Author Topic: OAA & PhilosoB debate the existence of god  (Read 506 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12545
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
OAA & PhilosoB debate the existence of god
« on: April 01, 2014, 08:00:15 PM »
This debate is between One Above All and PhilosoB.  The topic is the existence of god.  Only these two participants are permitted to post in this thread.  Non-participants may post in the commentary thread

Any posts by non-participants in this thread will be deleted.

I suggest OAA & PhilosoB agree on a format and ending conditions prior to beginning their debate.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2014, 08:03:03 PM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline PhilosoB

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Darwins +3/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: OAA & PhilosoB debate the existence of god
« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2014, 08:33:31 PM »
Thank you to screwtape for opening the Debate Room. Also thank you to ParkingPlaces for moderating.

As discussed with One Above All in other postings, the rules are:

      - No insults (attack the argument, not the person)
      - No baseless assertions (ask for clarity if occurs)
      - Debate ends when debaters agree to end

The debate will be regarding the existence of God. I will be arguing in the affirmative.


Offline PhilosoB

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Darwins +3/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: OAA & PhilosoB debate the existence of god
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2014, 09:12:47 PM »
One Above All has permitted the use of any argument pertaining to the existence of God. Though there are many lines of arguments, I will present them one at a time. This will hopefully create a focused and clearer debate.

In full disclosure and as OAA knows, I believe that the God of the Bible exists. This said, no one argument demonstrates this God exists nor am I attempting to craft one. Each argument is intended to defend the God and the characteristics as found in the conclusion and not the complete description that may apply to the God of the Bible. Please address the characteristics that are defended in the argument at hand.

I will begin with the Argument from Contigency, also known as the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument. The syllogism is as follows:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature.

2. If the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1 and 3)

5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2 and 4)


The argument is logically valid. Premises 4 and 5 logically follow from the stated premises using the law of modus ponens.

Premises 1-3 are logically coherent and meaningful statements. Additionally, the first three premises appear to be more plausible than the contradictories.

Premise 3 is evidently more reasonable than the universe not existing.

Premise 1 divides things into two categories: necessary and contingent. Necessary things do not require any preexisting state of affairs; they exist by the necessity of their nature. If necessary things exist, it could not possibly not exist; conversely, it is a logical possibility that if a necessary thing does not exist, it could not possibly exist. Mathematical objects such as numbers and sets can be included in this category.

Contingent objects rely upon something else for their existence. Such objects exist but could also possibly not exist. Physical things such as cars, people and planets are examples.

In attempting to find an explanation for something, any explanation must be either a contingent source or a necessary source. 

Certainly, one can simply say that things exist inexplicably but this runs counterintuitive to how we experience and try to understand the universe. Such a position would halt any scientific exploration, since, if things exist without explanation, what would we be looking for? An explanation for holding this position would be needed.

Premise 2 would appear to be the easiest premise to discount but with some expansion, it too becomes more plausible than its contradiction. Denying the antecedent would be to accept that the universe is without an explanation. Of course, we look for explanations for everything other object within the universe. It would be arbitrary to exclude the universe from this criteria.

Accepting that the universe has an explanation, that explanation must be in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature. To accept that the universe is a necessary object is counterintuitive. We experience the contingency of objects daily. Further, mounting scientific evidence continues to confirm that the universe had a beginning. Since the universe is not a necessary object, the explanation must be in an external cause.

Since the universe consists of all space, time, matter and energy, and since the contingent nature of the universe requires an external cause, this leaves two possibilities: nothingness or something immaterial. Nothingness, the absence of anything, hardly seems to be an adequate explanation for the universe. Nothingness cannot explain anything. However, something does, in fact, exist and the only viable option remaining is something immaterial.

Two possible options exist regarding immaterial things: abstract objects such as numbers and an unembodied mind. Abstract objects, definitionally, do not exist in causal relations to anything, thus disqualifying it as a viable explanation. Minds, on the other hand, are capable of causation (the existence of minds may be viewed as a conditional premise to advance the argument. If the argument is valid, more can be said about the existence of minds.) Therefore, an immaterial, personal mind outside of space and time is the best explanation for the universe. Such properties form part of the defining characteristics related to a being commonly referred to as God.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11106
  • Darwins +291/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: OAA & PhilosoB debate the existence of god
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2014, 11:35:59 AM »
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature.

Define what you mean by "explanation".

