How princeluenleoncur Got Cooked by Basic Logic

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

He’s a strange Christian ngl. His entire personality on the forum has been him circle jerking with bbc posters and porn addicts.

Low IQs be like . “This Christian sins a lot it’s not good why he do this womp womp”


Not realising that I never claimed to be a saint, pure innocent or even an example to follow. I have my vices my weak points And that’s fine over time I’ll change that’s the point of Christianity it’s a religion that changes you over time but rn I’m going through shit irl so yeah ima be cooked maybe when life isn’t kicking me in the ass I’ll be chill

 

[widdi]

Because the laws are made as a reflection of his divine mind. It’s not rocket science. God isn’t bound by them but it’s autinomy In philosophy that 2 conclusions can be true but also contradict one another.

not sure what autinomy means

Essentially god can “break” the rules of logic in our created sense because we are bound by different metaphysical rules so he can do things that would SEEM like he’s braking them but really he isn’t it’s just his position affords him the ability to do more.

So you just argued that logic presupposes god but god can also violate the logic that presupposes his existence. but actually he's not breaking them, it just looks like that from our perspective. So omnipotence only matters insofar as you can trick humans into believing you are omnipotent. Essentially, you've reduced god into a stage magician lol.

 

[Marsiere214]

Low IQs be like . “This Christian sins a lot it’s not good why he do this womp womp”


Not realising that I never claimed to be a saint, pure innocent or even an example to follow. I have my vices my weak points And that’s fine over time I’ll change that’s the point of Christianity it’s a religion that changes you over time but rn I’m going through shit irl so yeah ima be cooked maybe when life isn’t kicking me in the ass I’ll be chill

Ur an incredibly annoying user ngl. Ur pathetic attempts to seem like a high iq poster and a “gotcha moment” baiter give me second hand embarrassment. I now remember why I most sane users had u on ignore.

 

[gemerald]

Would stay but it's time to log off, just don't degenerate into shitflinging. God bless.

 

[kurd]

So you once again demonstrated that you don’t know the difference between circularity and “meta level arguments. The same way your dumbass doesn’t realise at its core every argument is ultimately recursive

Why do you even try debating me your not ready for this your a child playing in an adults arena. Go read philosophy books before you humiliate yourself further more than you already have


I mean your comment is literally identical to saying “Gravity just works bro no need to think about jt “

You’re pretending logic is just a convenient “description” of the world, like a physics cheat sheet but that’s a dodge, not an explanation. You have yet to give me one faggot.

1. Logic is just how we describe consistent relationships in reality.”

Wrong. That’s descriptivism, and it assumes what it needs to explain.

Ask yourself:
Why is reality “consistent” in the first place?
Why does every possible world you can imagine still obey the law of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle?

If logic were just a tool or just a description, then we’d expect it to change in different contexts. But logic is:

• Invariant (doesn’t change)
• Abstract (not material)
• Universal (applies everywhere)

So logic is not a thing in nature. It’s not something you find under a microscope. It’s ontologically real, yet immaterial — which your worldview can’t account for. You’re freeloading on Platonism without the metaphysical credentials.

And yes I agree logic isn’t run like software that’s the point I was making .




3. “You don’t need a cosmic mind to know a square can’t be a circle.”

You don’t know that because you saw it in the world. You know it because you assume the law of non-contradiction is universally and necessarily true. But in your naturalistic/materialist view

What is a “law” of logic?
Where does it “exist”?
How do immaterial, abstract, necessary truths arise from physical stuff?

If all you have is matter in motion, then “laws of logic” are just human mental patterns — and those change. So why can’t 2+2=5 in some other society? Why can’t contradiction be true somewhere else in the universe?

You’ve got no grounding for the necessity, universality, and immutability of logical laws but you use them anyway.

Bro you keep saying “meta level” like that magically makes it not circular Every worldview has presuppositions . cool. but you’re just assuming yours are the default and then mocking people for not starting at your finish line.

