Win / Conspiracies
Conspiracies
Sign In
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Reason: None provided.

Christianity makes many propositions. Mortimer Adler indicated a good proposition to start with is that "one thing in existence is measurably the greatest". This is shared by both Christianity and many other positive systems, but is rejected by nihilistic systems. If you agree with that proposition, then we can exclude the nihilistic class and proceed to narrowing the positive class, by investigate what this "greatest thing" consists of. It seems that every test and corollary has demonstrated that things are measurable and thus one thing is the greatest.

Okay... I think I know where you're going with this now... This is pure sophistry.

This is wrong on 3 main points.

1.) "Greatest" is a subjective opinion, and therefore not something that can be measured. You would have to define an objective trait that can actually be measured such as "largest" or "fastest" or something that's not an opinion.

2.) In order to be testable you have to limit the range of the test. You can do a test to find the biggest animal at the zoo, but finding the biggest animal on earth is nearly impossible. If you're trying to test which animal is the biggest in the universe it's totally untestable. No matter how big of an animal you found, you could never say it's the biggest in existence. And so once again it's not testable.

3.) Even if this argument didn't suffer from those 2 fatal flaws, it still fails because it's logically unsound for the following reasons.

Having the most knowledge in existence ≠ All knowing

Having the most power in existence ≠ All powerful

So even if you could determine which being in the universe knows the most, that doesn't mean it knows everything, or that it matches your conception of god.

Let me apply this same exact argument to my house and you'll see the flaw.... I say I have 80,000 sq foot room in my house filled to the ceiling with gold.

Here's my argument in support of that.... The size of a room can be measured. The amount of gold in a room can be measured. That means out of all the rooms in my house there must logically exist a room that is the biggest. And there must also logically exist a room which contains the most gold.

Therefore with that logic alone, you can know that I have an 80,000 sq foot room in my house full of gold.

Did I just prove I have a Scrooge McDuck sized gold vault in my house, or was that just sophistry?

70 days ago
1 score
Reason: None provided.

Christianity makes many propositions. Mortimer Adler indicated a good proposition to start with is that "one thing in existence is measurably the greatest". This is shared by both Christianity and many other positive systems, but is rejected by nihilistic systems. If you agree with that proposition, then we can exclude the nihilistic class and proceed to narrowing the positive class, by investigate what this "greatest thing" consists of. It seems that every test and corollary has demonstrated that things are measurable and thus one thing is the greatest.

Okay... I think I know where you're going with this now... This is pure sophistry.

This is wrong on 3 main points.

1.) "Greatest" is a subjective opinion, and therefore not something that can be measured. You would have to define an objective trait that can actually be measured such as "largest" or "fastest" or something that's not an opinion.

2.) In order to be testable you have to limit the range of the test. You can do a test to find the biggest animal at the zoo, but finding the biggest animal on earth is nearly impossible. If you're trying to test which animal is the biggest in the universe it's totally untestable. No matter how big of an animal you found, you could never say it's the biggest in existence. And so once again it's not testable.

3.) Even if this argument didn't suffer from those 2 fatal flaws, it still fails because it's logically unsound for the following reasons.

Having the most knowledge in existence ≠ All knowing

Having the most power in existence ≠ All powerful

So even if you could determine which being in the universe knows the most, that doesn't mean it knows everything, or that it matches your conception of god.

Let me apply this same exact argument to my house and you'll see the flaw.... I say I have 80,000 sq foot room in my house filled to the ceiling with gold.

Here's my argument in support of that.... The size of a room can be measured. The amount of gold in a room can be measured. That means out of all the rooms in my house there must logically exist a room that is the biggest. And there must also logically exist a room which contains the most gold.

Therefore with that logic alone, you can know that I have an 80,000 sq foot room in my house full of gold.

Did I just prove I have a Scrooge McDuck sized gold vault in my house, or was that just sophistry?

Do you understand that "biggest room in my house" doesn't necessarily mean 80,000 sq feet? If so, then you should understand that "greatest being in the universe" doesn't necessarily mean god.

