On Logical Impossibilities

159 posts / 0 new
Last post
Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - but i write

Peripatetic - but i write what you meant

You don't know what I mean; you've demonstrated that ad nauseam.

I'm upset that you have continuously strawmanned me, posted nasty innuendo, and finally topped it off with just a straight up fake quote. I would like an apology, but clearly that isn't in the cards. If you had told me you are sorry and that you don't know how to use quotes, I might have believed you. But of course that isn't what you've done. Instead you have doubled down and even called me a liar!

Peripatetic's picture
ok i'm apologizing to you,

ok i'm apologizing to you, can we get back to what we have been discussing?

btw i don't remember calling you a liar but an arrogant. and that's necessarily true. so it would be impossible for you not be an arrogant, your essence necessitates you arrogance... just kidding.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic...i don't

Peripatetic...i don't remember calling you a liar...

Peripatetic - i'm not a liar. that's what you're, an arrogant.

Peripatetic's picture
'that's what you're' was

'that's what you're' was referring to being an arrogant. i thought it was right to put it before ....... you know what, it doesn't matter it's an English thing and i have apologized. so let's stop at this comment.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - just ignored

Peripatetic - just ignored what i wrote you don't even wanna read about these concepts

You used those concepts in a proof. I shouldn't have to go read a bunch of books to get the (undoubtedly) word salad definition. If you need the definition in your proof, you need to include it. How many times do I have to say this? Why can't you get that through your head?

Peripatetic's picture
before i referred to the

before i referred to the books i had defined what do they mean and had shown that it would be impossible to say that the necessary can be contingent. besides i had already defined those terms to you over and over in other threads, so it's not your first time to come across them.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - besides i had

Peripatetic - besides i had already defined those terms to you over and over in other threads

No. You piddled out postulates as you needed them; which is also rather dishonest, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt back then. But since you've now been caught lying, you won't get that luxury again. Oh and then you spent how many posts claiming you had provided a postulate in the proof; only to later realize you didn't? yeah... I also asked you to repost the proof with the definitions included in the beginning to help make it clear; but you didn't do that. So all I have left is just you pulling postulates out of your ass, totally by fiat. Which makes sense now that we know you are a liar.

Peripatetic's picture
to cut this out, what do you

to cut this out, what do you have to say about what you seemed to be ignoring of that comment? do you understand the definitions? do you have any objections?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - do you

Peripatetic - do you understand the definitions? do you have any objections?

How many times do I have to say it? I want you to post all the definitions and postulates you need for necessary and contingent objects in a single list (presumably at the top of an updated copy of your proof) so we can have a centralized and unchanging list. Instead of you DISHONESTLY distributing them ex post facto. Again, this is how proofs are done; if you want to be taken seriously; which you have pretty much pissed away at this point.

edit: Its been almost 3 weeks. I'm still waiting.

Peripatetic's picture
i do not have any definitions

i do not have any definitions other than what i have already shared with you.
btw, most of my claims/assertions that you say i distribute ex post facto, are either directly inferred from these definitions i.e. corollary to them OR it means the same thing but put in different words. anyway i'm gonna write all what relates to these concepts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A necessary: a thing that the supposition of whose nonexistence entails an impossibility.
An Impossible: a thing that the supposition of whose existence entails an impossibility.
A contingent: the negation of necessity i.e. a thing that the supposition of whose existence or non-existence does not entail an impossibility.

A necessary being: a thing that its nature necessitate/guarantees its existence it exists through itself, not through another. the supposition of its non-existence entails an impossibility. it is neither caused by something nor is dependent on/lacking/needing something. it does not change, its essence is not susceptible to nothingness, therefore it has always been existent, so it did not begin to exist.

An Impossible being: its nature necessitates its non-existence i.e its nature precludes its existence. the supposition of whose existence would entail an impossibility, its non existence is necessary, can not exist. not a thing it's pure nothingness.

a Contingent being: its nature neither necessitate its existence nor its nonexistence. i.e it's not necessary being nor an impossible. it's possible to exist or not exist, its essence are susceptible to be caused/changed/affected. it does not exist through itself but through another
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so is that enough or you'd need some clarifications?

xenoview's picture
Peripatetic

Peripatetic
Are humans necessary beings? Is god a necessary being? If god is a necessary being, then how do we prove which god it is that humans worship?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Oh and we are back to being

Oh and we are back to being allowed more than one necessary being since he left that out of the postulates.

