Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
No.Make your entire case or leave.
You are Denying my ability to establish a common set of assumptions refusing to let me make my entire case.
False, Assertion(43)
Argument by repetition (44)
Asserting over and over again that what I’m attempting is invalid - when I have Spelled out in detail exactly why isn’t, is not a valid argument.
You’re being both disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
Wrong.
False, assertion (45): if all you are able to argue is vehement protestations that I’m wrong - without any explanation - then you will be clearly unable to process a full, unabridged first principles argument.
Explain yourself; provide an argument.
I'm not going to discuss this, either. We're not going into your sophistry funhouse wherein you and I have a debate about a potential debate. I have better things to do with my time.
False, ad Hom (46): calling names is not an argument
False, hypocrisy (47): I’ve demonstrated in the posts above, that you’re inability to argue and demands allow you to argue dishonestly and prevent rational discussion. You have no response.
False, assertion (48): hurling accusations without any justification, is not a sensible argument approach
False, repetition (49) : you’re just repeating the same false arguments again and again.
False, lie (50): what better way to get your half century of bad Arguments than a lie! You clearly, absolutely, definitively have nothing better to do with your time given that you’re continually replying with invalid arguments and repetition.
You will make your entire case to prove that systemic racism exists or you will leave.
I am trying - you are refusing to engage with me making that case.
Like I said, the starting point has to be a hypothesis.
Why are things the way they are; what aspects of the past can be or are effecting the present. The US looked very different 80 years ago - how have the policies of the past impacted the current social fabric today.
With the hypothesis outlined - you can hammer out whether the premises and logic of the hypothesis are valid.
No point me searching up a billion data points if you don’t agree with my logic, or premise, right? or if you don’t contest a particular event or condition I’m talking about, no?
From there, we can determine what data points are necessary; all without adding up so many points discussion is impossible.
On the other hand; you omitted to mention your underlying hypothesis (which is white supremacy as I proved - which is why calling you a white supremacist is critical to understanding the underlying argument you’re making. You haven’t defined what you mean by systemic racism, and you have limited your discussion to only one broad aspect of the larger picture.
The issue is that arguing too down, you have built up a framework of total ambiguity in which your underlying assumptions or terms are not specified ; demanding I launch a huge top to bottom argument with a thousand individual points.
Your actions start you off at a point where even in good faith, an argument is near impossible.
However; you refuse to clarify anything, you’re not offering anything more than assertion and repetition, and have not really provided any contradictory rebuttals to anything I’ve said.
We’re I to offer a complete argument; given your current demonstrated behaviour of ignoring anything you don’t like; shouting , name calling, assertion, repetition, straw men, and flat out rejecting arguments on perceived technicalities - on what basis do you expect me to believe that you won’t also act so comprehensively disingenuous if I provide a full argument? Especially one that is so easy to argue if one were being disingenuous.
Your behaviour is clearly dishonest - not providing arguments, comprehensively disingenuous responses; hiding behind ambiguity, hand waving away entire arguments you don’t like.
If you were here in good faith; you’d be taking me up in my offer, and actually arguing at a deep level the causes of the inequalities we see.
The only valid conclusion is that you’re doing any of this in good faith; hence why I am trying to herd you into arguing in a way that will not allow you to be disingenuous.
You obviously realize this, and are terrified of engaging in an argument Structured in a way that does not allow you to be disingenuous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Build the entire case or leave.
Absolutely.
Let’s start by building up a common set of assumptions that we can work up from because your approach is not capable of generating a valid discussion due to all the reasons I just said.
Does this mean that you will stop refusing to engage in a discussion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No sir it doesn't. Magma is molten rock genius.
Erm - yes? That’s why “It just moves between the mantle and the surface” is what “earths magma contains water in volumes that are variable” means. Did you lose track of what you were arguing?
True. And at first atheists were like "Har, har!! Until science caught up and found there IS more than enough water inside the Earth.
In the magma...
Science once "ruled out" enough water on Earth to cover every peak.
No it didn’t. You are confusing “known water reserves are insufficient to cover the earth”, and “we absolutely know without reasonable doubt how much water was in the earth. Not the same.
