Forum Settings
Forums

Jesus was not the son of God-- Logical Proof

Pages (4) [1] 2 3 » ... Last »
Post New Reply
#1
Jun 14, 2016 11:36 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876
J: "The person who Bible says is the son of God is the son of God''.
K: "Bible says Jesus is the son of God''.
L: " Therefore, Jesus is the son of God''.

is the reasoning adopted by Christians.

But, between K and L, there's the modus ponens; let's call it M: "If J and K are true, then L must be true''.

So, the argument acquires the form:
J: The person who Bible says is the son of God is the son of God.
K: Bible says Jesus is the son of God.
M: If J and K are true, then L must be true.
L: Therefore, Jesus is the son of God.

Here's the loophole though: After M, comes another modus ponen; let's call it G: "If J and K and M are true, then L must be true''.

So the argument acquires a new form:
J: The person who Bible says is the son of God is the son of God.
K: Bible says Jesus is the son of God.
M: If J and K are true, then L must be true.
G: If J and K and M are true, then L must be true.
L: Therefore, Jesus is the son of God.

But then again, there comes another modus ponens between G and L. And it goes on and on and the argument never really becomes a 'valid' one. To say now that Jesus was the son of God is to admit outright not just your own stupidity but to also admit that Bible and hence Christianity is illogical and so doesn't find its place among humankind.
 
#2
Jun 14, 2016 11:38 AM
Offline
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1383
Ofc he wasn't. Because they never existed besides in the fairy tales Christians believe in.
 
#3
Jun 14, 2016 11:39 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 10429
I don't think that's the reasoning used by all christians Shaheen, only some of them.
 
#4
Jun 14, 2016 11:43 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876
xrockxz89 said:
I don't think that's the reasoning used by all christians Shaheen, only some of them.


That's the reasoning they use among themselves.
 
#5
Jun 14, 2016 11:44 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 4300
You're right.
Someone who doesn't exist can't have a son..
 
#6
Jun 14, 2016 11:45 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 21336
Of course he wasn't

He created Christianity, just like Abraham created Judaism and Muhammad created Islam
Nico- said:
@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite
Salman bin Abdul Aziz said:
@Comic_Sans I hate to insult you on forums but you are just a troll so just go kill yourself already bitch
 
#7
Jun 14, 2016 11:46 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 10429
Shaheen- said:
xrockxz89 said:
I don't think that's the reasoning used by all christians Shaheen, only some of them.


That's the reasoning they use among themselves.


I mean we're all the sons and daughters of God already, being one with the universe and all. If you look at it that way, it really simplifies the Bible story, makes it so you can actually learn and benefit from it rather than declaring it illogical. Jesus must have just been very aware of that fact, you know otherwise why would all that stuff have happened?
 
#8
Jun 14, 2016 11:54 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 4204
The virgin Mary is god and Jesus is her son.

God is female. Hot.
Trance said:
I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man.
 
#9
Jun 14, 2016 11:58 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 6224
Masked_Mantis said:
The virgin Mary is god and Jesus is her son.

God is female. Hot.

Have you consider joining the church of Haruhi?
She's a way hotter deity than Mary.

 
Jun 14, 2016 12:00 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 1060
Isn't this reasoning valid if you believe that the word of the bible is entirely unadulterated?

Absolute faith in the bible results in this reasoning being perfectly valid.
Modified by Insanius, Jun 14, 2016 12:17 PM
 
Jun 14, 2016 12:01 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 4667
Still more real than the "Religion of peace"
 
Jun 14, 2016 12:03 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 31820
Your wording made this hard to understand. It's "the Bible" not just "Bible" by itself usually. Bible means "large book" or something like that. Even non Christians say "the" first.


J: "The person who the Quran says is a prophet of God is a prophet of God''.
K: "the Quran says Jesus is a prophet of God''.
L: " Therefore, Jesus is a prophet of God''.

is the reasoning adopted by Muslims.

But, between K and L, there's the modus ponens; let's call it M: "If J and K are true, then L must be true''.

So, the argument acquires the form:
J: The person who the Quran says is the prophet of God is a prophet of God.
K: The Quran says Jesus is a prophet of God.
M: If J and K are true, then L must be true.
L: Therefore, Jesus is a prophet of God.

