It is irrational for BOP to be on Atheism

Critical thinking Tips from the Hill!!! (on rationality) The Fool: It is clearly stated in the acceptance round that; Rational/reasonable: To think incoherence with logic, therefore it follows by necessity that irrational is with logic/math aka Ratiocination. Con said assertively: “Now, my opponent is just tossing around the word “irrational.”” (Sophisms; tossing, words) Thus without rationality are statement are of pure emotionally bias claims. They become objective/universal/non-bias when they are subsumed (under the category) ratiocination, thus we say the argument is objective and rational when proven to cohere with rational inquirary That is when the premise is true and the conclusion follow from the synthesis of the premises. Irrational conceptions can be objective or rational. The hypothetical: Con says: “If you enter into the intellectual arena to prove/disprove the God hypothesis, the “ticket” is proof.” The Fool: there is there is three notions here that I am foolish in understanding. Firstly, I do not know what the’ intellectual arena” IS, but to a mere fool it seems like metaphor inserted to give an appearance of intelligence. (Sophism) Secondly, I am as confused as to prove and disproof depend up the ticket of Proof when they are opposite in nature. But I am sure Con has rational explanation of what the ‘Ticket’ itself here is..???? Thirdly I do remember a wise man telling me that a hypothesis is a hypothetical theory; Hypo meaning LESS THEN, a genuine theory or claim. Something is hypothetical in that UNTIL a certain set of conditions are satisfied then the theory or claim will be valid. But this is another proof for my resolution. So I should remain, humble and expect that con will have rational explanation for “why’” he said this? (Q2) To assure us that this is not a concession to a fools proof. What is a sophism? Sophisms are fallacies or other irrational techniques of persuasion. They are used to convince/control people/audiences by bypassing there rational capacities. Irrational techniques of persuasion can come in many forms: as unnecessary metaphors, emotional language, subjective words, and appeal to be intuitional, learned or heuristically biases of the audience. These techniques are used to create illusions and appearance rather than being of logical/rational nature. They are much more powerful in controlling audiences then dry sincere, rational, or complicated yet true explanations. E.g. For example Hitler was an intelligence Sophist he had amazing speech skills and use words of inspiration to get people to do what he wanted. “It is great for those in power that people do not think” Hitler. Critical thinking skills are skill which enable people to arm and protect people themselves from being fooled by such types of persuasion, control and or abuse. That is making people aware of the difference between the uses of language, thus enabling to be less vulnerable to the deception of others. So I will introduce my invisible enemy the Hypothetical Sophist. A fake character I will use to get arguments across more efficiently. Warning: This is no way to parody or ad hoc my partner I am sure graduate Degree makes him well worth only plays. But this is to help keep the debate cleaner and clear so the audience is not confused. Parmenides’s argument of existence 1.1 1. Parmenides’s argument of existence: P1 what is IS! P2 what is not does not existed C1 Therefore there is only existence. From being fooled in the past I thought it important to give 3 more versions just to make sure that is was impossible to misinterpret what I meant. What is IS! Which is a powerful tautological argument; it is the fundamental necessity of everything. In that what exist, is itself. There 1x=1x. That is everything that does in fact exist, well in fact does exist, for even a God must exist to be himself. For even Truth=Truth What follows from the most fundamental argument of existence? It means that God is subsumed by this universal principle of logic. Therefore God cannot be the creature of Logic. Since he cannot escape existence itsef or he would seize to be. Re-hash: The Fool: I went well out of my way to give four formulations to avoid the possibility of misinterpretation. But as a fool, I assume I am in the wrong, unless my credible partner cannot give a completely rationally demonstration for why he is justified and honest for his entire set of claims about my lack of knowledge, assumptions, foolish error, and what I really meant? And we should all give him the benefit of the doubt unless he fails in the next round to justify why? Therefore it is irrational (lacks logic) to say that God has created such rules, and that other depend on them. I will tie this in with everything latter. The argument from Absolute universe 1.1 As I hope that I made clear this time that IS=existence. Therefore absolutely all that exist is the Absolute Universe. This is to express the original philosopher’s universe as appose to the Natural Sciences physical universe and the theologians universe for which there exist an outside. I use the word ‘absolute universe” in its original philosophic meaning of ”universe’ which refers to ALL OF EXISTENCE PERIOD! IF it is found that there is any other physical universe or world in any sense they are all subset of the ABSOLUTE UNIVERSE AKA what IS A wise man once told me a thing or two about understanding the universe, I thought he was completely crazy at the time, but it went something like the following: So for everything there is 1. Even 3 things are one set of three. And that 1=existence. And so it is now easy to recognize that the logic of quantity (math) is the logic of existence. Types of one’s The Universe 1 U The set of all general sets. The general 1 G as in a category of sets. The particular 1 P particulars of a general set. Non-existence =0 in that being an empty it is not a set of anything, and therefore is false set=non-existing. Thus an amount of an existence is its magnitude. Example: Cars is a general category and particular types of cars are subsumed under it. Warning and times saver: Appeal to authority is a fallacy, in a philosophical debate. I am giving the most advanced version I know, according to a mysterious wise man. This may not yet be in any text yet. But it’s not the wise man that makes it true it’s the Rationality of it that makes it true. “For what makes a God the one God, is his infinite magnitude in being and powers. “ The Fool: Mind you I am not dropping anything.