In this respect we absolutely can rule out all those things; because the evidence explicitly rules them our
Is it possible for it to happen? No: this water is not free water; and is locked up in magma hundreds of miles beneath the surface - not as water, but as OH Hydroxyl molecules bound to magma.
You've back paddled. You use to say there was simply not enough water on Earth. But sorry, science has found that under certain conditions, this water can be brought to the surface.
Firstly when did I ever say that? That’s like the 4927th reason id invoke against a global flood
Secondly. The conditions the water can be brought to the surface is when pockets of magma interact with the world; and given the properties of magma are as you put “Magma is molten rock genius.” it ain’t going to come out as a liquid...
Pretty sure that Cataclysmic volcanic activity overturning billions of square kilometres of magma to release its water; would not be described as water spurting from the ground, but a burning hellfire that vaporized every ocean on the planet .
Is it feasible: the idea that billions of square kilometres of magma will simply move to the surface - not without kinda leaving a note.
It's not, magma man of science. It's water.
Water trapped in the magma genius.
Lol. Funny how new scientific revelations always confirm the Bible's narrative.
Except, of course, when it doesn’t...
And it's not magma. Magma is rock that has become so hot due to pressure that it is molten, it comes out of volcanoes.
Yeah - that’s where this extra water is trapped. As hydroxyl bound to the molten rock...
Non sequitur. None of this support your charge that I'm cherry picking.
Yes it does actually. I provided you the definition of cherry picking and showed what you’re doing exactly matches it.
Definition of cherry picking:
Cherry picking, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position.
What you did.
You pointed to individual cases of data that seem to confirm your position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that contradicts that position.
Let me spell this out, as simply as I can.
Science has hundreds of thousands of studies that comprehensively disprove what the Bible says. It has a handful of examples that can be argued to be consistent with what the Bible says.
Using the ones that Agree with you, and ignoring all the ones that do not - is cherry picking.
Please block quote this whole thing and reply to it in one go; you just went line by line and completely lost any semblance of a point lol.
Created:
Posted in:
Wrong. I considered it, thought it was a waste of time, and refused to engage in something that was a waste of time.Just build the case now lol.
False assertion (32): As explained in previous posts, there is a wholly valid reason to present this argument. You have refused to argue.
You never made an argument that proves systemic racism exists.There is nothing to respond to.
Argument by repetition (33). This is the same as your last post, and the point that you just made. Repeating a debunked argument is not a valid argument.
False: Mischaracterization (34). I presented the start of my case; you have refused to argue to - you are refusing to give me the opportunity to prove the case.
You've become one of the topics because you've spent a dozen posts and 1000s of words avoiding making an argument to prove your case.Build the case or leave.
False, assertion (35) - I am building the case; you are simply refusing to argue it (by your own admission)
Circular reasoning (36)- I provide the start of the case; you refuse to engage, when I ask you to justify why, you refuse on the grounds I haven’t provided a case. This seems pretty circular.
Argument by repetition (37). This is the same as your last post, and the point that you just made.
Already tried that in this post (btw it's not my BoP to prove that systemic racism doesn't exist -- negative proof fallacy): Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com)
False, Strawman(38): my demand that you make an argument is clearly and obviously not relating to systemic racism but instead is direct to your inability to provide a justify the subsequent litany is unsupported assertions that I am currently replying to.
My contention is that at some point you should stop simply repeating yourself, and offer a justification for why any of these silly claims should be considered true. In this respect - I have proven why my argument is a valid basis to start a case - why nothing I’ve said should be considered Ad-Hom, and that you appear to be arguing disingenuously. You now have the burden of proof.
Just to point out, in all my posts - I take your key points; explain the way in which they are wrong, and then provide a justification of why. You are simply ignoring the key points, asserting the same things over and over again - but providing no justification; and certainly no counter arguments.
You responded by saying 'what about low SES?'
Argument by repetition (39). You have already made this argument - I have pointed out why it was false and you have simply restated if.