2. If the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God.

Non-sequitur and no evidence. Dismissed.

3. The universe exists.

No problem here.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1 and 3)

See the first point of this post.

5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2 and 4)

Then your god also requires an explanation. And the explanation for your god's explanation. And the explanation of the explanation of your god's explanation. And so on ad infinitum.

Two possible options exist regarding immaterial things: abstract objects such as numbers and an unembodied mind. Abstract objects, definitionally, do not exist in causal relations to anything, thus disqualifying it as a viable explanation. Minds, on the other hand, are capable of causation (the existence of minds may be viewed as a conditional premise to advance the argument. If the argument is valid, more can be said about the existence of minds.) Therefore, an immaterial, personal mind outside of space and time is the best explanation for the universe. Such properties form part of the defining characteristics related to a being commonly referred to as God.

False dichotomy and no evidence. Dismissed.

Care to try again?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline PhilosoB

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Darwins +3/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: OAA & PhilosoB debate the existence of god
« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2014, 01:57:24 PM »
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature.

Define what you mean by "explanation".

An explanation is a reason or account for the way something is. An adequate explanation will include the sufficient conditions for why something obtains.

2. If the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God.

Non-sequitur and no evidence. Dismissed.

I understand why this may be viewed as a non-sequitur which is  why I provided an explanation. Too further elucidate, if the universe has an explanation (a reason or account for why it exists) and if the universe is contingent, then this explanation must reside in an external source. If the explanation for the universe is contingent, then it too would require an external explanation. If all explanations are contingent, then this would continue ad infinitum and would not explain why anything contingent exists at all?

Therefore, to end this infinite regress, the explanation to why anything contingent exists must be, in the least, an explanation that exists necessarily.  If there is another necessarily existing explanation other than God, I am willing to discuss it.

Beyond the logic just demonstrated, I have further provided reasoning for why the universe is not necessary or inexplicable, and therefore subject to the above logic. You are welcome to provide counterarguments.


5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2 and 4)

Then your god also requires an explanation. And the explanation for your god's explanation. And the explanation of the explanation of your god's explanation. And so on ad infinitum.

The explanation for God is the necessity of his nature. As premise 1 states, necessity is one of two possible explanations. I have presented arguments for why a necessary explanation is required to end an infinite regress of contingent explanations. You are welcome to present arguments for how a contingent universe could come to exist without a necessary explanation or how that necessary explanation is not God.


Two possible options exist regarding immaterial things: abstract objects such as numbers and an unembodied mind. Abstract objects, definitionally, do not exist in causal relations to anything, thus disqualifying it as a viable explanation. Minds, on the other hand, are capable of causation (the existence of minds may be viewed as a conditional premise to advance the argument. If the argument is valid, more can be said about the existence of minds.) Therefore, an immaterial, personal mind outside of space and time is the best explanation for the universe. Such properties form part of the defining characteristics related to a being commonly referred to as God.

False dichotomy and no evidence. Dismissed.

If there are further immaterial things I have not considered that are better explanations than unembodied minds or if my logic is flawed in coming to this conclusion, please make your case; otherwise, this is simply a baseless dismal.

As stated, the existence of a unembodied mind can be treated as a conditional premise (a common philosophical method in forming arguments). You can either show that another alternative is more probable or accept that a mind is logically valid for the sake of the argument but then show that a mind does not, in fact, exist.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11106
  • Darwins +291/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: OAA & PhilosoB debate the existence of god
« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2014, 02:28:07 PM »
An explanation is a reason or account for the way something is. An adequate explanation will include the sufficient conditions for why something obtains.

Wrong, according to quantum mechanics. Some events are purely random.

I understand why this may be viewed as a non-sequitur which is  why I provided an explanation. Too further elucidate, if the universe has an explanation (a reason or account for why it exists) and if the universe is contingent, then this explanation must reside in an external source. If the explanation for the universe is contingent, then it too would require an external explanation. If all explanations are contingent, then this would continue ad infinitum and would not explain why anything contingent exists at all?

Therefore, to end this infinite regress, the explanation to why anything contingent exists must be, in the least, an explanation that exists necessarily.  If there is another necessarily existing explanation other than God, I am willing to discuss it.

Beyond the logic just demonstrated, I have further provided reasoning for why the universe is not necessary or inexplicable, and therefore subject to the above logic. You are welcome to provide counterarguments.