Here's the loophole though: After M, comes another modus ponen; let's call it G: "If J and K and M are true, then L must be true''.

So the argument acquires a new form:
J: The person who the Quran says is a prophet of God is a prophet of God.
K: The Quran says Jesus is a prophet of God.
M: If J and K are true, then L must be true.
G: If J and K and M are true, then L must be true.
L: Therefore, Jesus is a prophet of God.

Works with Muhammad too.

But then again, there comes another modus ponens between G and L. And it goes on and on and the argument never really becomes a 'valid' one. To say now that Jesus or Muhammad was a prophet of God is to admit outright not just your own stupidity but to also admit that the Quran and hence Islam is illogical and so doesn't find its place among humankind.
Modified by traed, Jun 14, 2016 12:09 PM
 
Jun 14, 2016 12:12 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 6151
>Son of God
>Logical proof
I was disappointed before I even opened this thread

By the way I think you're forgetting about the trap card "Faith" which counters all forms of logic. Give it up Genio, faith is too OP. Nerf coming when?

P.S.- Why you disable comments?

leonstone said:
oh god, this thread was unnecessary.

Don't say the lord's name in vain!
 
Jun 14, 2016 12:14 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 8871
So this is what happens when summer break comes around eh?


 
Jun 14, 2016 12:20 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876


Except we don't use that argument. If we wish to tell a Muslim why Jesus is the Prophet of God, we use proof by contradiction:

"If Jesus is not the Prophet of God, then either the Quran is lying or Bible is; and since Quran says Bible is lying, it devolves into a paradox. Therefore, Jesus is the Prophet of God''.
 
Jun 14, 2016 12:24 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 10741
‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎
 
Jun 14, 2016 12:56 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 762
But then again, there comes another modus ponens between G and L. And it goes on and on and the argument never really becomes a 'valid' one. To say now that Jesus was the son of God is to admit outright not just your own stupidity but to also admit that Bible and hence Christianity is illogical and so doesn't find its place among humankind.


Christianity is 'illogical' but that's just your opinion right?
 
Jun 14, 2016 12:57 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876
Basude said:
But then again, there comes another modus ponens between G and L. And it goes on and on and the argument never really becomes a 'valid' one. To say now that Jesus was the son of God is to admit outright not just your own stupidity but to also admit that Bible and hence Christianity is illogical and so doesn't find its place among humankind.


Christianity is 'illogical' but that's just your opinion right?


An 'opinion' based on logic transcends the realm of 'opinion' and becomes a fact.
 
Jun 14, 2016 1:00 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 762
Shaheen- said:
Basude said:


Christianity is 'illogical' but that's just your opinion right?


An 'opinion' based on logic transcends the realm of 'opinion' and becomes a fact.


Intriguing. How do I know that this isn't subjective logic?
 
Jun 14, 2016 1:03 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876
Basude said:
Shaheen- said:


An 'opinion' based on logic transcends the realm of 'opinion' and becomes a fact.


Intriguing. How do I know that this isn't subjective logic?


Because logic cannot be subjective. Logic, by virtue, eliminates subjectivity because it is independent of perception.
 
Jun 14, 2016 1:05 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 31820
Shaheen- said:

Except we don't use that argument. If we wish to tell a Muslim why Jesus is the Prophet of God, we use proof by contradiction:

"If Jesus is not the Prophet of God, then either the Quran is lying or Bible is; and since Quran says Bible is lying, it devolves into a paradox. Therefore, Jesus is the Prophet of God''.


What the fuck is this?

If Jesus was the son of God that speaks for God or as a facet of God that would also make him a prophet. Also lying implies deceit not false belief. So it's; if Jesus is not the prophet of God, then both the Quran and Bible are wrong. No paradox.
 
Jun 14, 2016 1:06 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876
traed said:
Shaheen- said:

Except we don't use that argument. If we wish to tell a Muslim why Jesus is the Prophet of God, we use proof by contradiction:

"If Jesus is not the Prophet of God, then either the Quran is lying or Bible is; and since Quran says Bible is lying, it devolves into a paradox. Therefore, Jesus is the Prophet of God''.


What the fuck is this?

