Prove my logic wrong

Posts: 2,314
12/18/2011 05:25 PMPosted by Astrai
just follow the morals set by it.

Got it;
Murder people for whom they love, or what they worship. Enslave people from other tribes. Treat women as property. Stone to death those who speak out against it, or who fail to follow arbitrary work restrictions, or dietary restrictions.

Mmm morality.

Whatever you want to get out of it. If the Christian religion is based on the bible, then those certainly aren't the morals of the stories because you don't see any Christians going around doing any of those things saying it was because they are following what the bible told them.
Posts: 5,908
11/23/2011 07:57 PMPosted by EugeneTwo
He probably percieved them as ninjas because they most likely came from Japan, which is in fact, one of the many technology capitals of the world. If it's a tach capital now, it's probably a tech capital in the future

11/23/2011 07:57 PMPosted by EugeneTwo
What do you think?

Posts: 89
I've seen them through an ancient ritual so I know they exist.

You said this, but you also said "they're invisible so you can't see them."

Either you saw them in your ritual which means they are NOT invisible and people could see them, or your lying that you saw them because they're invisible, which makes your argument invalid since you were lying.

And since you said nothing about hearing them, since they fly at the speed of sound, they would produce a sonic boom, so we would be able to hear them.

Proved you wrong twice.
Posts: 149
01/18/2012 12:11 AMPosted by AcuseMe
A great philosopher, Rene Descartes, when asked how he knew he was real, said "I think, therefore I am." Because we can't prove we are real, other than thinking we are.

Ah, but even this assertion requires the presupposition of an "I" ;) Removing the I has some interesting implications; "think, therefore am". Perhaps thought is all that is real.

In any case, it is impossible for these invisible ninjas to exist and have no effect on our world. If they exist, they must necessarily occupy a point in the universe. This necessarily requires energy; by definition, "nothing" cannot exist in space. Since mass is equivalent to energy, they would have to exert some measurable effect on the earth, even if we aren't aware of the effect and/or don't possess the knowledge required to measure it.

This is the difference between your proposed belief and religion. From a religious perspective, God does have a measurable effect on the universe. Many people believe He intervenes in thier daily life on a regular basis. The real question is, how can you (dis)prove cause and effect?
Posts: 242
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
Posts: 149
01/18/2012 01:39 AMPosted by AcuseMe
Which again begs the question, if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound. All answers are relative.

Existence is not a contingent quality.

Besides, Aquinas' (I assume thats who you are referring to with the "all things are in motion" arguement) proofs imply the existence of a first event, not necessarily a "God". You could just as easily interpret them as proofs for the big bang.
This topic has reached its post limit. You may no longer post or reply to posts for this topic.

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Explain (256 characters max)