What happened...

[Shadow]

Ragey can't be god, that title is clearly taken by yours truly.

[Ragefur]

You can't REASON your way to God. Duh. You just have to accept it on faith.

Firetooth, you can be cooler than Ereptor. At least in my eyes.

[Aqualis]

*cough* You are clearly in his entourage.

Bah. Entourage nothing, I'm just listening to the arguments. You're declaring you're God, Ereptor is making reasoned arguments. He wins.

You're assuming that Ereptor is correct based on the fact that he can reason?

[Ragefur]

Reason is the servant of belief not the master.

People often forget that reason is used to justify beliefs, not to obtain them.

[Gen. Volkov]

You're assuming that Ereptor is correct based on the fact that he can reason?

No, but I always prefer reasoned argument over blind faith.

People often forget that reason is used to justify beliefs, not to obtain them.

Reason, or reasoning is used to justify or prove things in general, not just beliefs. However, it can also be used to arrive at a belief or idea. Reason is a tool, I'm just saying that a reasoned argument is more persuasive than a declaration. There is at least something more to the argument than someone's statement.

At this point we are dealing with hypotheses anyway.

Null Hypothesis: Ereptor is right, and Ragey is not God.

Alternate Hypothesis : Ragey is God.

Now it just remains to devise an experiment to test these hypotheses. The results of the experiment will scientifically prove whether or not Ragefur is God.

You can't REASON your way to God. Duh. You just have to accept it on faith.

Not something I'm really built to do, faith and I don't get along well. However, since you claim that you are god, there are some ways to test that scientifically. We can't prove if God exists, but we sure can prove if you are or are not God.

[Firetooth]

You can't REASON your way to God. Duh. You just have to accept it on faith.

Firetooth, you can be cooler than Ereptor. At least in my eyes.

Deal!  >:(...I mean  :D
;)
no offence, but most of you need to lighten up.

[Shadow]

Anything said by Shadow is absolute truth, since Shadow said it was so.

[Ragefur]

Okay.

Firetooth, you are my new official sidekick. That means you have to think I'm cooler than beans.

"prove things in general" What things other than beliefs? Nobody believes anything that isn't a belief. Obviously.

a reasoned argument is more persuasive than a declaration.

Depends on who is declaring it. =).

Ereptor's argument went like this

1. Anyone who declares themselves cool is either lying, or a God of coolness. premise
2. Ragefur is not God. premise
3. Ragefur declared himself cool. premise
4. THEREFORE: Ragefur is lying.

Ereptor simply STATED the opposite and asked you to believe him, which is not an argument...

Declaring something as part of an argument is not the same thing as reasoning your way TO that argument.

Reason
All statements of reason take the form:
1. if [PREMISE(S)] are true, the [CONCLUSION] is true.
2. PREMISE(S) are true.
-------
3. Therefore the CONCLUSION is true.

All arguments assume that their premises are true. Therefore arguments can be only be used to justify pre-existent beliefs or to show implications of prior beliefs.

[Gen. Volkov]

Depends on who is declaring it. =).

Well I suppose if you were Thomas Jefferson, and the Declaration in question was one of Independence. But you aren't and it's not. So it's suspect.

Ragey, you'd be correct if that's actually what Ereptor said. But it's not.

Ereptor's premises:

1. You are claiming that you are cool.
2. People who claim themselves as cool are either A. God of cool or B. lying about being cool.
3. That there is a 99% chance that people who claim to be cool are not in fact cool

Ereptor's conclusion based on statistics:

You are not a God of Cool, and are therefore your claim is false.

Ereptor simply STATED the opposite and asked you to believe him, which is not an argument...

No, he made a coherent argument based on three premises. The main problem is, the statistics are not verified, and the premises are not well proven. The reason I agree with him is because I'm fairly certain you are not in fact God, because the actual statistics on people who claim to be God vs. people who actually are God are decidedly not in your favor.

All arguments assume that their premises are true. Therefore arguments can be only be used to justify pre-existent beliefs or to show implications of prior beliefs.