Your logic is baseless. Change can and does come from within a system, but the total energy does not change. Put simply, 0=0, but 1-1=0 as well. And 10googol-10googol=0. Regardless, you have yet to provide evidence for your claims. Take your time.

The explanation for God is the necessity of his nature. As premise 1 states, necessity is one of two possible explanations. I have presented arguments for why a necessary explanation is required to end an infinite regress of contingent explanations. You are welcome to present arguments for how a contingent universe could come to exist without a necessary explanation or how that necessary explanation is not God.

No evidence and does not address the point. If all things in existence require an outside force, then so does your god. And your god's god. And your god's god's god. And (...).

If there are further immaterial things I have not considered that are better explanations than unembodied minds or if my logic is flawed in coming to this conclusion, please make your case; otherwise, this is simply a baseless dismal.

As stated, the existence of a unembodied mind can be treated as a conditional premise (a common philosophical method in forming arguments). You can either show that another alternative is more probable or accept that a mind is logically valid for the sake of the argument but then show that a mind does not, in fact, exist.

How about a flooperwhoople? It's immaterial and explains everything. It also shares the same characteristics as an "unembodied mind" (whatever the hell that means): it's imaginary and has no evidence for its existence.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline PhilosoB

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Darwins +3/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: OAA & PhilosoB debate the existence of god
« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2014, 03:49:18 PM »
An explanation is a reason or account for the way something is. An adequate explanation will include the sufficient conditions for why something obtains.

Wrong, according to quantum mechanics. Some events are purely random.

Even granting the possibility of random quantum events, this is not the same as saying quantum events are inexplicable. Certain conditions must be present in order to allow this randomness to occur. Quantum events do not take place in or from nothingness, but require prior conditions to exist thus providing an explanation even if strict causation cannot be defined or even possible.

When asked, scientists will tell you the conditions that existed at the time of their discovery of random quantum events. Those conditions are adequate to say that quantum events do not occur inexplicably and therefore have an explanation.


I understand why this may be viewed as a non-sequitur which is  why I provided an explanation. Too further elucidate, if the universe has an explanation (a reason or account for why it exists) and if the universe is contingent, then this explanation must reside in an external source. If the explanation for the universe is contingent, then it too would require an external explanation. If all explanations are contingent, then this would continue ad infinitum and would not explain why anything contingent exists at all?

Therefore, to end this infinite regress, the explanation to why anything contingent exists must be, in the least, an explanation that exists necessarily.  If there is another necessarily existing explanation other than God, I am willing to discuss it.

Beyond the logic just demonstrated, I have further provided reasoning for why the universe is not necessary or inexplicable, and therefore subject to the above logic. You are welcome to provide counterarguments.

Your logic is baseless. Change can and does come from within a system, but the total energy does not change. Put simply, 0=0, but 1-1=0 as well. And 10googol-10googol=0. Regardless, you have yet to provide evidence for your claims. Take your time.

Please elaborate on where my logic is flawed. The law of excluded middle mandates that any thing is either contingent or non-contingent (necessary). This is undeniable. My arguments are the logical outworking of this law.

I am not clear on what your statement about change within system is trying to demonstrate.

Also, I am unclear as to want kind of evidence you are expecting. Logic and experience tell us that the universe is real and this is exactly what I have demonstrated to show the contingency of the universe and the need for an explanation that necessarily exists.


The explanation for God is the necessity of his nature. As premise 1 states, necessity is one of two possible explanations. I have presented arguments for why a necessary explanation is required to end an infinite regress of contingent explanations. You are welcome to present arguments for how a contingent universe could come to exist without a necessary explanation or how that necessary explanation is not God.

No evidence and does not address the point. If all things in existence require an outside force, then so does your god. And your god's god. And your god's god's god. And (...).

This clearly misstates my opening premise (1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature.) and fails to address the argument presented. Please do so.


If there are further immaterial things I have not considered that are better explanations than unembodied minds or if my logic is flawed in coming to this conclusion, please make your case; otherwise, this is simply a baseless dismal.

As stated, the existence of a unembodied mind can be treated as a conditional premise (a common philosophical method in forming arguments). You can either show that another alternative is more probable or accept that a mind is logically valid for the sake of the argument but then show that a mind does not, in fact, exist.

How about a flooperwhoople? It's immaterial and explains everything. It also shares the same characteristics as an "unembodied mind" (whatever the hell that means): it's imaginary and has no evidence for its existence.