Also, logic isn’t some floating ghost you need to explain with ancient desert mythology. It’s literally a human framework for describing consistent patterns like math. You’re acting like we uncovered divine code in a cave instead of just formalizing the obvious: a thing can’t not be itself

You’re doing philosophy by vibes at this point. You just dressed it up in “transcendental necessity” because you can’t ground your beliefs either you just offload them onto a sky daddy and call it coherent.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

not sure what autinomy means


So you just argued that logic presupposes god but god can also violate the logic that presupposes his existence. but actually he's not breaking them, it just looks like that from our perspective. So omnipotence only matters insofar as you can trick humans into believing you are omnipotent. Essentially, you've reduced god into a stage magician lol.

I never said “autonomy” I said “antinomy” two different things once again showing and displaying your lack of philosophical knowledge snd yet your dumbass thinks you can even challenge me and you make such a basic Google tier mistake out the gate

Your mistake is assuming God “violates” logic when we say He transcends our finite comprehension of it — not logic itself. God doesn’t “break” logic, rather, logic flows from His nature (Logos). Antinomy (like Trinity or incarnation) isn’t contradiction it’s mystery due to finite minds grasping the infinite.

You confuse epistemic limitation (our view) with ontological contradiction (actual incoherence). That’s a category error.

Thus God isn’t a “stage magician.” He’s the source of intelligibility, and your mockery only works by borrowing from the very logic grounded in Him. Which only evidences how idiotic your whitens are thank you

 

[Copercel]

TL;DR of this entire exchange:

1. Dude claimed Eastern Orthodoxy is the only true form of Christianity and everyone else (including Catholics) are basically heretics or “innovators.”
2. Tried to "own" atheism by spamming the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG), saying logic, morality, and abstract truths can’t exist without the Christian God.
3. Said I was strawmanning, but then completely ignored what I actually said and went off on rants assuming stuff I never claimed.
4. Pulled out cherry-picked history and theology to “prove” Christianity > Rabbinic Judaism and that Isaiah 53 = Jesus, even though it’s just his interpretation.
5. Ended up calling me a “GAYtheist” like 5 times, claimed victory, and then rage quit while still replying like 4 more times
6. Whole convo boiled down to: “You can’t use logic unless you believe in my God,” which is just nonsense dressed up in philosophy lingo.

@PrinceLuenLeoncur

View attachment 3956436

DNR I just know you’re bullshiting and he cucked you.

 

[widdi]

I never said “autonomy” I said “antinomy” two different things once again showing and displaying your lack of philosophical knowledge snd yet your dumbass thinks you can even challenge me and you make such a basic Google tier mistake out the gate

Your mistake is assuming God “violates” logic when we say He transcends our finite comprehension of it — not logic itself. God doesn’t “break” logic, rather, logic flows from His nature (Logos). Antinomy (like Trinity or incarnation) isn’t contradiction it’s mystery due to finite minds grasping the infinite.

You confuse epistemic limitation (our view) with ontological contradiction (actual incoherence). That’s a category error.

Thus God isn’t a “stage magician.” He’s the source of intelligibility, and your mockery only works by borrowing from the very logic grounded in Him. Which only evidences how idiotic your whitens are thank you

oh my bad yeah I can see why this is really important to you

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Bro you keep saying “meta level” like that magically makes it not circular Every worldview has presuppositions . cool. but you’re just assuming yours are the default and then mocking people for not starting at your finish line.

Also, logic isn’t some floating ghost you need to explain with ancient desert mythology. It’s literally a human framework for describing consistent patterns like math. You’re acting like we uncovered divine code in a cave instead of just formalizing the obvious: a thing can’t not be itself

You’re doing philosophy by vibes at this point. You just dressed it up in “transcendental necessity” because you can’t ground your beliefs either you just offload them onto a sky daddy and call it coherent.