70 days ago
1 score
Reason: None provided.

Christianity makes many propositions. Mortimer Adler indicated a good proposition to start with is that "one thing in existence is measurably the greatest". This is shared by both Christianity and many other positive systems, but is rejected by nihilistic systems. If you agree with that proposition, then we can exclude the nihilistic class and proceed to narrowing the positive class, by investigate what this "greatest thing" consists of. It seems that every test and corollary has demonstrated that things are measurable and thus one thing is the greatest.

Okay... I think I know where you're going with this now... This is pure sophistry.

This is wrong on 3 main points.

1.) "Greatest" is a subjective opinion, and therefore not something that can be measured. You would have to define an objective trait that can actually be measured such as "largest" or "fastest" or something that's not an opinion.

2.) In order to be testable you have to limit the range of the test. You can do a test to find the biggest animal at the zoo, but finding the biggest animal on earth is nearly impossible. If you're trying to test which animal is the biggest in the universe it's totally untestable. No matter how big of an animal you found, you could never say it's the biggest in existence. And so once again it's not testable.

3.) Even if this argument didn't suffer from those 2 fatal flaws, it still fails because it's logically unsound for the following reasons.

Having the most knowledge in existence ≠ All knowing

Having the most power in existence ≠ All powerful

So even if you could determine which being in the universe knows the most, that doesn't mean it knows everything, or that it matches your conception of god.

Let me apply this same exact argument to my house and you'll see the flaw.... I say I have 80,000 sq foot room in my house filled to the ceiling with gold.

Here's my argument in support of that.... The size of a room can be measured. The amount of gold in a room can be measured. That means out of all the rooms in my house there must logically exist a room that is the biggest. And there must also logically exist a room which contains the most gold.

Therefore with that logic alone, you can know that I have an 80,000 sq foot room in my house full of gold.

Did I just prove I have a Scrooge McDuck sized gold vault in my house, or was that just sophistry?

Do you understand that "biggest room in my house" doesn't necessarily mean 80,000 sq feet? If so, then you should understand that "greatest being in the universe" doesn't necessarily mean god.

70 days ago
1 score
Reason: None provided.

Christianity makes many propositions. Mortimer Adler indicated a good proposition to start with is that "one thing in existence is measurably the greatest". This is shared by both Christianity and many other positive systems, but is rejected by nihilistic systems. If you agree with that proposition, then we can exclude the nihilistic class and proceed to narrowing the positive class, by investigate what this "greatest thing" consists of. It seems that every test and corollary has demonstrated that things are measurable and thus one thing is the greatest.

Okay... I think I know where you're going with this now... This is pure sophistry.

This is wrong on 3 main points.

1.) "Greatest" is a subjective opinion, and therefore not something that can be measured. You would have to define an objective trait that can actually be measured such as "largest" or "fastest" or something that's not an opinion.

2.) In order to be testable you have to limit the range of the test. You can do a test to find the biggest animal at the zoo, but finding the biggest animal on earth is nearly impossible. If you're trying to test which animal is the biggest in the universe it's totally untestable. No matter how big of an animal you found, you could never say it's the biggest in existence. And so once again it's not testable.

3.) Even if this argument didn't suffer from those 2 fatal flaws, it still fails because it's logically unsound for the following reasons.

Having the most knowledge in existence ≠ All knowing

Having the most power in existence ≠ All powerful

So even if you could determine which being in the universe knows the most, that doesn't mean it knows everything, or that it matches your conception of god.

Let me apply this same exact argument to my house and you'll see the flaw.... I say I have 80,000 sq foot room in my house filled to the ceiling with gold.

Here's my argument in support of that.... The size of a room can be measured. The amount of gold in a room can be measured. That means out of all the rooms in my house there must logically exist a room that is the biggest. And there must also logically exist a room which contains the most gold.

Therefore with that logic alone, you can know that I have an 80,000 sq foot room in my house full of gold.