False, strawman (40) : I did not say “what about low SES?” I demonstrated why we have to begin at a common set of assumptions - by using this aspect to demonstrate how assumptions we don’t share can be use to snipe in arguments. IE: without setting up a common set of assumptions first, arguments basically become you hiding behind assumptions that have to be knocked down one by one, which cannot be done without being bogged down - it’s far quicker and more appropriate to build up. As I am trying to do.
I asked you to prove that systemic racism exists due to low SES, and you have failed to do that.
False, Straw man (42) same issue as above.
Again, build the case or leave.
Absolutely. That’s what I’ve been trying to do; however you refuse to engage with me building that case, dismissing my attempts to build that case out of hand without justification.
These posts are my attempt to try and drag you kicking and screaming into an actual logical, rational debate on the subject, rather than aiming the argument at a place that allows you to simply snipe without meaningful engagement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
My original post.
Your confusing my premise - that our understanding of reality is not correct - with my conclusion -that you’re pulling assumptions out of your arse to make up for it, and implying they are more likely than any other.
My premise:
Our understanding of reality is not correct - meaning that how our perceived reality works cannot be coherently applied to explain why our perceived reality exists without adding metaphysical assumptions which cannot themselves be validated or assessed. (IE: it is insufficient, and requires expansion of some in order to apply to the universe)
my conclusion: that it’s invalid to pull one of any number of metaphysical assumptions out of your arse to solve the problem and unilaterally state that the resulting conclusion is more likely.
It all follows, it’s all fully consistent with everything said.
You kinda accidentally mixed up by conclusion with my premise again. Good try though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
The fact is that you haven't proven systemic racism exists.
Mischaracterization (28): I have offered a starting point argument; which you have refused to consider, which will then be used to build a case for systematic racism after building up a common set of agreed principles. You have refused to argue.
I strongly suspect you haven't/won't
False: assertion(29): I am awaiting your response to the initial argument; you have spend dozens of posts trying to evade answering, and launching into an ever decreasing tailspin of angry assertions about why you don’t want to respond to valid arguments.
because you're a sophist who just hates White people, and you're not looking for a real discussion.
Ad Hominem attack (30): name calling isn't a substitute for an argument.
You might as well just leave.
Argument by repetition (31): you have simply restated your arguments from the last post.
If you pay attention, I have outlined all my posts that I have made that cover your specific objections in detail.
At some point, you may want to consider actually providing a response to actual arguments, rather than to spend your time trying to assert reasons why you are allowed to ignore reasoned logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Your understanding of how reality works:
- “that a cause and effect must be temporally related"
As you seem to pick peanuts out of poop: let’s be fully explicit
- Our understanding of how the reality we observe, experience and measure works is that causes and their effects are temporally related - specifically that effects always occur after their cause in a local frame of reference.
Your premise restated for clarity:
- "[that a cause and effect must be temporally related] is not correct."
- That understanding of how our perceived reality works cannot be coherently applied to explain why our perceived reality exists without adding metaphysical assumptions which cannot themselves be validated or assessed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You’re not the hero the religious forum needs. You are the hero the religious forum deserves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Perhaps it would be helpful if you would describe in very clear terms how you understand reality works regarding causality, just so I'm 100% clear.
Our understanding of how reality works - what humanity and science have figured out and observed. There’s only one element that matters in my argument. Let’s see if I mentioned it:
Post 33:
“Cause and effect have a temporal relationship - cause precedes effect“
Post 52:
“Cause and effect have a temporal relationship - cause precedes effect”
Post 67:
“Cause and effect have a temporal relationship - cause precedes effect:”
Post 94:
“IE: to have a beginning, to have a cause, to be caused, etc - in the way we understand the terms - requires time to exist.
That’s the central point I am making“
“that a cause and effect must be temporally related.”
Post 145.
“cause and effect are coupled in time.”
“What we intuit and observe about causality requires time; and does not make sense without it.”
Post 158
“our understanding of reality is predicated upon time.”
And post 162
“Things proceed in time. Cause occurs before effect.”
Post 33:
“Cause and effect have a temporal relationship - cause precedes effect“
Post 52:
“Cause and effect have a temporal relationship - cause precedes effect”
Post 67:
“Cause and effect have a temporal relationship - cause precedes effect:”
Post 94:
“IE: to have a beginning, to have a cause, to be caused, etc - in the way we understand the terms - requires time to exist.