It’s not circular it’s recursive learn the fucking difference. I won’t reply to the rest.
Learn the difference between circular arguments, metal level arguments and recursivity. You’ll learn a lot from this


Once again provide an account for transcendental catagories such as logic existing the way it does using YOUR OWN paradigm of Gaytheism. Until then stfu

Only reply to me once you do those 2 things.

Your my bitch, my intellectual inferior I’m MOGGING and stunting on you and your 2 butt buddies on this thread your very own cope thread I have destroyed trashed and used it to humiliate you and my OPPS you’ll think twice about starting shit with me won’t you bitxh

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

View attachment 3956994

oh my bad yeah I can see why this is really important to you

When a man’s IQ is below room temp he makes room temp mistakes

 

[widdi]

View attachment 3957001
When a man’s IQ is below room temp he makes room temp mistakes

nigga ur essays are barely coherent not my fault that every third word is spelled incorrectly

 

[kurd]

It’s not circular it’s recursive learn the fucking difference. I won’t reply to the rest.
Learn the difference between circular arguments, metal level arguments and recursivity. You’ll learn a lot from this


Once again provide an account for transcendental catagories such as logic existing the way it does using YOUR OWN paradigm of Gaytheism. Until then stfu

Only reply to me once you do those 2 things.

Your my bitch, my intellectual inferior I’m MOGGING and stunting on you and your 2 butt buddies on this thread your very own cope thread I have destroyed trashed and used it to humiliate you and my OPPS you’ll think twice about starting shit with me won’t you bitxh

You keep repeating "it's not circular, it's recursive" as if that solves anything but recursion still requires an initial foundation. Just saying "God accounts for logic" doesn’t explain how, it just pushes the mystery back a step and slaps a name on it.

And no, I don’t need to smuggle in your worldview to talk about logic. Logic is descriptive it reflects the structure of reality as we observe it. We don’t need a cosmic mind to know contradictions don’t work, just like we don’t need a deity to know 2+2=4.

You're demanding a metaphysical justification for logic while assuming yours is untouchable. That’s not philosophy, that’s just special pleading.

When you’ve got something that isn’t just asserting your conclusion as a premise, we can talk. Until then, you're just making noise and calling it depth lmao.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

View attachment 3957010

nigga ur essays are barely coherent not my fault that every third word is spelled incorrectly

They are spelt correctly auto correct cucks me .

Either way until you three users provide coherent accounts that don’t collapse into absurdities for transcendentals I’ll just ignore you lot cos I have no reason to debate with idiots that can’t even account for the preconditions for argumentation in the first place… yes there are preconditions (foundations) that undergird argumentation to begin with and none of you can answer what those are or account for them which is why by default you guys lose

 

[widdi]

They are spelt correctly auto correct cucks me .

Either way until you three users provide coherent accounts that don’t collapse into absurdities for transcendentals I’ll just ignore you lot cos I have no reason to debate with idiots that can’t even account for the preconditions for argumentation in the first place… yes there are preconditions (foundations) that undergird argumentation to begin with and none of you can answer what those are or account for them which is why by default you guys lose

I don't have to prove a positive. I said I was agnostic about god's existence. My claim was that the TAG is not a good argument to prove the properties of a Christian god, and you just responded with a wall of random cope

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

You keep repeating "it's not circular, it's recursive" as if that solves anything but recursion still requires an initial foundation. Just saying "God accounts for logic" doesn’t explain how, it just pushes the mystery back a step and slaps a name on it.

And no, I don’t need to smuggle in your worldview to talk about logic. Logic is descriptive it reflects the structure of reality as we observe it. We don’t need a cosmic mind to know contradictions don’t work, just like we don’t need a deity to know 2+2=4.

You're demanding a metaphysical justification for logic while assuming yours is untouchable. That’s not philosophy, that’s just special pleading.

When you’ve got something that isn’t just asserting your conclusion as a premise, we can talk. Until then, you're just making noise and calling it depth lmao.