If you are willing to grant the validity of my argument accepting that a necessary, immaterial entity exists outside of space and time, I am willing to present further arguments to why that entity is an unembodied mind while you present positive arguments for your "flooperwhoople". Otherwise, this is nonsense and I expect you to engage the arguments directly.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11106
  • Darwins +291/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: OAA & PhilosoB debate the existence of god
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2014, 04:46:42 PM »
I do apologize. I could've sworn I had replied to this. It wasn't until I saw the commentary thread that I figured I hadn't.

Now, PhilosoB, I would address everything in your post, but you seem to have forgotten one of the rules of our debate: no baseless assertions. As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, you have yet to provide evidence for your claims. In addition, paraphrasing what jaimehlers said in the commentary thread, logic alone proves nothing (in this case)[1]. So, until you provide evidence for your claims, I reserve the right to dismiss them. I will use said right until you put up or shut up.
 1. This last bit is mine.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline PhilosoB

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Darwins +3/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: OAA & PhilosoB debate the existence of god
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2014, 05:42:00 PM »
I do apologize. I could've sworn I had replied to this. It wasn't until I saw the commentary thread that I figured I hadn't.

Now, PhilosoB, I would address everything in your post, but you seem to have forgotten one of the rules of our debate: no baseless assertions. As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, you have yet to provide evidence for your claims. In addition, paraphrasing what jaimehlers said in the commentary thread, logic alone proves nothing (in this case)[1]. So, until you provide evidence for your claims, I reserve the right to dismiss them. I will use said right until you put up or shut up.
 1. This last bit is mine.

I have asked for what kind of evidence you would like me to present. Please explain.

In regards to logic, logic is one way by which to prove something. Examples: The law of non-contradiction is a law of logic (A is not non-A). Law of Identity (A is A). Law of Excluded Middle (Either A or non-A).  These are undeniable laws of logic that undergird all forms of knowledge. Without these laws, science (and knowledge in general) would be impossible. Logic alone can prove things; logic alone cannot prove all things.

You cannot escape the fundamental need for logic.
 (i.e. 1. If PhilosoB does not provide evidence, I will dismiss his claims
        2. PhilosoB has not provided evidence
        3. Therefore, I will dismiss his claims )
This is the same form of argument that I used to defend my position and that you are now, ironically, using to defend your claim that I have provided no defense. Should I ask for evidence for why should accept this argument?

Towards the topic of the debate, I have used the law of excluded middle to show that things are either contingent or non-contingent. I have used the law of modus ponens in constructing my argument. I have used modal logic in explaining necessary existence. If you are truly interested in philosophical debate, this is how it is done.

Please, moderator, post an adjudication: Have I made baseless assertions or is my opponent failing to engage with the arguments presented?

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11106
  • Darwins +291/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: OAA & PhilosoB debate the existence of god
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2014, 01:45:25 PM »
I have asked for what kind of evidence you would like me to present. Please explain.

Unbiased, verifiable, and unambiguous evidence, like the evidence for evolution or gravity. Facts; not claims or hearsay. Experiments; not anecdotes and other unverifiable claims. Get it now?

In regards to logic, logic is one way by which to prove something.

Wrong. Wanna see why? One sec.

S1 = 1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1 (...)
How much is that? You might be thinking "0" or "1", but you'd be wrong. It's actually 1/2. Wanna see?

1 - S1 = 1-(1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1 (...))
1 - S1 = 1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1 (...)
1 - S1 = S1
1 = 2S1
S1=1/2

Now, is this true? The answer is "yes, logically". Is it physically possible? No. You can't add up integers and end up with a fraction.

There are other paradoxes, but, hopefully, you get my point.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline PhilosoB

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Darwins +3/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: OAA & PhilosoB debate the existence of god
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2014, 10:10:58 AM »
I have asked for what kind of evidence you would like me to present. Please explain.

Unbiased, verifiable, and unambiguous evidence, like the evidence for evolution or gravity. Facts; not claims or hearsay. Experiments; not anecdotes and other unverifiable claims. Get it now?

Thank you for the clarification.

1. Everything that exists has an explanation (either in a external source or in the necessity of its nature)

I suppose the unbiased evidence for this claim is all of science. Science operates on this principle, a principle that has proved itself many times over. I am unaware of anything existing inexplicably. Of course, if something did exist inexplicably, I would like to know what it is and why that thing exists inexplicably while it would appear everything else does have some form of explanation. As a result of repeated experiments resulting in explanations, I am epistemically justified to hold this as true until shown good reason not to do so.