That’s the central point I am making“
“that a cause and effect must be temporally related.”
Post 145.
“cause and effect are coupled in time.”
“What we intuit and observe about causality requires time; and does not make sense without it.”
Post 158
“our understanding of reality is predicated upon time.”
And post 162
“Things proceed in time. Cause occurs before effect.”
I think you’ve lost track of what you’re ignoring:
Your conclusion that it is more likely that the universe has a cause is invalid because it requires presuppositions outside our understanding of how are universe works are baseless and arbitrary - there is no basis on which you claim your conclusion is more or less probable than other presuppositions that enables others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
What is there to argue about? I don't have to prove you wrong - you've already admitted you are. And I can't prove you right because you're wrong.
Your confusing my premise - that our understanding of reality is not correct - with my conclusion -that you’re pulling assumptions out of your arse to make up for it, and implying they are more likely than any other.
I mean; acknowledging our understanding is wrong only disproves my argument if I use my understanding to assert that one option is more likely than others - and only you’re doing that.
This is hilarious. It must be eating you up inside how I’m able to keep drawing the conversation back to the original point. I’m genuinely interested to see how long you can keep up this level of overtly obvious incapability
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
No - it’s our collective, observed, intuitive understanding of how reality works - as humans: Things proceed in time. Cause occurs before effect.
It’s not like there’s any scientific principle or observed instance if anything other than that happening, right?
It’s definitely wrong - but that’s all we’ve ever seen. So when you pull random speculation out of your ass; and draw conclusions from it such as “the universe is likely caused by something”, that conclusion is completely baseless.
Seriously though: the lengths you are going to in order to avoid an argument is hilarious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So just to be clear, your understanding of how reality works can't explain reality. It seems we have two options to consider:Your understanding of how reality works is at least partially incorrect, and it is possible for reality to exist according to how reality works.Your understanding of how reality works is correct, and it is impossible for reality to exist according to how reality works.I pick peanut #1.
*Our understanding of how reality works.
Of course it can’t be correct: That’s my entire point. But anything else is complete rank speculation with no basis - meaning that you have no basis to select one possibility as more likely than others. Hence: you are wrong.
I mean come on - I covered this like 8 times in the posts you deliberately ignored because you have no ability to contest my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
This line is my absolute favorite.
And fully justified in all the posts you ignored.
More picking peanuts out of poops.
Specifically; and let me reiterate for the 9482th time just to highlight to everyone that you’re fully unable to answer any argument presented to you:
We observe reality, and have understood temporal principles of causality that are temporal, our understanding of reality is predicated upon time.
What we observe and understand of them; are completely unable to explain their own existence. Our reality can’t explain itself.
This renders your original argument completely false; which is why you seem to have given up any pretence of trying to argue.
As covered in the post you ignored below:
I’ll have running bets with anyone willing to offer odds that Fruit will be unable to directly address any argument for the next 100 replies and will just carry on this nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
It’s actually a boon TO the left— corporate media is furthering its political aims under the premise of centrism.
I think It’s actually corporate media is furthering it’s financial aims under the premise of journalism.
I think the reality is that what’s attributed to bias, is actually more sensationalism.
I mean, if the left wing media is attempting to further political aims they are doing an utterly atrociously bad job of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Untrue. Science cannot do that because it doesn't have all the needed data.
Yes it does.
Again untrue. The Earth's mantle contains water, and it isn't "variable". It just moves between the mantle and the surface.
That’s what “earths magma contains water in volumes that are variable“ means...
And what you're doing is called misunderstanding.Atheists first said there was not enough water on Earth for Noah's flood to be true. Science has proven that claim wrong.Atheists then said, there was no way for the water in the Earth's mantle to come to the surface. Science again proved them wrong.Atheists calculated that 40 days of rain would not produce enough water to cover the Earth to the depth indicated in Noah's story. The Bible says the water did not only come from rain, but from under the ground too.Science just verified that there is more than 3 times as much water in the Earth's mantle as in all it's oceans!
So, the Bible is not particularly specific: it simply says water came from beneath the earth.
