Sub5 & Celibate
Fakecel
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2025
- Posts
- 2,057
- Reputation
- 2,574
What religion are you before i debateprovide evidence for the premise. also what law of logic have i disregarded in my argument? did i commit any fallacies, if yes name them
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
What religion are you before i debateprovide evidence for the premise. also what law of logic have i disregarded in my argument? did i commit any fallacies, if yes name them
your human brain interface (what you perceive as reality) is your reality so all attempts at conceptualising base layer ontological reality (god) or quite literally any reality besides your own, are completely self contradictory ie human constructsthey aren’t though. you are just saying they are, but not giving a reason, or an argument for why that is the case
1. no defeaters presented and appears to be the caseYou haven't given an argument as to why it's not a human construct
Only idiots argue about this stuff. It would be like arguing about whether there are invisible people around us
I 100% agree. if you are a platonist i would simply deconstruct the platonistic paradigm and show its incoherency. are you a platonist?That is a metaphysical assumption. You are asserting not demonstrating the premise. Platonism can very well explain the nature of logic without a higher entity to produce it
muslimWhat religion are you before i debate
No, I am merely stating a view.I 100% agree. if you are a platonist i would simply deconstruct the platonistic paradigm and show its incoherency. are you a platonist?
okay, then do you agree with my metaphysical assumption or notNo, I am merely stating a view.
I would have to read up more on it. Cant say I have read more than intro Philokay, then do you agree with my metaphysical assumption or not
cool, well either way it’ll lead to my argument being victorious, jflI would have to read up more on it. Cant say I have read more than intro Phil
forum was down all day and im at work debate latermuslim
Your argument is fallible, dm me for further info, I refuse to say it here because I'm also a Muslim.Add me on discord: jongeman__
God is a necessary precondition for a universal truth, universal truths exist, therefore God exists
BABAHAHAH, so you believe there is an ontological concrete entity called the law of non contradiction floating around in the universe. ad absurdity—> defeater to your position jflOntological
username says it allReligious debates in 2025
add me on discordYour argument is fallible, dm me for further info, I refuse to say it here because I'm also a Muslim.
Username: it allusername says it all
jflUsername: it all
ontological just means its part of realitys structure like math isnt floating around but still holds universallyBABAHAHAH, so you believe there is an ontological concrete entity called the law of non contradiction floating around in the universe. ad absurdity—> defeater to your position jfl
i don't use dc, just use the private chat on hereadd me on discord
goede middag jongeman.Add me on discord: jongeman__
God is a necessary precondition for a universal truth, universal truths exist, therefore God exists
yoogoede middag jongeman.
no, math doesn’t have any ontological grounding. it exists only conceptuallyontological just means its part of realitys structure like math isnt floating around but still holds universally
Yes, the argument is designed to prove a necesary intelect, we would call that God. Also, its partial gambling if you dont know what you are doingim sorry for my ignorance, but 2 things:
1. This only proves the existence of a non-interventionist God. Then why are you muslim?
2. Im gonna assume youre an investor from your pfp. Do you acknowledge the fact that statistics has debunked the posibility of "beating the market", so proving is basically gambling?