If Jesus was the son of God that speaks for God or as a facet of God that would also make him a prophet. Also lying implies deceit not false belief. So it's; if Jesus is not the prophet of God, then both the Quran and Bible are wrong. No paradox.


If the Quran is lying, then the Bible is speaking the truth in which case Jesus is the Prophet of God (and also the son) which defies the prior assertion of 'Jesus is not Prophet'. If the Bible is lying, then the Quran is telling the truth, which again defies the prior assertion.
 
Jun 14, 2016 1:08 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 762
Shaheen- said:
Basude said:


Intriguing. How do I know that this isn't subjective logic?


Because logic cannot be subjective. Logic, by virtue, eliminates subjectivity because it is independent of perception.


Alright. I disagree with you but alright. I'll just leave it here.
 
Jun 14, 2016 1:09 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 12948
Originally he was just a good teacher, but over time the various authors of the bible started giving him new superpowers and wrote different origin stories for him. The bible isn't the word of god, the bible is the interpretation of god based on what specific humans thought might be the word of god. God can't actually communicate with humans directly so although what they say could be fairly accurate it could just as easily be complete bullshit that they made up on the spot. The first writing about Jesus wasn't until 30 years after he died and the writer hadn't met Jesus personally. The last writing about Jesus was hundreds of years after he died and naturally by that time his legacy had been obscured to the point that the character "Jesus" in the bible didn't really exist in real life.
 
Jun 14, 2016 1:14 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 694
Incorrect as far as argument.

Shaheen- said:
J: "The person who Bible says is the son of God is the son of God''.
K: "Bible says Jesus is the son of God''.
L: " Therefore, Jesus is the son of God''.
This is a valid (structurally) argument on it's own. IF the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. Your modus ponens is just a restatement of the property of Validity and is unnecessary. I personally don't believe J to be true, but if it were, the conclusion would be true, logically, without any additional premises.
 
Jun 14, 2016 1:22 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6844
Religions are not scientifically proven? *SHOCK*


NO WAY! YOU MUST BE LYING! THIS JUST CANNOT BE TRUE! /s

But seriously, it's a "belief" not a "scientific thesis". Those people who claim otherwise are just plain wrong.


CASE CLOSED.
 
Jun 14, 2016 1:28 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 6224
Why am I reminded of this scene from the Simpsons.

 
Jun 14, 2016 1:30 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 31820
Shaheen- said:
traed said:


What the fuck is this?

If Jesus was the son of God that speaks for God or as a facet of God that would also make him a prophet. Also lying implies deceit not false belief. So it's; if Jesus is not the prophet of God, then both the Quran and Bible are wrong. No paradox.


If the Quran is lying, then the Bible is speaking the truth in which case Jesus is the Prophet of God (and also the son) which defies the prior assertion of 'Jesus is not Prophet'. If the Bible is lying, then the Quran is telling the truth, which again defies the prior assertion.

If the Quran is lying that does not mean the bible is the truth. That logic only works if those were the only possibilities, which they are not. Them both being untrue does not contradict "Jesus is not a prophet"
 
Jun 14, 2016 2:35 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876
traed said:
Shaheen- said:


If the Quran is lying, then the Bible is speaking the truth in which case Jesus is the Prophet of God (and also the son) which defies the prior assertion of 'Jesus is not Prophet'. If the Bible is lying, then the Quran is telling the truth, which again defies the prior assertion.

If the Quran is lying that does not mean the bible is the truth. That logic only works if those were the only possibilities, which they are not. Them both being untrue does not contradict "Jesus is not a prophet"


Quran says that Bible is lying. If you say Quran is lying, then you're saying Bible is true.

NeoVolt said:
Incorrect as far as argument.

Shaheen- said:
J: "The person who Bible says is the son of God is the son of God''.
K: "Bible says Jesus is the son of God''.
L: " Therefore, Jesus is the son of God''.
This is a valid (structurally) argument on it's own. IF the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. Your modus ponens is just a restatement of the property of Validity and is unnecessary. I personally don't believe J to be true, but if it were, the conclusion would be true, logically, without any additional premises.


A prior principle is required to explain logical principles and once that principle is explained, another principle is required to explain that principle. It's logic saying, 'fuck you'.