Peripatetic's picture
we use these concepts to

we use these concepts to infer that there can not be two and i have written two proofs before in another thread about it. it appears to me that anything you can not understand why it's true or why it's said, you would consider it a postulate.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - i have written

Peripatetic - i have written two proofs before in another thread about it

That's nice. Why don't you centralize this stuff; because I'm having trouble finding them. Are you use you only used the postulates listed here for the derativation? Because if you used anything extra; you have more work to do.
----------------------------------------

Peripatetic - it appears to me that anything you can not understand why it's true or why it's said, you would consider it a postulate.

That is exactly right! If you don't provide the argument, it is a postulate or it is just bullshit. By calling them postulates I'm indicating that I'm taking your argument seriously. Would you prefer for me to call them bullshit?

Peripatetic's picture
Ok but that's another topic,

Ok but that's another topic, maybe in another thread. but as for now, From these concepts, Can you see the impossibility in saying that a necessary being can be contingent?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - Can you see the

Peripatetic - Can you see the impossibility in saying that a necessary being can be contingent?

Well sure, you arranged them that way.

Peripatetic's picture
then saying that god can't do

then saying that god can't do what humans do would be just as saying god can't make 2 contradictories coexist. and if you sustain that the second case does not imply that god is impotent, then the first case must have the same judgment. do you accept that?

Nyarlathotep's picture
can you unfuck that statement

can you unfuck that statement?

Peripatetic's picture
can i what? sorry, i don't

can i what? sorry, i don't understand.

Nyarlathotep's picture
What you have written is

What you have written is gibberish. If you want a response to it, you need to fix it.

Peripatetic's picture
first of all, i did not

first of all, i did not arrange anything to give a certain conclusion. it's enough for you to know that contingency is the negation of necessity without knowing any other details to come to realize that they cannot be predicated upon one subject at the same time.

and since it's logically impossible, then asking 'can god do what humans do?' is no different than asking ' can god make 2 contradictories coexist?' since the first entails god turning to contingent being which is impossible.

so this can not discredit god being powerful.

Peripatetic's picture
No they are not. There is a

@xenoview

No they are not. There is a necessary being that has some attributes and caused the universe to exist. you want to call it god or xenoview, that's a linguistic dispute not a rational one, so you can call it whatever you like.
what do you mean by which god? a god which humans worship is not a different god from the one i prove? you can say he did not send any prophets so he does not want us to worship him but that does not imply he doesn't exist. How many times do i have to say that to you?

xenoview's picture
You have not proven any god

You have not proven any god or necessary being. You have not given any testable evidence that can be peer reviewed. If you can prove a god or necessary being, then which god is it that humans worship? Humans worship lots of gods, the gods of hinduism, paganism, wicca, native american, or any of the gods worshipped by more primitive tribal people.

Peripatetic's picture
i would worship you if you

i would worship you if you were a bit smarter but that's an impossible case for you

xenoview's picture
Your funny. My guess is you

Your funny. My guess is you don't have any testable evidence your necessary being/god exist. You haven't proven a necessary being/god either. Just curious, what necessary being do you worship?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - There is a

Peripatetic - There is a necessary being that has some attributes and caused the universe to exist

Oops that seems to contradict your 2nd postulate: "[a necessary being] does not change,...". A object that does not change can't begin to do anything, or stop doing anything it is already doing; which seems problematic.

Randomhero1982's picture
Please prove that there is a

Please prove that there is a "necessary being that has some attributes and caused the universe to exist."

Demonstrable and testible evidence and not anecdotal speculation from your specific holy book of choice.

RedleT's picture
Prove that there must be

Prove that there must be testable evidence that God exists if that is what you demand of theists, because I don't see why that is the only reliable way of knowing there is a God.

Randomhero1982's picture
Extraordinary claims require

A wonderful logical fallacy there known as 'shifting the burden of proof!'

Furthermore...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Peripatetic's picture
do you even capable of making

are you even capable of making an objection without using this statement 'shifting the burden if proof'? do you think it applies anywhere anytime? who the fuck said anything about shifting the burden of proof?

he is saying that empirical evidence is not the only way to gain knowledge, Otherwise you'd have to prove that. that's epistemology, do you know what might that be?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.