Did such a flood happen? No: science can rule that one out.
Is it possible for it to happen? No: this water is not free water; and is locked up in magma hundreds of miles beneath the surface - not as water, but as OH Hydroxyl molecules bound to magma.
Is it feasible: the idea that billions of square kilometres of magma will simply move to the surface - not without kinda leaving a note.
So at best; this new scientific revelation is that there now maybe being enough water - possibly - to maybe cover the earth (again - it’s not clear whether it’s confirmed sufficient), in the form of inaccessible Hydroxyl Bound to magma.
Given the thousand other ways that the flood has been comprehensively ruled out - amount of water is low hanging fruit.
How am I cherry picking?
There are hundreds thousands of scientific studies that demonstrate old earth. Demonstrate evolution, demonstrate that life has a common ancestor, demonstrate the lack of any population bottlenecks, demonstrate the local nature of various flood around the world, and explicitly rule out a cataclysmic global flood as described in Genesis.
Cherry picking, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position.
You pointed to individual cases of data that seem to confirm your position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that contradicts that position.
Your argument bullseyes the text book definition of cherry picking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Science now agrees again with the Bible
Science explicitly and systematically rules out a cataclysmic global flood; on a young earth, in which kinds of animals were specially created; wiped out and then all proceeds to repopulate the earth from a handful of founder breeding pairs.
What I *think* you mean, is that a collection of studies indicate that earths magma contains water in volumes that are variable; and from that you’ve extrapolated wild conclusions.
What you’re doing is called cherry picking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
An interesting anecdote to add here.
From 1995 to 2015 if you went to any general forum in which politics, religion and science could discusses; arguably one of the biggest individual topics on such a forum was creationism/evolution (although perhaps 2nd to “god exists/doesn’t exist).
Creationists systematically rejected the authority of experts and science itself to maintain their religious beliefs.
Towards the end of 2015; the people who argued creationism/evolution almost exclusively stopped arguing it from every such site almost overnight; and instead began arguing in support of Trump.
The population - and mode specifically the right - has lost faith in science - because it was politically expedient to make rejection of science part of political identity on the right.
Created:
Posted in:
Again - picking peanuts out of poop.
“Let’s ignore everything my opponent said and find at least one thing I can throw up some random nonsense quote; even though I make no attempt to bother to show how it applies to his argument, and whilst I’m doing my best to not argue”
I explained how reality works in the posts you ignored. You haven’t objected...
How reality works is unable to explain reality - explained in the posts you ignored. You haven’t objected...
To explain reality you must therefore add unsupported presupposition, as explained in the all the posts you ignored. You haven’t objected...
If you that, you have no basis in reality to assess which of the many presuppositions you could make are valid. Again - notes in all the posts you ignored; you haven’t objected.
As a result - the justification for your original argument is Fundamentally undermined.
Again - it’s all there in the posts you ignored; really you should take a look, it already explains the detail.
