jamest wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

To answer your question, absolute chaos is a crock because it only applies to 'nothing', so does not apply at all, whereas absolute order can only apply to God.

And therefore to nothing.

If you'd have followed the argument, then God must exist.

You didn't make an argument, you merely asserted and assumed your conclusion. As has been pointed out to you multiple times now.

SafeAsMilk wrote:You realize how obvious it is that you have no idea how to construct a reasoned argument, right? You never support your claims and you never show how they lead to anything. It's just saying whatever you want and expecting people to accept it, there's nothing for anyone to discuss. You clearly have no interest in any sort of discussion whatsoever, which is probably why your immediate reaction to anyone pointing out these problems is to personally attack them, as you've done here.

Absolutely correct with the only thing missing being the non-sequiturs, i.e.

absolute chaos is a crock because it only applies to 'nothing', so does not apply at all, whereas absolute order can only apply to God.

Firstly, let us consider the meaning of absolute order - what would that entail? Well, it would necessarily entail that the whole system/environment be 'self' explanatory, which means that the system as a whole must have a singular explanation for the order therein.

an argument that proves that something exists wouldn't also prove that nothing exists.

It's basically a human version of a post-modernism gibberish generator.

SafeAsMilk wrote:
You did read the part where spinozagalt said my points were correct, right?

spinoza addressed the OP and asked questions relating to specific statements, which I have since responded to. If you want a serious convo with me, then you'll have to do the same thing. Otherwise, come over to my place, I have a large freezer which might interest you.

jamest wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

To answer your question, absolute chaos is a crock because it only applies to 'nothing', so does not apply at all, whereas absolute order can only apply to God.

And therefore to nothing.

If you'd had followed the argument, then God must exist.

You didn't make an argument: you made a series of barely legible declarations.

Valid deductive arguments draw necessary conclusions from true statements, whereas what you did was... essentially nothing, no different from stacking a series of imaginary ideas together without consideration.

All we can take away here is that you believe God exists, but you haven't even offered any reason in your argument that would justify your belief in God, let alone anything to convince others through argument that the belief is justified.

jamest wrote:If you want a serious convo with me, then you'll have to do the same thing.

A conversation is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Your OP and other posts do amount to a conversation of sorts, but not to a serious argument.

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
You did read the part where spinozagalt said my points were correct, right?

spinoza addressed the OP and asked questions relating to specific statements, which I have since responded to. If you want a serious convo with me, then you'll have to do the same thing. Otherwise, come over to my place, I have a large freezer which might interest you.

Again, you read the part where spinozasgalt said my points were correct, right? I've already pointed out that my responses related to specific statements of yours, and even offered to highlight them in big colorful letters if you can't manage plain English without them.

Definition: Order is the opposite of chaos.
Definition: Chaos is the opposite of order.

What I mean by "opposite" should be unclear from context.

Thommo wrote:Definition: Order is the opposite of chaos.
Definition: Chaos is the opposite of order.

What I mean by "opposite" should be unclear from context.

Definition of chaos: nothing
Definition of order: God

Therefore God.

And off to collect my doctorate in Philosophy.

Spearthrower wrote:

Thommo wrote:Definition: Order is the opposite of chaos.
Definition: Chaos is the opposite of order.

What I mean by "opposite" should be unclear from context.

Definition of chaos: nothing
Definition of order: God

Therefore God.

And off to collect my doctorate in Philosophy.

Sorry, this argument is not complete. You need a premise that order exists. Only then will your thesis be ready for submission.

Also (and less importantly) the definition of chaos is redundant and can be omitted without loss.

Thommo wrote:Definition: Order is the opposite of chaos.
Definition: Chaos is the opposite of order.

What I mean by "opposite" should be unclear from context.

Sincere Tom rears his ugly head.

Thommo wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Thommo wrote:Definition: Order is the opposite of chaos.
Definition: Chaos is the opposite of order.

What I mean by "opposite" should be unclear from context.

Definition of chaos: nothing
Definition of order: God

Therefore God.

And off to collect my doctorate in Philosophy.

Sorry, this argument is not complete. You need a premise that order exists. Only then will your thesis be ready for submission.

Hmmm, I think I can do away with that unnecessary distraction:

If God exists then God exists
God exists
Therefore God exists

Either we're having a discussion about the OP, or we're not. It's up to you guys, but a discussion will revolve around questions, not unqualified judgements.

Spearthrower wrote:
It's basically a human version of a post-modernism gibberish generator.

At least a p-m gibgen might produce something akin to art, OP just reads like someone got drunk and slapped around their keyboard.

jamest wrote:Either we're having a discussion about the OP, or we're not. It's up to you guys, but a discussion will revolve around questions, not unqualified judgements.

Then we're not because the OP contains no qualified judgements, only non-sequitur declarations.

Don't fret jamest, that's just a joke. It's not a representation of your OP and subsequent posts, since I know perfectly well you didn't actually define order at all.

I suppose that makes my argument technically better than yours, but it's still just a deliberately bad argument even so. Like Spearthrower's it deliberately lacks premises and steps of inference. In fact it probably doesn't even qualify as an argument. And I suppose there's an inference we can draw about an attempt at argument that fails more than a joke argument that isn't even an argument does, if we want to draw it.

Spearthrower wrote:Hmmm, I think I can do away with that unnecessary distraction:

If God exists then God exists
God exists
Therefore God exists

Bingo, I think this is the polished product to take into your viva.

jamest wrote:Either we're having a discussion about the OP, or we're not. It's up to you guys, but a discussion will revolve around questions, not unqualified judgements.

It's clear as day you've no interest in discussing your OP, if you did you'd respond to the points instead of pretending they don't exist. Or maybe you're just incapable of understanding the points, I can't really tell. I mean you said yourself, even the mentally disabled could see your errors.

Spearthrower wrote:
Hmmm, I think I can do away with that unnecessary distraction:

If God exists then God exists
God exists
Therefore God exists

It's a thing of beauty, I think I'm gonna cry.

Thommo wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Hmmm, I think I can do away with that unnecessary distraction:

If God exists then God exists
God exists
Therefore God exists

Bingo, I think this is the polished product to take into your viva.

Sweet as.

Incidentally, as I am sure you could tell from the persuasiveness of my argument, that God which exists is Asphalta, the Goddess of concrete.

Heretic! You know full well orthodox dogma says she's the deity of tarmacadam, the primary substrate of reality on which the concrete is based.