TAG: Not Even Wrong

[Age]

If ANY one is 'trying to' argue 'for' God, by putting up some so-called 'transcendental argument', starting with the premise that God is transcendentally required for logic (or "the laws of logic"), and that therefore non-theistic positions are doomed from the start since they must rely on logic to be argued, then this is just circular reasoning and therefore just a fallacy in the argument. End of story.

One does not need to 'argue' against faulty reasoning. Just point out or show the fault or flaw in their reasoning, and that ends 'that argument', completely.

OK. I think the OP's interesting, you don't. That's fine.

What made you JUMP to this ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION, which is Wrong, by the way?

Are you not at all interested in having the flaws, faults, inconsistencies, and/or contradictions in your writings pointed out and shown here?

[Astro Cat]

If ANY one is 'trying to' argue 'for' God, by putting up some so-called 'transcendental argument', starting with the premise that God is transcendentally required for logic (or "the laws of logic"), and that therefore non-theistic positions are doomed from the start since they must rely on logic to be argued, then this is just circular reasoning and therefore just a fallacy in the argument. End of story.

One does not need to 'argue' against faulty reasoning. Just point out or show the fault or flaw in their reasoning, and that ends 'that argument', completely.

OK. I think the OP's interesting, you don't. That's fine.

What made you JUMP to this ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION, which is Wrong, by the way?

Are you not at all interested in having the flaws, faults, inconsistencies, and/or contradictions in your writings pointed out and shown here?

You weren't pointing out flaws, faults, inconsistencies, or contradictions. You just said "One does not need to 'argue' against faulty reasoning. Just point out or show the fault or flaw in their reasoning..."

In any case I've been trying to keep this thread about the OP. I'm not interested in discussing whether the term God is cognitive for reasons I've elucidated. I'm not trying to be cold here, just saying. If you are interested in the OP then discuss parts of the OP

[Age]

OK. I think the OP's interesting, you don't. That's fine.

What made you JUMP to this ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION, which is Wrong, by the way?

Are you not at all interested in having the flaws, faults, inconsistencies, and/or contradictions in your writings pointed out and shown here?

You weren't pointing out flaws, faults, inconsistencies, or contradictions. You just said "One does not need to 'argue' against faulty reasoning. Just point out or show the fault or flaw in their reasoning..."

I POINTED OUT the 'flaw' in the very first sentence of my very first reply, in this thread.

In any case I've been trying to keep this thread about the OP. I'm not interested in discussing whether the term God is cognitive for reasons I've elucidated.

I ALSO am NOT interested in discussing whether the term God is cognitive. I have just been trying to keep this thread about the opening post, and more specifically HIGHLIGHTING, through questioning you, YOUR BELIEF that God does NOT exist, and that that is what you are 'trying to' argue and fight for here.

I'm not trying to be cold here, just saying.

I CERTAINLY NEVER thought NOR BELIEVED that you were.

If you are interested in the OP then discuss parts of the OP

1. Your so-called 'solution', you CLAIM is to ATTACK the first premise of some MADE UP 'premise' in some MADE UP argument. As I have ALREADY POINTED OUT and SHOWN that so-called "premise" is based upon FAULTY so-called 'reasoning'.

2. As can be CLEARLY SEEN the other parts of your opening post are based on you being A BELIEVER ALSO.

ONCE AGAIN, what we have here are just TWO BELIEVERS 'fighting' or 'trying to' 'argue' for their OWN position, of what EACH currently BELIEVES IS TRUE.

Not UNTIL people REALIZE the ACTUAL and FULL power of BELIEF, will CHANGE ever happen and occur here.

[bobmax]

The logic lies downstream of the original subject-object split.

This split is existence itself.

Being is upstream of the split.

Therefore Being does not exist, Being is.

No existing, Being = Nothing.

If we mean Being by God, then God = Being = Nothing.

The object exists precisely because it is separated from everything else.
The principle of identity is in fact a negation.
A = A
That is, A is not B, C, D...

Existence is denial.

While God is the negation of the negation.

I'm not forming a clear picture of what you're trying to say here. Could you rephrase and elucidate?

There is a fundamental difference between Existing and Being.

Existence consists in being there.

Which is basically a separation: there is me and there is the other.

While Being is what allows Existence but is not exhausted in it.

Paradoxically, Being does not exist, Being is!
That is, Being is not there.
Pay attention to that "there".

The other is in turn divided into distinct parts.
The other is multiple.

Logic arises from the multiple.

And the separation that founds the multiple is only a negation.
A = A
It is a denial.

Without this negation, no definite thought would be possible.

However, Being excludes any possible negation.

Being, that is, God, is the negation of the negation.