I don’t want to go back and “talk about something else”, I simply want you to not ignore an entire post someone makes; I made a whole number of key points, and argument restatements that are critical - because I’m going to now have to restate them for maybe the 6th time as you keep ignoring them ..My main point is absolutely not about causality and time: it’s about what conclusions we can draw from our intuitions. And you not understanding what my argument is, is exactly why I object to you systematically ignoring it.Definitions always matter. And the definition of the Law of Causality seems relevant to a discussion about causality.It only matters if it impacts the conclusion. If whatever definition you want to supply still works - then arguing about the definition is a red herring.As I pointed out: the definition you’ve used throughout doesn’t impact anything. It still doesn’t reallyYou have made no attempt to show how the argument is impacted - you’re just saying it is - just objecting to something because you can object...How have I changed the definition of causality? I have been consistently using the same one. And again, I wanted to come to an agreed upon definition of the Law of Causality before continuing. But you don't want to do that so we'll go back to that if the need arises.I was pretty clear what I meant by causality from the start; cause and effect coupled in time. Arguing that time is not part of causality is brand new: and something you should have said at the start, no? Rather than simply springing it after a half dozen posts and pretending that this is what you meant the whole time.Your characterization here is comprehensively false.Well that depends on your definition of the Law of Causality. I haven't changed mine to suggest this. Your definition seems to be different. As I have said repeatedly, definitions do in fact matter.I’ve been fairly clear throughout: you completely ignored it: Your definition doesn’t match what we observe, or how we understand causality.What we intuit and observe about causality requires time; and does not make sense without it. Time travel does not lead to a causality that makes sense - including things like paradoxes; and still involve linear causality (effects always occurs in a causes local future - but not necessarily a global future).But your overt fixation with definitions is missing the point - as should have been clear in the post you ignored.The central point is that no possible solution for the universe matches our understanding of how things work; so we cannot deduce a solution using our current understanding.If we change our understanding of how things work: we have no basis for assessing the validity of what we come up with - so we can draw no probability.This whole weird definition side track demonstrates my point.In order to conclude the universe was created; you have to define causality as non temporal. If you do that; all other options are now just as reasonable.You would be aware of this had you read my argument or had you actually tried to show how changes in definitions impacted my argument - it would also have shown that applying it to your own argument undermines your conclusion.This is why I’m calling you out for constantly ignoring me. My argument doesn’t functionally rely on causality actually being one way or another; something you have yet to wrap your head round; only that it must not follow the rules as we observe or perceive them - and if doesn’t: we have no basis upon which to speculate: in both cases the original conclusion you made - is false.It’s that link back to my argument - and your argument you keep ignoring. It’s not clear how any of your objections link to what we said; thus it appears you’re just trying to find an objection - any objection : Picking peanuts out of poop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
There are many issues at play.
Journalists are often left leaning.
with the best will in the world, it’s near impossible to extract personal bias from such things entirely.
There has been a massive change in the way we consume and pay for news.
News is now funded by per click advertising on line, sold television advertising, and subscriptions. With the advent of the internet, the wealth of available alternatives means that the business model of news requires generating views.
Psychology and social media algorithms drive engagement.
Social media and search algorithm learn what you find engaging and shows you more of it.
News is competing in this space for revenue. This means that sensational news, news that confirms people’s underlying bias is shown more prominently, generates more traffic, and makes news organizations can make more money than middle of the road examples
The feedback cycle is self reinforcing.
You click on news you find engaging based on your bias; it reinforces your bias; it drives traffic, algorithms learn what you find engaging, shows you more of it: makes the media organizations show more of it for revenue reasons.. etc.
A Similar way to how terror organizations radicalize people online.
As a result of all of this; you end up with with a stratified media landscape that provides stories that cater to a specific demographic that they are competing for.
So in this respect; the driving factor for media bias is not the media itself - but us.
This is not an issue with the left explicitly - the issue is the same, and in some cases worse on the right.
So in this respect - anyone who is consuming only one dimension of media on either side is being radicalized you some extent.
While HuffPo, Rachael Maddow, Occupy Democrats or the Young Turks can often be pretty biased; they are objectively more accurate than the likes of, say, infowars, or the youtube/video/rightosphere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
This thread has been typified by me making an argument - you shouting at me - me addressing your accusations - you ignoring it and shouting at me again - me patiently walking you through the logic - you simply shouting the same thing again.
Argument is about showing how someone is wrong - not simply asserting they are wrong and proudly suggesting you will ignore their arguments and hoping they will go away.
Fine. Let’s start the Fallacy accumulator!
You haven't provided any arguments worth addressing.
False. assertion: (1)
Disproven in posts 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223: you have not offered a response.
You originally pushed the idea that systemic racism exists
False - Mischaracterization (2). You have shut down all of my attempts to discuss systemic racism because I have taken a constructive approach. As noted in posts 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223 : you have not offered a response.
and you've failed to meet that burden of proof since then.
False - Mischaracterization (3). Burdens are met or failed at the end of an argument - not at the start; which is where we you have bogged things down.
Instead, you've provided a whole bunch of sophistry
False assertion (4) my approach is valid as explained in posts 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223: you have not offered a response.
False: assertion and Hypocrisy (5) as explained in post 229: your behaviour, and approach appears clearly disingenuous so accusations of sophistry are clearly hypocrisy.
ranging from Ad Hominem.
