So disprove it is a logical tautology and btw you cannot use induction to do so.

Since people are not converted by logic, it really is a fun but useless pastime, in my humble opinion.

Why not instead choose to believe Romans 1, that says that all men already know that God exists, but rather than acknowledge Him as God they choose to believe a lie.

Then you can focus on reminding them of stuff they already know, That God is invisible, powerful and the creator and that they are separated from Him by sin.

At least you have a common starting point with them.

And since all men already know that God is God, faith is simply trusting Him to do what He said He'd do, not a blind belief or hypnotism.

Is that absolutely true?

The most effective way to convert people into an ideology is hypnosis and neurolinguistic programing.

But if you want to convert people into heightened awareness you have to use logic.

Is that what it says?

Thats for you to prove depending on what option you go for. Just rememeber that the proof you give wont ever be totally complete.

To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi . “Luke you going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view”.

Actually you have moved to rhetoric not logic. You have attempted to shift the burden. The burden rests with one attempting to claim an absolute truth, not with those who don't buy it.

Furthermore an exchange of assertion and contradiction is not even discussion and certainly not argument. So I shall cease to engage you in the subject. You may have all my ego points

An absolute truth should be fool proof, and you haven't proven it to this fool ;-)

But it is fun. Just time consuming. Thanks.

Bob you say with a sentence what it takes me a page to get over. I like it. As you have no ego points left I hereby donate mine to you.

I knew you couldn't answer that simple question with a yes or no. As it would make explicit your absurdity.

Thank you for sharing your superficial manipulation of rhetoric and dialectic with me.

I have already explained that nothing and nonexistence are definitional synonyms. Did you miss that? Now you would need to prove "nothing is nonexistence" and "nonexistence is nothing" are not logical tautologies of A->A

Most people have zero experience with proof... and many do not believe there is such a thing as proof. Given those circumstances most people could not understand my proof on a level that would allow them to debate it.

Since I was given a few ego points I just can't resist:

Your nose is blue A-> A

Let me explain it again, this is a logical tautology, so it doesn't require proof or explanation. You are just supposed to accept it because I said it was a logical tautology. (notice, that even though it doesn't follow the form of a logical tautology, I claim that it is anyway)

Your nose is blue

You can't disprove it because I said it was a logical tautology and logical tautologies don't need proof nor can they be disproved.

If I simply claim it to be a logical tautology, it must be one.
Logic is allowed to define reality that way whether it is real or not.
The burden of proof is upon you, the doubter. But since a logical tautology can't be disproved, whatever you come up with will get a response indicating that you can't use that argument.
Furthermore, if you can't follow this, you must be one of those who has zero experience with proof.

This isn't mocking, it is reductio ad absurdum. By replacing your claim with a ridiculous claim, it is easy to see that the thought process you are attempting to use to convince us is flawed.

I ran out of ego points again. Have fun.

I knew you couldn't answer that simple question with a yes or no. As it would make explicit your absurdity.

Thank you for sharing your superficial manipulation of rhetoric and dialectic with me.
[/quote]


Likewise Mars. Im glad Jesus didnt debate such issues. As such I should really take a leaf out of his book shouldnt I?

straw man fallacy

My logical tautology is A->A via definitional synonyms.

Your jest is an inductive claim... and that is all.

Yes, and don't presume to think for yourself.

I just thought of a genius question for you;

Nothing is nothing.

Is that correct? And does this follow as tautological form A->A?

I dont need to as the holy spirit does that for me.