Every paradigm is ultimately “circular “ something your dumbass doesn’t get but the correct term for this when used properly is “recursive”

God is the first cause the prime mover why because he doesn’t need other things to explain or justify his existence he exists and all things flow from him that’s why it’s acceptable. Everything else requires another thing to account for it.

When we say God is the axiom, we mean He is the self-existent, necessary precondition for all intelligibility logic, morality, causality, personhood, etc. That means: Appealing to God to justify logic isn’t circular in the vicious sense — it’s transcendentally necessary.

You can reason from God, through God, and back to God — because He is the ground of all reason itself. This is recursive in a self-validating way



Other systems like materialism, empiricism, or relativism also have axioms, but

• Their axioms are not self-justifying
• They borrow from Christian metaphysics (e.g., logic, order, identity)
• They cannot account for abstract universals, immaterial truths, or moral obligation

For example: Empiricism says: “Only what is observable is true.” But that claim itself isn’t observable so it refutes itself. Materialism says: “Only matter exists.” But logic isn’t material so it can’t ground its own tools.

They try to be recursive but their recursion is arbitrary and incoherent. Do you get it now my little padawan? You’re like my prison bitch, don’t worry sugar I’ll educate you

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

I don't have to prove a positive. I said I was agnostic about god's existence. My claim was that the TAG is not a good argument to prove the properties of a Christian god, and you just responded with a wall of random cope

You can read my responses to other people. And you’ll see why it’s the only coherent way to answer transcendental catagories I won’t go through it again with an moron who Doesn’t know the difference between Antinomy and autonomy

 

[Daddy's Home]

Oh no, not again a thread with schizo ramblings arguments debating whatever religion in big 2025..

Just 3 minutes of this video is enough for anyone to understand certain things.. and nothing will ever be the same after..

 

[widdi]

You can read my responses to other people. And you’ll see why it’s the only coherent way to answer transcendental catagories I won’t go through it again with an moron who Doesn’t know the difference between Antinomy and autonomy

Well anyone can read my simple, coherent, high IQ statements against your incoherent wordcel text spam and decide for themselves

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Well anyone can read my simple, coherent, high IQ statements against your incoherent wordcel text spam and decide for themselves

Respect to you for actually reading my other comments. I think anybody with a brain will acknowledge that what I wrote not only refuted your arguments but actually filled in the gaps and where you was going wrong and then I presented why mine is better and doesn’t have the same issue.

I know you may not like being wrong (nobody does) and that’s fine but the reality is none of you guys stood a chance tbh

 

[kurd]

Every paradigm is ultimately “circular “ something your dumbass doesn’t get but the correct term for this when used properly is “recursive”

God is the first cause the prime mover why because he doesn’t need other things to explain or justify his existence he exists and all things flow from him that’s why it’s acceptable. Everything else requires another thing to account for it.

When we say God is the axiom, we mean He is the self-existent, necessary precondition for all intelligibility logic, morality, causality, personhood, etc. That means: Appealing to God to justify logic isn’t circular in the vicious sense — it’s transcendentally necessary.

You can reason from God, through God, and back to God — because He is the ground of all reason itself. This is recursive in a self-validating way



Other systems like materialism, empiricism, or relativism also have axioms, but

• Their axioms are not self-justifying
• They borrow from Christian metaphysics (e.g., logic, order, identity)
• They cannot account for abstract universals, immaterial truths, or moral obligation

For example: Empiricism says: “Only what is observable is true.” But that claim itself isn’t observable so it refutes itself. Materialism says: “Only matter exists.” But logic isn’t material so it can’t ground its own tools.

They try to be recursive but their recursion is arbitrary and incoherent. Do you get it now my little padawan? You’re like my prison bitch, don’t worry sugar I’ll educate you

Every worldview is ultimately recursive at the foundational level that’s the whole point of presuppositional analysis. The difference is mine actually works. God isn’t just “another claim,” He’s the necessary precondition for intelligibility itself. Logic, morality, causality all require an immaterial, invariant, personal ground. That’s God.