Grey-Zone said:
Religions are not scientifically proven? *SHOCK*


NO WAY! YOU MUST BE LYING! THIS JUST CANNOT BE TRUE! /s

But seriously, it's a "belief" not a "scientific thesis". Those people who claim otherwise are just plain wrong.


CASE CLOSED.


Is anyone talking about science?
Think I missed it.

Minnim said:
Isn't this reasoning valid if you believe that the word of the bible is entirely unadulterated?

Absolute faith in the bible results in this reasoning being perfectly valid.


I'm targeting this argument as the rationale among Christians.
Modified by Trance, Jun 14, 2016 2:48 PM
 
Jun 14, 2016 2:48 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6844
Shaheen- said:
Grey-Zone said:
Religions are not scientifically proven? *SHOCK*


NO WAY! YOU MUST BE LYING! THIS JUST CANNOT BE TRUE! /s

But seriously, it's a "belief" not a "scientific thesis". Those people who claim otherwise are just plain wrong.


CASE CLOSED.


Is anyone talking about science?
Think I missed it.


"Science" requires proof. "Belief" does not. Religion is a belief, therefore it doesn't require evidence. So this discussion here is completely irrelevant aside from trash-talking a few idiots who think they can "prove" their own "Belief".
 
Jun 14, 2016 2:50 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876
Grey-Zone said:
Shaheen- said:


Is anyone talking about science?
Think I missed it.


"Science" requires proof. "Belief" does not.


Science requires evidence, not proof. Belief? no one is even getting into that. A belief can be logical but have no evidence; if a belief is illogical, then it being true is an impossibility.
 
Jun 14, 2016 2:58 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 18279
Shaheen- said:
But, between K and L, there's the modus ponens; let's call it M: "If J and K are true, then L must be true''.
I've never heard of a modus ponens like this. Can you source where you got this from please?
As far as I know, modus ponen comes in the form of:
If P then Q
P
Therefore Q
And not what you said.
 
Jun 14, 2016 3:11 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 519
..... ! Ronald Reagan was the devil ! .......
lewd is love, lewd is life !

 
Jun 14, 2016 3:17 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 31820
Shaheen- said:
traed said:

If the Quran is lying that does not mean the bible is the truth. That logic only works if those were the only possibilities, which they are not. Them both being untrue does not contradict "Jesus is not a prophet"


Quran says that Bible is lying. If you say Quran is lying, then you're saying Bible is true.


That would only be the case if I was saying the Quran lied about the Bible lying, which I did not.
 
Jun 14, 2016 3:27 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6844
Shaheen- said:
Grey-Zone said:


"Science" requires proof. "Belief" does not.


Science requires evidence, not proof. Belief? no one is even getting into that. A belief can be logical but have no evidence; if a belief is illogical, then it being true is an impossibility.


But the bible here is clearly used as evidence (or proof, I don't care as this distinction doesn't exist in my mother tongue just like with "sex" and "gender") or basis for the core element of the belief "Christianity" that "Jesus is the son of god". And after looking at it your "logic" seems very faulty. At least it's not compatible with reality and can be reversed to contradict logical reasoning behind your own post.

In the first place statement "J" (what are these letters even refering to? Random letters for variables? I feel ignorant right now) seems redundant. The fact that you suggest "Christians propose this" only proves the point I made in my earlier post about people who use this claims being simply idiots. But that's a different matter.

Furthermore you could apply this to History, use the same reasoning to discredit Caesar having been a Roman dictator for life until death or even Abraham Lincoln being president of the US. It makes no sense. By your reasoning we could essentially eliminate ANY claims made in history books.

J: "The person who the most credible sources say is the 16th president of the United States is the 16th president of the United States''.
K: "the most credible sources say Abraham Lincoln is the 16th president of the United States''.
L: " Therefore, Abraham Lincoln is the 16th president of the United States''.

is the reasoning adopted by Historians.

But, between K and L, there's the modus ponens; let's call it M: "If J and K are true, then L must be true''.

So, the argument acquires the form:
J: The person who the various credible sources say is the 16th president of the United States is the 16th president of the United States.
K: the most credible sources say Abraham Lincoln is the 16th president of the United States.
M: If J and K are true, then L must be true.
L: Therefore, Abraham Lincoln is the 16th president of the United States.

