I really cant understand how people write that sort of crap with a straight face. Is it just desperation or do they really believe their own bullshit?
A Linguistic Argument for the Existence of God
by konceptual99 15 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Coded Logic
meaning is non-material, linguistic expressions likewise must be non-material.
This claim is easily debunked as the first premise (above) can easily be shown to be false. I'll even put it syllogistic form for logic nerds:
P1.) Meaning is produced by brians.
P2.) Brains are material.
Conclusion: Meaning is material process. Therefore meaning is not "non-material".
-
Beth Sarim
It just seems like ''evolution'' is more and more credible all the time. -
nelim
There is also a sort-of contradiction in this text. This:
We further showed that there is no indication that matter can generate non-material meaning-bearing linguistic expressions. Why should we expect that even to be possible, given that matter and meaning are in separate ontological realms?
and this:
It seems indisputable that the source of our thoughts and other language expressions is our mind.
Creating a fake paradox, and then the conclusion sounds to me like: "it seems like I have contradicted myself here, so therefore DNA origin must be God." LOL
-
prologos
It would be a barren world, if the great things we experience would be defined only by, or better as the patterns, the wave functions happening in our brain's matter. While the happening is entirely dependant on the matter, the energy forms, the result takes it to a different level. It is amazing that matter, energy responding to the existing laws, is empowered to achieve this level we experience beyond the material. words can not describe what material has wrought, surpassing itself. -
Beth Sarim
What Godzo said.