When I appeal to God as the axiom, I’m not doing a “vicious circle.” I’m giving the only self-existent foundation that can account for universals. You’re just out here freeloading abstract laws from a theistic framework while claiming to be a materialist. That’s incoherent.

You can’t even justify your own tools. Materialism collapses the moment it tries to explain the immaterial. Empiricism is self-defeating because “only what’s observable is true” isn’t observable. Your recursion isn’t just flawed it’s fake.

Stop pretending your paradigm is neutral. It borrows everything from mine while pretending it came up with it. Cope harder.

 

[kurd]

Respect to you for actually reading my other comments. I think anybody with a brain will acknowledge that what I wrote not only refuted your arguments but actually filled in the gaps and where you was going wrong and then I presented why mine is better and doesn’t have the same issue.

I know you may not like being wrong (nobody does) and that’s fine but the reality is none of you guys stood a chance tbh

I know you may not like being wrong (nobody does) and that’s fine but the reality is none of you guys stood a chance tbh

@widdi the irony is fucking hilarious.

 

[kurd]

Oh no, not again a thread with schizo ramblings arguments debating whatever religion in big 2025..

Just 3 minutes of this video is enough for anyone to understand certain things.. and nothing will ever be the same after..

View attachment 3957036View attachment 3957038

whats that

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

I know you may not like being wrong (nobody does) and that’s fine but the reality is none of you guys stood a chance tbh

@widdi the irony is fucking hilarious.

You guys didn’t so keep crying baby girl

Every worldview is ultimately recursive at the foundational level that’s the whole point of presuppositional analysis. The difference is mine actually works. God isn’t just “another claim,” He’s the necessary precondition for intelligibility itself. Logic, morality, causality all require an immaterial, invariant, personal ground. That’s God.

When I appeal to God as the axiom, I’m not doing a “vicious circle.” I’m giving the only self-existent foundation that can account for universals. You’re just out here freeloading abstract laws from a theistic framework while claiming to be a materialist. That’s incoherent.

You can’t even justify your own tools. Materialism collapses the moment it tries to explain the immaterial. Empiricism is self-defeating because “only what’s observable is true” isn’t observable. Your recursion isn’t just flawed it’s fake.

Stop pretending your paradigm is neutral. It borrows everything from mine while pretending it came up with it. Cope harder.

Your worldview has yet to provide an account for the stuff I listed


Do that and we can speak (you can’t and won’t because Gaytheism is incomplete and illogical by default)

My framework doesn’t borrow from anything it utilised its own tools within its own scope to explain everything which I have already demonstrated numerous times here but your arguing for arguments sake because your angry that you lost and have no out. We aren’t in the same position my position and yours isn’t the same I’m not bound by your rules and scope because my worldview is different to your. We aren’t debating paradigms.!

Provide a materialistic naturalist account for these transcendentals or stfu. Your dumbass keeps replying and humiliating yourself like your boyfriends which I also humiliated and humbled like little girls they are smart enough to give up and stop unlike you who is a glutton for punishment

 

[Swarthy Knight]

TL;DR of this entire exchange:

1. Dude claimed Eastern Orthodoxy is the only true form of Christianity and everyone else (including Catholics) are basically heretics or “innovators.”
2. Tried to "own" atheism by spamming the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG), saying logic, morality, and abstract truths can’t exist without the Christian God.
3. Said I was strawmanning, but then completely ignored what I actually said and went off on rants assuming stuff I never claimed.
4. Pulled out cherry-picked history and theology to “prove” Christianity > Rabbinic Judaism and that Isaiah 53 = Jesus, even though it’s just his interpretation.
5. Ended up calling me a “GAYtheist” like 5 times, claimed victory, and then rage quit while still replying like 4 more times
6. Whole convo boiled down to: “You can’t use logic unless you believe in my God,” which is just nonsense dressed up in philosophy lingo.

