Should we take Ray Comfort Serious? If no, what not?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
There's nothing "desperate" about showing the silliness of your logic.
That wasn’t my logic.
It was Q’s.
He singlehandedly proved the logical existence of God.
I must say, I was personally impressed.
A night in the doghouse must have cleared his head.
So you don't claim that, "If God is truth, and truth exists. Then God exists."?
It doesn't matter who used the logic. I showed how silly it is.
You can say, "If [any silly old thing you dream up] then [any silly old conclusion] and the same logic works. That "if" shoots the whole thing to pieces. You can't get reliable conclusions from unreliable premises.
That wasn’t my logic.
It was Q’s.
He singlehandedly proved the logical existence of God.
I must say, I was personally impressed.
A night in the doghouse must have cleared his head.
Now now, Jan, please don't drag me into your fabrications.
Nope.
All I said was “truth exists”.
Q then basically asked a question.
And the question contained the premise and the conclusion.
Sheer genius!
No you didn’t.
“God” by definition The Supreme Origin of all manifested existence, has to be the “Truth”.
Do the premise is objectively sound. Even if you don’t believe in God.
How ya doin hero?
Don't lie about what I said, Jan. Carefully pull your boot out of your ass, it's a long way up there.
But the premises and the conclusion are silly, the equivalent of, "If butter exists then unicorns exist."
That doesn't follow.
Why not?
Poor premise.
Unicorns aren’t butter.
It's called Logic - reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Poor premise.
God has never been shown to be the origin of anything according to facts and reality.
You need to show that it does.
Exactly. And God is not truth.
I did.
Why not?