Not exactly, one has to show that the premises are true, it is not assumed. In a real reasoned argument anyway. Otherwise one could never argue a case in court. Ereptor did not do a good job of proving his premises to be true.

What things other than beliefs? Nobody believes anything that isn't a belief. Obviously.

One can use logic and reason to prove just about anything. Facts and beliefs. I can use it to prove that the world is round, or I can use it to prove that the world is flat. Thomas Aquinas used it beautifully to prove the existence of god, provided you accept the existence of perfection in the world. The Greeks used it, plus a few simple mathematical techniques, to figure out that the world was round. Lawyers use it all the time to prove or disprove cases in court. Your second statement is correct, but there is more to the world than beliefs. Well, unless you want to go all philosophical and declare that it is a belief that the world exists. In that case I refer you to Descartes.

[Shadow]

This debate makes you both so painfully uncool that it is a completely moot point now.

[Gen. Volkov]

This debate makes you both so painfully uncool that it is a completely moot point now.

I have to say, he has a point. Debates like this are something nerds have. And while geeks can be cool, nerds cannot. Nerds are pretty much the anti-cool.

[fexfighter]

every one is cool due to the fact that every one has a diffrent view of coolness

[Gen. Volkov]

every one is cool due to the fact that every one has a diffrent view of coolness

Sorry but no, the relativity crud they teach you in school ain't gonna fly. There are generalized societal standards and ideals that define coolness and uncoolness. Someone who takes science or engineering classes, gets in debates with people over issues most wouldn't care about, plays video games, has relatively poor social skills and popularity limited to select groups of people is generally considered a geek. This is what I am, and I'm OK with that, I've embraced it, but I've long since realized and stopped caring that I'm not "cool" in the classic sense of the word. Someone who is cool would in general be someone with good social skills, generally have good looks, and popularity with many people. These are not hard and fast rules, geeks can be cool, and cool people can be geeks, but in general, these social distinctions do hold up.

[Ragefur]

There are several points I would like to address here...

FIRST: I don't want to be having this debate, but people are telling me that I am not who I am, which needs a defense.

Second... Statistics: There is a 1 in  6 BILLION probability that I am not who I say I am qua person; that's far higher than the 1 in 1 HUNDRED or THOUSAND that was cited as the probability of me being GOD. The only way of knowing who I am is by me saying it. Internal states of being are utterly subjective and can't be examined by third persons... If feel cold, is no argument you can present which will stop me from believing that I feel cold....

By using Ereptor's premises there is no way of telling if I belong to the 99% of people who are not God, or the 1% of people who are in FACT God... He gave no basis for demarcation, therefore his argument is meaningless... He has to show that I do in-FACT belong to the larger group. Here is another example which shows how silly the argument is.

1. Ereptor is a human person.
2. If x is a human person x is either DEAD or ALIVE.
3. Approximately 6% of all human persons are alive. (http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx)
4. There is a 94% chance that Ereptor is DEAD.

Dead people cannot argue, therefore Ereptor is false.

one has to show that the premises are true

How?

The only way to show a premise is true is through a further argument. Which also has premises and a conclusion.

Facts and beliefs.

All facts are beliefs.  It is a fact THAT the world exists regardless of whether or not you BELIEVE that it does. Your belief that the outside world exists is based on your(unprovable) belief that your senses are accurate.

Beliefs can either correspond to a fact(TRUE beliefs) or not correspond to a fact(FALSE beliefs).

As for your examples...
"God Exists" This is a belief(either true or false)
"The world is flat" This is a FALSE belief
"The world is round" This is a TRUE belief
"The World exists" This is a TRUE belief.
"The defendent is guilty" This is a belief (either true or false)

All of these are DEFENDED by reason, not arrived at THROUGH reason.

[fexfighter]

for one thats prejudice and two you're wrong there are no standards for "coolness" even if you think that   and finally there is no such thing as a geek or nerd only the fantasy of the movies if someone is a nerd you're a just saying they have a higher intelect level than you