Did I just prove I have a Scrooge McDuck sized gold vault in my house, or was that just sophistry?

Do you understand that "biggest room in my house" doesn't necessarily mean 80,000 sq feet? If so, then you should understand that "greatest being in the universe" doesn't necessarily mean god.

70 days ago
1 score
Reason: None provided.

Christianity makes many propositions. Mortimer Adler indicated a good proposition to start with is that "one thing in existence is measurably the greatest". This is shared by both Christianity and many other positive systems, but is rejected by nihilistic systems. If you agree with that proposition, then we can exclude the nihilistic class and proceed to narrowing the positive class, by investigate what this "greatest thing" consists of. It seems that every test and corollary has demonstrated that things are measurable and thus one thing is the greatest.

Okay... I think I know where you're going with this now... This is pure sophistry.

This is wrong on 3 main points.

1.) "Greatest" is a subjective opinion, and therefore not something that can be measured. You would have to define an objective trait that can actually be measured such as "largest" or "fastest" or something that's not an opinion.

2.) In order to be testable you have to limit the range of the test. You can do a test to find the biggest animal at the zoo, but finding the biggest animal on earth is nearly impossible. If you're trying to test which animal is the biggest in the universe it's totally untestable. No matter how big of an animal you found, you could never say it's the biggest in existence. And so once again it's not testable.

3.) Even if this argument didn't suffer from those 2 fatal flaws, it still fails because it's logically unsound for the following reasons.

Having the most knowledge in existence ≠ All knowing

Having the most power in existence ≠ All powerful

So even if you could determine which being in the universe knows the most, that doesn't mean it knows everything, or that it matches your conception of god.

Let me apply this same exact argument to my house and you'll see the flaw.... I say I have 80,000 sq foot room in my house filled to the ceiling with gold.

Here's my argument in support of that.... The size of a room can be measured. The amount of gold in a room can be measured. That means out of all the rooms in my house there must logically exist a room that is the biggest. And there must also logically exist a room which contains the most gold.

Therefore with that logic alone, you can know that I have an 80,000 sq foot room in my house full of gold.

Did I just prove I have a Scrooge McDuck sized gold vault in my house, or was that just sophistry?

70 days ago
1 score
Reason: Original

Christianity makes many propositions. Mortimer Adler indicated a good proposition to start with is that "one thing in existence is measurably the greatest". This is shared by both Christianity and many other positive systems, but is rejected by nihilistic systems. If you agree with that proposition, then we can exclude the nihilistic class and proceed to narrowing the positive class, by investigate what this "greatest thing" consists of. It seems that every test and corollary has demonstrated that things are measurable and thus one thing is the greatest.

Okay... I think I know where you're going with this now... This is pure sophistry.

This is wrong on 3 main points.

1.) "Greatest" is a subjective opinion, and therefore not something that can be measured. You would have to have to define an objective trait that can actually be measured such as "largest" or "fastest" or something that's not an opinion.

2.) In order to be testable you have to limit the range of the test. You can do a test to find the biggest animal at the zoo, but finding the biggest animal on earth nearly impossible. If you're trying to test which animal is the biggest in the universe it's totally untestable.

3.) Even if this argument didn't suffer from those 2 fatal flaws, it still fails because it's logically unsound for the following reasons.

Having the most knowledge in existence ≠ All knowing

Having the most power in existence ≠ All powerful

So even if you could determine which being in the universe knows the most, that doesn't mean it knows everything, or that it matches your conception of god.

Let me apply this same exact argument to my house and you'll see the flaw.... I say I have 80,000 sq foot room in my house filled to the ceiling with gold.

Here's my argument in support of that.... The size of a room can be measured. The amount of gold in a room can be measured. That means out of all the rooms in my house there must logically exist a room that is the biggest. And there must also logically exist a room which contains the most gold.

Therefore with that logic alone, you can know that I have an 80,000 sq foot room in my house full of gold.

Did I just prove I have a Scrooge McDuck sized gold vault in my house, or was that just sophistry?

70 days ago
1 score