Here's the loophole though: After M, comes another modus ponen; let's call it G: "If J and K and M are true, then L must be true''.

So the argument acquires a new form:
J: The person who the various credible sources say is the 16th president of the United States is the 16th president of the United States.
K: the most credible sources say Abraham Lincoln is the 16th president of the United States.
M: If J and K are true, then L must be true.
G: If J and K and M are true, then L must be true.
L: Therefore, Abraham Lincoln is the 16th president of the United States.

But then again, there comes another modus ponens between G and L. And it goes on and on and the argument never really becomes a 'valid' one. To say now that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States is to admit outright not just your own stupidity but to also admit that the various credible sources and hence History is illogical and so doesn't find its place among humankind.



Congratulations, your reasoning just destroyed History as a whole. Your reasoning has the fatal flaw that it can potentially discredit ANY form of "documention" itself that includes the "logic" behind any of our forum posts right here. I could probably use your reasoning to even discredit the posts you made about your reasoning right here on this forum which would be a contradiction and therefore disqualifies your reasoning. You should perhaps check again if you have too few or too many axioms in your method of reasoning and should check if there are any problems with the variables you choose. I am not in the mood to reverse-engineer your reasoning any further at this point. In its current form it's a failure, plain and simple.
Modified by Grey-Zone, Jun 14, 2016 3:32 PM
 
Jun 14, 2016 3:31 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 5762
Ofc he wasn't, Islam confirmed that a long time ago, plus science has always been falling behind Quran, some things that are explained in there a long time ago are just now being discovered by science.
 
Jun 14, 2016 3:34 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 164
Comic_Sans said:
Of course he wasn't

He created Christianity, just like Abraham created Judaism and Muhammad created Islam


Not exactly. Jesus was a jew and didn't try to create a new religion, he was just spreading his understanding of the religion. His apostles did. Or am I wrong? That's what I've heard at least.
 
Jun 14, 2016 3:41 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 21336
Yakkululz said:
Comic_Sans said:
Of course he wasn't

He created Christianity, just like Abraham created Judaism and Muhammad created Islam


Not exactly. Jesus was a jew and didn't try to create a new religion, he was just spreading his understanding of the religion. His apostles did. Or am I wrong? That's what I've heard at least.
Maybe, my memory is kind of rusty

My point still stands though (AKA "Jesus was not the son of God" and "Man created religion, not God")
Nico- said:
@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite
Salman bin Abdul Aziz said:
@Comic_Sans I hate to insult you on forums but you are just a troll so just go kill yourself already bitch
 
Jun 14, 2016 4:00 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 192
No offense but your own religion views is inspiring you to criticize the "Son of God" idea of Christianity. You say Christianity is illogical as if there was a single logical religion, all religions are illogical but people tend to believe in different stuff. Check your own religion and you'll find dozens of illogical stuff, same for all religions.
 
Jun 14, 2016 4:09 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6844
Yatyear said:
No offense but your own religion views is inspiring you to criticize the "Son of God" idea of Christianity. You say Christianity is illogical as if there was a single logical religion, all religions are illogical but people tend to believe in different stuff. Check your own religion and you'll find dozens of illogical stuff, same for all religions.


This particular reasoning the OP is using is flawed. If you generlize it, it essentially says "it's illogical to refer to a source X as proof that subject Y has position/occupation/state/title Z". You can literally apply that to ANYTHING. You could even argue using MAL's database (source X) as proof that I (subject Y) am "a user on MAL" (state Z) is "illogical".


As much as I'd like to be a "mysterious user that according to logic shouldn't be able to exist", it's simply not true.
Modified by Grey-Zone, Jun 14, 2016 4:12 PM
 
Jun 14, 2016 5:20 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 694
Shaheen- said:


NeoVolt said:
Incorrect as far as argument.

This is a valid (structurally) argument on it's own. IF the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. Your modus ponens is just a restatement of the property of Validity and is unnecessary. I personally don't believe J to be true, but if it were, the conclusion would be true, logically, without any additional premises.