False: assertion (6) : not Ad Homs. As demonstrated in posts 202, 204, 206, 229: you have not provided a response.I have demonstrated why they are not.
Appeals to Authority
False: assertion(7): How? Where? When?
I have at no point in any of this thread ever suggested that any argument should be accepted due to the credentials or authority of someone else.
“imagine" speeches not based on reality,
False assertion (8). Based on reality as explained in posts 199; and valid based on 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223, : you have offered no response.
hypotheticals that are totally devoid of any data/studies/sources
False: fallacy of many questions (9). Asking questions with presuppositions that have not been agreed. Disproven in posts 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223: you have offered no response.
pretty much everything you've posted is just a massive red herring and a waste of everyone's time.
False: assertion: (10) Disproven in posts 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223: you have offered no response
And you can keep writing these walls of texts and cleverly weaving in all these garbage red herring arguments, but I won't ever fall for it and I will continue to call it out.
Ad Hominem attack.(11). Simply attacking me for how I make valid arguments as opposed to attacking the argument.
I've been charitable and provided arguments that show systemic racism doesn't exist in various places (criminal justice), and you've basically said 'what about low SES?'
False: straw man (12). You mischaracterize me offering an explanation of why we cannot discuss systemic racism without first agreeing on certain central premises. Disproven in posts : 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223you have offered no response.
whilst not providing an argument that shows that low SES results in systemic racism.
False strawman (13): same straw man as above (12) mischaracterizes my argument - which was showing why we can’t have an argument unless we agree on common premises.
I asked you to make that argument (since it would potentially fill your BoP and we could have a discussion thereafter), and you haven't at all.
False: mischaracterization (14): disproven in posts 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223: you have offered no reply. To have a discussion, we must agree basic aspects of reality; this is where you are holding up the argument.
But for the dozen responses you've given me, all you've done is pile on the sophistry with irrelevant deflections and avoidance or real argument.
False: assertion(15) disproven in posts 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223.
Ad Hominem attack(16) calling me names is not a valid argument.
You are a shitlib, anti-white sophist not at all interested in actually discussing the topic of systemic racism
Ad Hominem attack (17) calling me names is not a valid argument.
because you haven't and probably will never provide any arguments to fill your burden of proof.
False assertion (18), you haven’t given me the opportunity to do so as you are dismissing my arguments out of hand.
You want to deflect onto Ad Hominem "white supremacist" discussion
Argument from repetition (19).
False assertion (20) - not an ad Hom (see posts 202, 204, 206, 229), also it’s in addition to the argument, not Deflecting from it.
and non-BoP fulfilling "imagine" speeches.
False, assertion (21) - see posts: 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223 - hypothetical scenarios as a means to agree common premises about reality are valid in arguments.
You want to talk in hypotheticals that could fulfil your burden of proof but never actually attempt to fulfil that burden of proof.
False: assertion (22). As noted, I want you to answer the argument so we can move on to the next part.
False: strawman (23). You mischaracterize my argument, pretending that it was incensed to be a top-to bottom attempt to justify systemic racism, rather than as a starting point in the argument.
You want to do that endlessly and do anything but actually talk about the topic in a substantive sense.
False: assertion (24). As shown in posts: 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223, my argument is the only way we can have a substantive argument.
False: assertion (25). As explained - you are holding upthis discussion by loudly and vehemently stating you won’t reply to my argument.
It's time for you to leave the thread, sophist. You've been called out and confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're a bad faith, shit lib sophist.Get out of here.
Ad Hominem attack (26), attacking me rather than the argument.
Argument from repetition (27) - you already said all this.
So, 27 false arguments in one single post. Noice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Actually that was included explicitly in the post you ignored. Please see large bolded portion, which explains my argument, explains that you’ve completely misunderstood it, explains how the definitions you’re using do not impact my argument.
Ignoring the entirety of what people say - makes you look an incapable buffoon that has no ability to argue with my point.
