Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

378

Regarding the question of whether there is a God, there are exactly two Logical positions.

  1. I know there is a God

  2. I do not know if there is a God

All other positions require Belief, and this definitely includes Atheism.

In addition to this simple axiom, there is also something else to consider:

If you are able to formulate the question of whether there is a God, there is an omnipresent candidate for God which can not be excluded.

Atheism is a dark and diabolical Mind Prison. To escape, just use the key of Logic to set yourself free and let your mind shine.

For the record: I posted this in s/Tellpoal. This is about Logic, and not the Social Construct of Religion.

Regarding the question of whether there is a God, there are exactly two Logical positions. 1. I know there is a God 2. I do not know if there is a God All other positions require Belief, and this definitely includes Atheism. In addition to this simple axiom, there is also something else to consider: If you are able to formulate the question of whether there is a God, there is an omnipresent candidate for God which can not be excluded. Atheism is a dark and diabolical Mind Prison. To escape, just use the key of Logic to set yourself free and let your mind shine. For the record: I posted this in s/Tellpoal. This is about Logic, and not the Social Construct of Religion.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (47).
[–] • 0 pt

You failed to define the context of your claim.

It's not a strawman, he was simply asking if the logic of "the forumlation of the existence of ENTITY neccessitates the existence of an omnipresent candidate for ENTITY which can not be excluded" holds for examples other than "God".

You believe that his comment about a dildo being up your ass is Ad Hominem. Is he truly attacking your character? Or perhaps he's applying the colloquial Poal terminology of using gay shit for everything. I did not see it as an attack on your character. But, you did.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I made a specific and concise statement which is true. You even agree to this fact, so that is settled. And yes, the other part is an Ad Hominem. You are simply being pedantic now.

[–] • 0 pt

You play by your own rules and call it logic

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Incorrect. You have already admitted that my statement is true, and now you are upset that I won't argue about something else entirely (Strawman).