A prior principle is required to explain logical principles and once that principle is explained, another principle is required to explain that principle. It's logic saying, 'fuck you'.
If we go by the example you start with, and what you are saying here; then you appear to be arguing that it is impossible to make a logically valid argument. Or perhaps you take issue with material conditionals? Have you studied logic in an academic setting? I'm not trying to bait or offend. It's just that "validity" in relation to conditionals is a pretty basic principle.

Either way, your concept as what qualifies as logically valid is wrong.

-An argument is considered logically valid where: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

As you state it, if J & K are true then L must be true. Also, what you've failed to realize, is that this still holds true with the additional premises. If J, K, M, & G are True, the L must be true. So your extended version of the argument is still valid. You can add as many extended conditionals like M and G as you want, and the argument would still be valid.

It's relatively simple.

L is a conditional premise so I'll rephrase it for simplicity.

J: "If the Bible says a person is the son of God, then that person is the son of God''.
K: "The Bible says Jesus is the son of God''.
L: " Therefore, Jesus is the son of God''.
This argument takes a very basic logical form of:
L: If p then q
K: p
L: Therefore q

The original argument itself represents a complete modus ponens in its valid form, and in no way requires additional premises in order to be valid. The only issue you can take with it is a missing premise that establishes Jesus as a person.
But we can reasonably assume that in this case.

You have not logically proven anything, except that the christian argument IS valid. It's not true, but it is in fact valid.
 
Jun 14, 2016 5:48 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 4844
As long as you're not doubting my identity as God, then ur theory is ok
 
Jun 14, 2016 6:16 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 31820
Ramkec said:
Ofc he wasn't, Islam confirmed that a long time ago, plus science has always been falling behind Quran, some things that are explained in there a long time ago are just now being discovered by science.


Damn right... everyone knows the sun rotates around the Earth, stars are missiles shot at devils, the moon is a source of light rather than reflecting it, stars are in the nearest heaven instead of deep space, the Earth was created entirely in six days, the Earth was created before the stars, the sun is so flat it folds up, the sky can fall down, the sky could be rolled up like a scroll, day and night are of equal time always, sperm comes from between the backbone and ribs, embryos are made from fluids rather than sperm and egg meeting, humans are formed from a clot of blood, bones are formed before all else,, the world is flat like a carpet, the Earth doesn't rotate, mountains prevent earthquakes, hail comes from mountains in the clouds, animals can speak to humans, humans life span is up to a thousand years, and space flight is impossible. Stupid scientists with their logic and evidence.

"A token unto them is night. We strip it of the day, and lo! they are in darkness. And the sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Wise."
36:37-38

"And verily We have beautified the world's heaven with stars/lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame."
67:5

"And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp?"
71:16

"Surely We have adorned the nearest heaven with an adornment, the stars"
37:6

"We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in Six Days, nor did any sense of weariness touch Us"
50:38

"When the sun (with its spacious light) is folded up"
81:1

"See they not what is before them and behind them, of the sky and the earth? If We wished, We could cause the earth to swallow them up, or cause a piece of the sky to fall upon them. Verily in this is a Sign for every devotee that turns to Allah (in repentance)."
34:9

"It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit."
36:40

"He is created from a drop emitted- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs"
86:6-7

"Did We not create you from a liquid disdained? And We placed it in a firm lodging For a known extent."
77:20-22

"Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:"
Quran 96:2
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mus'ud: “Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period.”
Sahih Bukhari 4:54:430

"Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones then (not and) clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!"
23:14

" He Who has, made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; has enabled you to go about therein by roads (and channels);"
20:53
"He Who has, made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; has enabled you to go about therein by roads (and channels); and has sent down water from the sky." With it have We produced diverse pairs of plants each separate from the others."
43:10

"Is not He (better than your gods) Who has made the earth as a fixed abode, and has placed rivers in its midst, and has placed firm mountains therein, and has set a barrier between the two seas (of salt and sweet water). Is there any ilah (god) with Allah? Nay, but most of them know not."
27:61

"And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and rivers and roads; that ye may guide yourselves"
16:15

"Seest thou not that Allah makes the clouds move gently, then joins them together, then makes them into a heap? - then wilt thou see rain issue forth from their midst. And He sends down from the sky mountain masses (of clouds) wherein is hail. He strikes therewith whom He pleases and He turns it away from whom He pleases, the vivid flash of His lightning well-nigh blinds the sight."
24:43