@PrinceLuenLeoncur

View attachment 3956436

Are you a Muzzie? I thought Kurds were something else

 

[kurd]

Are you a Muzzie? I thought Kurds were something else

Used to be, and wym kurds are 98% sunni muslim. Im Agnostic

 

[Swarthy Knight]

Used to be, and wym kurds are 98% sunni muslim. Im Agnostic

I thought Kurds were Yazidi or something like that

 

[diss]

bros still arguing religion even after i deleted my account and came back bruh

 

[kurd]

You guys didn’t so keep crying baby girl

Your worldview has yet to provide an account for the stuff I listed


Do that and we can speak (you can’t and won’t because Gaytheism is incomplete and illogical by default)

My framework doesn’t borrow from anything it utilised its own tools within its own scope to explain everything which I have already demonstrated numerous times here but your arguing for arguments sake because your angry that you lost and have no out. We aren’t in the same position my position and yours isn’t the same I’m not bound by your rules and scope because my worldview is different to your. We aren’t debating paradigms.!

Provide a materialistic naturalist account for these transcendentals or stfu. Your dumbass keeps replying and humiliating yourself like your boyfriends which I also humiliated and humbled like little girls they are smart enough to give up and stop unlike you who is a glutton for punishment

You haven’t “shown” anything, you just keep asserting that God is the answer. Saying “God grounds logic” isn’t an explanation, it’s just a label.

In a naturalistic view, logic and universals aren’t floating entities they’re descriptive frameworks humans use to make sense of consistent patterns in reality. Morality comes from evolved social behavior and reasoning, not from a divine mind.

So no, I’m not salty I’m just not buying circular claims dressed up as philosophy.

 

[kurd]

I thought Kurds were Yazidi or something like that

thats like 3%

 

[kurd]

bros still arguing religion even after i deleted my account and came back bruh

were not debating religion?

 

[diss]

were not debating religion?

i meant prince not u

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

You haven’t “shown” anything, you just keep asserting that God is the answer. Saying “God grounds logic” isn’t an explanation, it’s just a label.

In a naturalistic view, logic and universals aren’t floating entities they’re descriptive frameworks humans use to make sense of consistent patterns in reality. Morality comes from evolved social behavior and reasoning, not from a divine mind.

So no, I’m not salty I’m just not buying circular claims dressed up as philosophy.

Baby girl your still crying

Materialism cannot account for something immaterial you dumbass

A framework that humans use? Hmm so are you saying the law of non contradiction only existed at a point in time humans were able to acknowledge it? Does the same apply to mathematics so two rocks on the floor only became 2 rocks once humans could comprehend it… is that what your saying

Even ethics if it’s is also a social construct then like all social construct they when no ontological existence and aren’t real so ethics isn’t real either its subjective and collapsed into relativism

So once again you tried to give an account for something that’s constant, universal, unchanging and immaterial using contingent, particular and material processes and explanations do you realise how retarded you are by now and why I’m meming on you and bullying you like a little girl becuase your my victim my prey. Word of advice, you can’t account for something with these features using something that lacks those features in of itself . And as stated these things cannot exist in your worldview as true things they can only be relative but that doesn’t explain why all humans regardless of where ethey are are beholden to mathmatics and logic such as law of contradiction just an example


You did try though you tried poor thing it’s not even your fault your worldview just doesn’t have an answer for this stuff

i meant prince not u

I’m debating philosophy, keep your fucking mouth shut. The other guy even told you this isn’t about religion this is philosophy. And yes I debate about what I want same way your gay ass debates over which PSL god is the best looking for the 1000s time by now. Stupid hypocrite

 

[kurd]

Baby girl your still crying

Materialism cannot account for something immaterial you dumbass

A framework that humans use? Hmm so are you saying the law of non contradiction only existed at a point in time humans were able to acknowledge it? Does the same apply to mathematics so two rocks on the floor only became 2 rocks once humans could comprehend it… is that what your saying

Even ethics if it’s is also a social construct then like all social construct they when no ontological existence and aren’t real so ethics isn’t real either its subjective and collapsed into relativism

