofs would be possible at all. It would be an endless regression of trying to prove your first axiom.

>> No.3066088

>5) There exists as much formal reality in the cause of an idea as there is objective reality in the idea itself

Lolwut? I have the idea of EK lying on my bed with her legs open. Can it be real now?

>> No.3066091

>>3066084
He's wrong, but you are very bad at explaining it.

>> No.3066102

>>3066061
>>3066084

And together we are CAPTAIN CIRCULAR ARGUMENT

>> No.3066175

On the subject can anyone point me towards a youtube video. I believe he had a slight accent, giving an inspirational speech about Atheism and science and why he is and Atheist and finds beauty in the events that occurred. It was picture slideshow based with his voice. One of the more well known videos on here but I've lost my history and forgot the name of it.