Recent content by Kierkegaard

BA in sociology and anthropology. Do voice-overs for documentaries.

I graduated in 2004 with a VCE equivalent of 99.95 (studied in Queensland) in English, Maths B, Maths C, Chemistry, Biology and Physics. I topped the state in Maths C and came very near to top in Physics. I'm currently studying political science, philosophy, mathematics and physics, going into...

I'm an agnostic and I used a MUCH more sound argument for the existence of God. You failed miserably.

Wrong answer. *Raises hands*

Quite frankly, I'm searching for answers. I started out a fervent Christian, then I started reading into philosophy to quite some depth. I wavered from my pentecostalism (I was one of them in my younger days) and became a deist who appreciated the teachings of Jesus. Eventually, logic took the...

There's a nice little book called The Philosophy Gym. It's very basic, but provides answers for many of the questions put forward in this debate. It'll take you a couple of hours to a day, to read and grasp every concept covered (25 philosophical problems(if you're not a Wittgenstein fan), which...

It's great to debate with someone who's so darn willing to learn. You'd make a great philosopher. Now, where are the theists? We have a formidable non-theist outfit!

The paradox of infinity is Zeno's paradox; which has been taken care-of by modern calculus.

Yeah, that's just another ontological argument. Aquinas, Leibniz, Descartes and many others have put forward ontological arguments (phrase coined by Kant). The idea that a first cause is necessary can also be rejected by questioning whether time began at t=0. Sorry, it's a Eubulides...

'If' should not be in there. It's a common paradox--Epimenides paradox. The suggestion by Kripke was to create a new category of 'neither'. There are many appraoches to this paradox. The best is to say that the original statement is meaningless. Consult Quine for further information.

katie_tully is on the right track. An atheist would reject the conclusion that God exists and because of this the atheist would reject the premise that it is possible that God exists (proposition 2). So, by rejecting the conclusion, we must logically reject one of the premises, which makes the...

...and whether it's possible that God exists. They're the major axioms of the argument. As I said, teh reasoning is entirely sound, it can't be flawed. The only way to reject the argument is to reject one or more of the axioms. It doesn't take much for an atheist to reject the argument, there's...

1) Perfection is not contingent, its existence is necessary. 2) You misunderstand. The axiom can only be rejected by asserting that it is impossible for God to exist. 3) Well, the 10 lines of reasoning prove that he exists quite adequately (that's the whole point of it). If God exists, God...

If God can control what he forsees and DOES control what he forsees, than God is not omniscient. So, why should we trust what you say God does and does not do? It's quite hilarious how many times the problem of evil must be explained in this debate, and every time, some unfounded bit of...

Schoolies, as much as I'd like your argument to be valid, one is taught in Biology 101 that incest doesn't work because relatives have the same 'errors', but the original humans (if such people did exist) did not have these now present 'errors'.