So once again you tried to give an account for something that’s constant, universal, unchanging and immaterial using contingent, particular and material processes and explanations do you realise how retarded you are by now and why I’m meming on you and bullying you like a little girl becuase your my victim my prey. Word of advice, you can’t account for something with these features using something that lacks those features in of itself . And as stated these things cannot exist in your worldview as true things they can only be relative but that doesn’t explain why all humans regardless of where ethey are are beholden to mathmatics and logic such as law of contradiction just an example


You did try though you tried poor thing it’s not even your fault your worldview just doesn’t have an answer for this stuff


I’m debating philosophy, keep your fucking mouth shut. The other guy even told you this isn’t about religion this is philosophy. And yes I debate about what I want same way your gay ass debates over which PSL god is the best looking for the 1000s time by now. Stupid hypocrite

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. The law of non-contradiction and math describe patterns in reality that exist whether or not humans are around to notice them. We discovered them, we didn’t create them.

You keep acting like pointing out that logic is abstract means it must come from a divine mind. That’s just asserting your conclusion. Logic doesn’t “need grounding” it’s a framework that works because reality behaves consistently.

And yes, morality has subjective elements but that doesn’t mean it’s meaningless. It’s built from human nature, empathy, and reasoning, not divine decree. You calling it “retarded” doesn’t make your circular argument any better.

 

[diss]

Baby girl your still crying

Materialism cannot account for something immaterial you dumbass

A framework that humans use? Hmm so are you saying the law of non contradiction only existed at a point in time humans were able to acknowledge it? Does the same apply to mathematics so two rocks on the floor only became 2 rocks once humans could comprehend it… is that what your saying

Even ethics if it’s is also a social construct then like all social construct they when no ontological existence and aren’t real so ethics isn’t real either its subjective and collapsed into relativism

So once again you tried to give an account for something that’s constant, universal, unchanging and immaterial using contingent, particular and material processes and explanations do you realise how retarded you are by now and why I’m meming on you and bullying you like a little girl becuase your my victim my prey. Word of advice, you can’t account for something with these features using something that lacks those features in of itself . And as stated these things cannot exist in your worldview as true things they can only be relative but that doesn’t explain why all humans regardless of where ethey are are beholden to mathmatics and logic such as law of contradiction just an example


You did try though you tried poor thing it’s not even your fault your worldview just doesn’t have an answer for this stuff


I’m debating philosophy, keep your fucking mouth shut. The other guy even told you this isn’t about religion this is philosophy. And yes I debate about what I want same way your gay ass debates over which PSL god is the best looking for the 1000s time by now. Stupid hypocrite

i dont care about psl gods

take a chillpill nigga

 

[Klasik616]

View attachment 3957001
When a man’s IQ is below room temp he makes room temp mistakes

This is Google rejecting your claim that logic = God. Basically if a concept doesn't come from experience it cannot be true or false. When talking about God, you're talking about absolutely nothing that can be found on this world. Logic cannot justify the existence of a being. Any being should be found on a particular perception using a logic to understand it's existence, that's what knowledge means. This logic you talk about is not eternal, common sense which is something everyone with a <80 IQ can understand such as language is not an eternal truth, it comes from use and use comes from experience, this is why sciences need both: a theory and a substance in reality. Anything else cannot be true or false. The antinomy you made God = Logic is dogmatic. I can use Kant's and Wittgenstein lectures to debate your metaphysical aristotelian view.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

i dont care about psl gods

take a chillpill nigga

It’s jsut annoying how niggers here make the same threads on race on Jews on blacks on psl gods

But I ain’t allowed to speak about RELGION or philosophy? The users here are gay faggots confirmed.

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. The law of non-contradiction and math describe patterns in reality that exist whether or not humans are around to notice them. We discovered them, we didn’t create them.

You keep acting like pointing out that logic is abstract means it must come from a divine mind. That’s just asserting your conclusion. Logic doesn’t “need grounding” it’s a framework that works because reality behaves consistently.