2. If the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God

Scientific evidence continues to solidify the fact that the universe had a beginning approximately 13.8 billion years ago. This makes is highly probable that the universe is contingent, thereby requiring an external cause. Since we both agree that an infinite regress is to be avoided, this would require some necessary thing to stop an infinite regress of contingent things.
If switching the term 'God' for 'necessary thing', then go for it. The point is the universe is contingent and infinite regress should be avoided, therefore something necessary exists.

Premise 3 we agree on and 4 and 5 follow logically. If I have to explain the validity of modus ponens, we might as well end now and I debate with a reasonable person.

Remember, a good argument will use premises that are more plausible than their denial. Denying premise 1 means you believe things can exist without explanation. So it this your position? If not, then you have to accept this premise as more plausibly true.

Denying premise 2 could mean you think the universe exists either necessarily or inexplicably. Are you defending this position? Or are you denying the need for a necessary thing to end an infinite regress of contingent things? Please explain why the denial of any premise is more plausible than accepting the premises as true.


In regards to logic, logic is one way by which to prove something.

Wrong. Wanna see why? One sec.

S1 = 1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1 (...)
How much is that? You might be thinking "0" or "1", but you'd be wrong. It's actually 1/2. Wanna see?

1 - S1 = 1-(1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1 (...))
1 - S1 = 1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1 (...)
1 - S1 = S1
1 = 2S1
S1=1/2

Now, is this true? The answer is "yes, logically". Is it physically possible? No. You can't add up integers and end up with a fraction.

There are other paradoxes, but, hopefully, you get my point.

Basically you argument against logic is this:
If I demonstrate a mathematical paradox, then logic cannot prove anything
I have demonstrated a mathematical paradox
Therefore, logic cannot prove anything

The irony of trying to discredit logic with logic is duly noted. You use the law of non-contradiction to form your first premise and modus ponens to come to a deduce your conclusion. The more you fight against logic, the more it proves itself.

Even granting the truth of your mathematical demonstration, the only entailment is that logic, in this particular case, is not valid. It does follow that all logical arguments are faulty. Fact of the matter, logic has a long and useful history of success.

If the point to discredit all logic, then there is no possibility for a reasonable discussion and the debate should end here. Otherwise, please now provide counterarguments.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11106
  • Darwins +291/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: OAA & PhilosoB debate the existence of god
« Reply #11 on: April 08, 2014, 01:56:16 PM »
1. Everything that exists has an explanation (either in a external source or in the necessity of its nature)

I suppose the unbiased evidence for this claim is all of science.
<snip>

Ever heard of virtual particles? Put simply, they appear and disappear, seemingly out of nowhere, for no apparent reason, except when they're """used"""[1] for two particles to interact.

2. If the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God

Scientific evidence continues to solidify the fact that the universe had a beginning approximately 13.8 billion years ago. This makes is highly probable that the universe is contingent, thereby requiring an external cause. Since we both agree that an infinite regress is to be avoided, this would require some necessary thing to stop an infinite regress of contingent things.
If switching the term 'God' for 'necessary thing', then go for it. The point is the universe is contingent and infinite regress should be avoided, therefore something necessary exists.

There's no need for anything. I've already pointed out that 10googol - 10googol = 0. In other words, something can come from nothing, as long as there's also a "negative" something to go along with it. Regardless, that is a big leap from "something is necessary" to "an anthropomorphic, all-powerful, sentient being exists and has no explanation for its existence". Did I mention that you're ignoring premise 1 in order to go to premise 2? Address all three, if you think you can.

Denying premise 2 could mean you think the universe exists either necessarily or inexplicably. Are you defending this position? Or are you denying the need for a necessary thing to end an infinite regress of contingent things? Please explain why the denial of any premise is more plausible than accepting the premises as true.

I've already pointed out three separate inconsistencies with your line of thinking, as per above, two of which I had already pointed out in another post.

Basically you argument against logic is this:
If I demonstrate a mathematical paradox, then logic cannot prove anything
I have demonstrated a mathematical paradox
Therefore, logic cannot prove anything
<snip>

The point is that logic by itself is unreliable unless accompanied by evidence. My evidence for my argument was that mathematical expression.
 1. There's a reason I put three pairs of quotes around this word. It's a very simplistic explanation.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.