Ok my idwea is to have a thread about (friendly) fighting with simple logic about almost anything really. You can reply with whatever you want but it must include logic. Hopefully you find this thread fun and I don't mean to offend anyone. Ill start.
God made humans. There were no humans before god. Therefore god id not human.
God DID create humans. God created humans because you can't create something from nothing. And no matter how long you wait, they cannot shape themselves. THEREFORE, God DID create humans.
Without evidence of such a being existing it's not logical to make the assumption.
God created humans because you can't create something from nothing.
We didn't come from nothing, we came from the formation of amino acids and other compounds forming basic self replicating molecules.
And no matter how long you wait, they cannot shape themselves.
Based on observation there doesn't seem to be a real limit on the "shapes" life can take. The properties of life would suggests the possibility exists.
THEREFORE, God DID create humans.
Given your first point was illogical, and your second and third points are fallacies. I don't see how this conclusion can be reached at this time.
God DID create humans. God created humans because you can't create something from nothing. And no matter how long you wait, they cannot shape themselves. THEREFORE, God DID create humans.
You start with considering a fact that "God did create humans", hence its pointless and unproductive concluding that "God did create humans". Something that is considered an actuality in an argument does not -and should not- be proven in the particular same argument. It's like saying: The sea is blue Ergo, the sea is blue. Of course the bloody sea is blue; you already said it.
Remember, in logical arguments we are not attacking the validity of the initial premises, only assuming that IF they are true then the conclusion would have to be true as well. Certainly if we can show the initial premises to be false then a logically sound argument would necessitate a false conclusion as well, however a logically sound argument does not require true premises and conclusions. The main requirement for a logically sound argument is that if all premises are true then the conclusion must be true as well.
God DID create humans. God created humans because you can't create something from nothing. And no matter how long you wait, they cannot shape themselves. THEREFORE, God DID create humans.
Going back to the Introduction to logic thread this one would seem to apply.
"If my car starts, then it has fuel. My car has fuel. So, my car will start.
In this, we can imagine a scenario where my car has fuel but it fails to start. My car may have fuel in it, but may not start for any number of other reasons. Maybe my spark plugs are bad or maybe my engine is gone completely! These scenarios are completely compatible with the premises. The reason this argument is invalid is because of faulty reasoning. But since we can imagine a world where the premises are true and the conclusion is false, the argument is definitely invalid. We'll see why later. If an argument is invalid, you can stop assessing it. The fact that it's invalid makes it a bad argument, and it's the most damaging attack on an argument. There's nothing you can do for an invalid argument but to revise it."
I understand what your saying, but your statement on the colour of the sea is false. Water is actually colourless. When it is near or in a surrounding that has colour, it will reflect it. The blue in the sea is a reflection from the blue of sky.
...ok, I did misread it, but please explain how the sky is blue because of water. Water vapour is not the only thing in the air (i.e. oxygen, varios carbons, ozone, etc)
I understand what your saying, but your statement on the colour of the sea is false.
That's not the point, it's purposely false, like the "God DID create humans" premise; there is no evidence that confirm that "God DID create humans" . The point is that in that way you can prove" -incorrectly- virtually anything.
If x is true Because y Then x is true
Is an argument that obviously -always- concludes that X is true, since X is de facto true.
Hmm, in that case, these arguments are one way, don't do anything/prove anything, and a complete waste of time (except if you have nothing else to do).
here's one for the fun of it (i know it's false): chocolate is good vanilla is bad chocolate is better than everything else
Now that I think about it, most opinions that people make are like the one I just made.
