SatanLucy

"Whether or not this amounts to "greatest pain in the fires of hell" is inconsequential, "


I am starting to think these voters are trolls. this is like having topic "cats are animals", and voter saying "whether cats are animals or not is inconsequential".

So... so?

So?

No, I agree that Christianity is invented, hence one of reasons for inferiority to Vaheguru.

"I am convinced that Mal is an undercover Jehovah's Witness."

I say let the person tell you what person is.

Excellent topic. I dont mean to ruin Christmas fun which is traditional, but I can see arguments favoring Con here.

"Too many links."

this is a great debate, one of best ones so far on the site. Why would many links be an issue tho? How is it a disadvantage in debate to have many sources?

Are you all scared of Vaheguru?

this isnt really about which religion is more true, it is about which religion benefits person and people around him by considering teachings. So both religions can be not proved true, but their teachings are something different.

Yes.

"if logic wouldn't exist then I except you to understand me no matter what, guess what, you can't understand what I said. therefore the just assumption that logic doesn't exist is truly false, because logic understays under anything."

Well, that makes a lot of sense.

"logic isn't only law of identity. "

Maybe you can say what else logic is?


"logic in Greek means word"

We are not using dictionary from ancient Greece here, tho Aristotle did establish rules of logic which dont mean anything close to "logic = words", tho proving that words exist without using words is I assume difficult too.

No, words arent logic.

Logic is law of identity, which is "A=A" and "A=\= Not A", and neither of these can be proved without relying on themselves, so it is circular logic.

"the fact you can understand me proves logic"

It only works if you already assume logic is true, so you are using logic to prove logic.

Maybe I should start putting these rules directly in topic so voters cant just ignore them each time.

"you can't prove logic doesn't exist using logic"

You can, assuming logic is true, logic is self-contradictive, so it cannot be true at the same time. this isnt difficult to understand. All logic can only be proved by logic or not logic. First is circular, second is impossible. So again, if you say that circular logic is valid, that disproves all logic because circular logic can be used to disprove any logic, and if you say it isnt valid, then logic is disproved again because it depends on circular logic to prove itself. What we have seen here is that logic cannot be proved in any way, in other words, the very tools you use to reason cannot be proved true in any possible way without trying to prove themselves, which is impossible. I dont see what is so confusing here. trying to use logic to prove logic is always circular. Even saying that I used logic, so I proved logic, is still using logic to prove logic. So all what we have here are circular arguments, and if circular reasoning is valid, then no reasoning is valid because circular reasoning can be used as both pro and for anything.

"giving him no chance to use your statements to prove logic does indeed exist."

You cannot use my statements to prove logic exists without doing circular logic.

"It can’t be circular logic if there is no logic."

If there is no logic, then you cant prove logic.


Logic can only be proved by:
1. Logic
2. Not logic

there is no 3rd option.

Which one of these two are you using to prove logic?

"I’m saying that you did the work for con."

No, that was you assuming "if you mention logic, logic exists". Also, burden of proof is on Con, so I cannot do work for him.


"Also, saying all logic is flawed means all logic is good."

If circular logic is good, then saying logic doesnt exist because logic doesnt exist is as good as saying logic exists because logic exists, a contradiction.

"Circular logic is flawed because there is real logic. If real logic didn’t exist, circular logic couldn’t be flawed."

Using "real logic" to prove "real logic" is circular too.

"You are using circular logic to prove logic doesn't exist."

You are confused. Burden of proof isnt on me to prove logic doesnt exist. It is on my opponent to prove it does exist, without using logic.

I exposed that logic can only be argued for using circular logic, and if you say circular logic is valid form of logic, it results in self-contradiction which would be impossible if logic exists.

So if logic exists, all logic is circular, and thus all logic is flawed logic.

"Circular reasoning is a flawed form of logic. Therefore, it makes sense to say there are good forms of logic and logic does indeed exist."

You are using circular logic to prove logic, while at the same time saying circular logic is flawed.


"If a contradiction is possible, it is no longer a contradiction."

Again, if contradictions are impossible, logic cannot be possible.

You cannot prove a claim "something cannot both be and not be" without using that very claim as principle.

"But you did need to do something"

this is only true if you already assume logic exists, which is circular reasoning.


"Your whole argument is that the world would make more logic sense if logic didn't exist, which is a contradiction."

It is only a contradiction if you already assume logic exists, so you are using circular logic.


"You claim that removing logic creates better logic, which contradicts itself."

You claim that logic proves logic, which contradicts itself.


So again, if we assume that contradictions are impossible, it defeats logic itself.

Also, you can hypothesize about things which dont exist.

"If logic didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to hypothesize what the world would be like if logic did exist."

If logic doesnt exist, I dont need to do anything because logic doesnt exist.

And if we assume logic exists, it ends up in self-defeat where you are using logic to prove logic.

"If logic doesn't exist, there can be no if-then statements."

If logic doesnt exist, then I already won a debate and dont need if then statements.

And if we assume logic exists, it ends up in self-defeat, so logic cannot exist.

As per debate rules, he cannot use anything I write as proof for things outside Bible.

Again,

If logic exists, then logic results in self-contradiction and self-defeat.

If logic doesnt exist, then logic doesnt exist and you cant claim it does.

"Con catches this and says that everything pro said and cited is outside the Bible."


So he cant use it to prove things outside Bible, as per debate rules.

"How do you know it's a contradiction?"

It is a contradiction if logic is true. So if logic is true, logic at the same time must be false. this is why logic cannot exist, because when we assume it does, we end up in contradiction.

"Pro tried to prove logic doesn't exist by using logic. "

It is actually using logic to show logic is self-contradiction.

Sort of like, if logic is true, then logic leads into self contradiction.

this isnt same as saying logic is true.

I will just concede this poem debate, so if someone can vote based on this concession, that is okay. I dont need win here anyway. I can agree that I lacked diversity and story in my poem, I had something different in mind, which was more of a prayer-praise poem than some specific story to it.