And yes, morality has subjective elements but that doesn’t mean it’s meaningless. It’s built from human nature, empathy, and reasoning, not divine decree. You calling it “retarded” doesn’t make your circular argument any better.

If it’s all relative then it isn’t true then you have no reason to follow the rules of logic or anything then as they don’t exist in your worldview. So congratulations you played yourself. Honestly I’m bored with you, your shit at this and low IQ go debate with AI if you wanna continue this.

You’re just asserting that logic “works because reality behaves consistently” but you can’t explain why it behaves that way, or why logic is universal, necessary, and immaterial in a world of blind matter.

Saying we “discover” logic proves it pre-exists minds so whose mind grounds it? Abstract laws don’t float in space. Only a divine mind makes them coherent.

As for morality if it’s built on “human nature,” then it’s subjective, changeable, and not binding. So by your logic, genocide can be moral if enough people evolve to prefer it. That’s moral relativism, not ethics.

You can’t give an account for them and thus there’s no point carrying this on as you have lost by process of elimination as you’ll never have an account for them without dipping into my paradigm so you lose by default

 

[kurd]

It’s jsut annoying how niggers here make the same threads on race on Jews on blacks on psl gods

But I ain’t allowed to speak about RELGION or philosophy? The users here are gay faggots confirmed.

If it’s all relative then it isn’t true then you have no reason to follow the rules of logic or anything then as they don’t exist in your worldview. So congratulations you played yourself. Honestly I’m bored with you, your shit at this and low IQ go debate with AI if you wanna continue this.

You’re just asserting that logic “works because reality behaves consistently” but you can’t explain why it behaves that way, or why logic is universal, necessary, and immaterial in a world of blind matter.

Saying we “discover” logic proves it pre-exists minds so whose mind grounds it? Abstract laws don’t float in space. Only a divine mind makes them coherent.

As for morality if it’s built on “human nature,” then it’s subjective, changeable, and not binding. So by your logic, genocide can be moral if enough people evolve to prefer it. That’s moral relativism, not ethics.

You can’t give an account for them and thus there’s no point carrying this on as you have lost by process of elimination as you’ll never have an account for them without dipping into my paradigm so you lose by default

You say logic and morality can’t be explained without God, but just saying “because God” isn’t an explanation it’s a claim that begs the question. You expect me to accept that abstract laws exist because a divine mind must exist, but you haven’t shown why that has to be the case.

Logic describes consistent patterns in realityit’s universal and necessary because reality itself behaves consistently. That’s what we observe, test, and use to build knowledge. You asking “why does reality behave this way” is a fair question, but “God did it” isn’t the only possible answer.

As for morality, yes, it evolves with humans, but that doesn’t mean it’s meaningless or arbitrary. Moral systems develop to promote cooperation, wellbeing, and fairness. That’s how societies thrive, not by divine command.

If you think “not having your God” means losing by default, that’s just special pleading. You haven’t proven that your worldview is the only one that can ground these thingsonly that it claims to.

 

[JohnDoe]

>arguing with a nigger

 

[kurd]

You say logic and morality can’t be explained without God, but just saying “because God” isn’t an explanation it’s a claim that begs the question. You expect me to accept that abstract laws exist because a divine mind must exist, but you haven’t shown why that has to be the case.

Logic describes consistent patterns in realityit’s universal and necessary because reality itself behaves consistently. That’s what we observe, test, and use to build knowledge. You asking “why does reality behave this way” is a fair question, but “God did it” isn’t the only possible answer.

As for morality, yes, it evolves with humans, but that doesn’t mean it’s meaningless or arbitrary. Moral systems develop to promote cooperation, wellbeing, and fairness. That’s how societies thrive, not by divine command.

If you think “not having your God” means losing by default, that’s just special pleading. You haven’t proven that your worldview is the only one that can ground these thingsonly that it claims to.

Classic no response, nigga got cooked