"And when the Word is fulfilled against them (the unjust), we shall produce from the earth a beast to (face) them: He will speak to them, for that mankind did not believe with assurance in Our Signs."
27:82

"We (once) sent Noah to his people, and he tarried among them a thousand years less fifty: but the Deluge overwhelmed them while they (persisted in) sin."
29:14

"O ye assembly of Jinns and men! If it be ye can pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the earth, pass ye! not without authority shall ye be able to pass!"
55:33
 
Jun 14, 2016 6:27 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1836
Sorakaa said:
Ofc he wasn't. Because they never existed besides in the fairy tales Christians believe in.


This. But ultimately............

 
Jun 14, 2016 6:33 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 546
I don't think christians make that argument:


A: Bible is the word of God
B: Bible says that Jesus was the son of God
C: God has said that Jesus was the son of God
D: Therefore Jesus is the son of God

I don't believe in this stuff anyway but calling fairy tales is autistic fedora lord tier. christianity is objectively good, it unites people under a peaceful commonality.
 
Jun 14, 2016 6:36 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 3148
Sir, why are you bringing logic into religion? I don't think you know how religion functions.
 
Jun 14, 2016 7:38 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 2458
I actually wrote the bible. It was during a shameful late mid-summer night acid-trip. I fell into a inter-dimensional bathtub time-machine and went back in time to write it.

^ This is soundly more logical than 99% of the bible itself.

A pair of eyes appear disguised,
I take flight and stay high in paradise,
With bad luck, snake eyes, a pair of dice.
I'm paralyzed, she speaks twice, a pair of lies,
It's parallel, apparent hell of parasites.
ask for discord server
 
Jun 14, 2016 7:44 PM
Offline
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 401
Shaheen- said:
J: "The person who Bible says is the son of God is the son of God''.
K: "Bible says Jesus is the son of God''.
L: " Therefore, Jesus is the son of God''.

is the reasoning adopted by Christians.

But, between K and L, there's the modus ponens; let's call it M: "If J and K are true, then L must be true''.

So, the argument acquires the form:
J: The person who Bible says is the son of God is the son of God.
K: Bible says Jesus is the son of God.
M: If J and K are true, then L must be true.
L: Therefore, Jesus is the son of God.

Here's the loophole though: After M, comes another modus ponen; let's call it G: "If J and K and M are true, then L must be true''.

So the argument acquires a new form:
J: The person who Bible says is the son of God is the son of God.
K: Bible says Jesus is the son of God.
M: If J and K are true, then L must be true.
G: If J and K and M are true, then L must be true.
L: Therefore, Jesus is the son of God.

But then again, there comes another modus ponens between G and L. And it goes on and on and the argument never really becomes a 'valid' one. To say now that Jesus was the son of God is to admit outright not just your own stupidity but to also admit that Bible and hence Christianity is illogical and so doesn't find its place among humankind.


Couldn't you use the same logic for many other statements?

A: John is a scholar.
B: Only human can be a scholar.
C: Therefore, John is a human.

You could add a bunch of statements between B and C, such as: "If A and B are true, C must be true."

But no matter how many of these statements you add, it doesn't undermine the fact that you can reach conclusion from the first two statements.

The fact that you are trying to "prove" your point in such ridiculous way, knowing from your other posts that you are an intelligent person, makes me wonder what you are trying to achieve. I think that it was a joke or that I missed something.

If you wanted to, you could have simply doubted the validity of a statement before conclusion, which would mean that even if conclusion was accurate it wouldn't necessarily be true.
 
Jun 14, 2016 8:42 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 924
This 'logical proof' is called a syllogism. It's an ancient method, really. Actually, a lot of the arguments that atheists use today are not 'new'...they are ancient and from the 19th century. Look up Schopenhauer and Ludwig Feurbach. These guys were writing about things Dawkins and Hitchens were saying before it was cool on the Internet.
The football field isn't the only place where you could use a good line.
 
Jun 14, 2016 8:44 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 31820
This thread is painful to read through.



 
Top
Pages (4) [1] 2 3 » ... Last »