I don’t want to go back and “talk about something else”, I simply want you to not ignore an entire post someone makes; I made a whole number of key points, and argument restatements that are critical - because I’m going to now have to restate them for maybe the 6th time as you keep ignoring them ..My main point is absolutely not about causality and time: it’s about what conclusions we can draw from our intuitions. And you not understanding what my argument is, is exactly why I object to you systematically ignoring it.Definitions always matter. And the definition of the Law of Causality seems relevant to a discussion about causality.It only matters if it impacts the conclusion. If whatever definition you want to supply still works - then arguing about the definition is a red herring.As I pointed out: the definition you’ve used throughout doesn’t impact anything. It still doesn’t reallyYou have made no attempt to show how the argument is impacted - you’re just saying it is - just objecting to something because you can object...How have I changed the definition of causality? I have been consistently using the same one. And again, I wanted to come to an agreed upon definition of the Law of Causality before continuing. But you don't want to do that so we'll go back to that if the need arises.I was pretty clear what I meant by causality from the start; cause and effect coupled in time. Arguing that time is not part of causality is brand new: and something you should have said at the start, no? Rather than simply springing it after a half dozen posts and pretending that this is what you meant the whole time.Your characterization here is comprehensively false.Well that depends on your definition of the Law of Causality. I haven't changed mine to suggest this. Your definition seems to be different. As I have said repeatedly, definitions do in fact matter.I’ve been fairly clear throughout: you completely ignored it: Your definition doesn’t match what we observe, or how we understand causality.What we intuit and observe about causality requires time; and does not make sense without it. Time travel does not lead to a causality that makes sense - including things like paradoxes; and still involve linear causality (effects always occurs in a causes local future - but not necessarily a global future).But your overt fixation with definitions is missing the point - as should have been clear in the post you ignored.The central point is that no possible solution for the universe matches our understanding of how things work; so we cannot deduce a solution using our current understanding.If we change our understanding of how things work: we have no basis for assessing the validity of what we come up with - so we can draw no probability.This whole weird definition side track demonstrates my point.In order to conclude the universe was created; you have to define causality as non temporal. If you do that; all other options are now just as reasonable.You would be aware of this had you read my argument or had you actually tried to show how changes in definitions impacted my argument - it would also have shown that applying it to your own argument undermines your conclusion.This is why I’m calling you out for constantly ignoring me. My argument doesn’t functionally rely on causality actually being one way or another; something you have yet to wrap your head round; only that it must not follow the rules as we observe or perceive them - and if doesn’t: we have no basis upon which to speculate: in both cases the original conclusion you made - is false.It’s that link back to my argument - and your argument you keep ignoring. It’s not clear how any of your objections link to what we said; thus it appears you’re just trying to find an objection - any objection : Picking peanuts out of poop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You appear to have ignored my entire argument.
Please allow me to repeat what I said: it’s important as it refuted everything you said.
I don’t want to go back and “talk about something else”, I simply want you to not ignore an entire post someone makes; I made a whole number of key points, and argument restatements that are critical - because I’m going to now have to restate them for maybe the 6th time as you keep ignoring them ..My main point is absolutely not about causality and time: it’s about what conclusions we can draw from our intuitions. And you not understanding what my argument is, is exactly why I object to you systematically ignoring it.Definitions always matter. And the definition of the Law of Causality seems relevant to a discussion about causality.It only matters if it impacts the conclusion. If whatever definition you want to supply still works - then arguing about the definition is a red herring.As I pointed out: the definition you’ve used throughout doesn’t impact anything. It still doesn’t reallyYou have made no attempt to show how the argument is impacted - you’re just saying it is - just objecting to something because you can object...How have I changed the definition of causality? I have been consistently using the same one. And again, I wanted to come to an agreed upon definition of the Law of Causality before continuing. But you don't want to do that so we'll go back to that if the need arises.I was pretty clear what I meant by causality from the start; cause and effect coupled in time. Arguing that time is not part of causality is brand new: and something you should have said at the start, no? Rather than simply springing it after a half dozen posts and pretending that this is what you meant the whole time.Your characterization here is comprehensively false.Well that depends on your definition of the Law of Causality. I haven't changed mine to suggest this. Your definition seems to be different. As I have said repeatedly, definitions do in fact matter.I’ve been fairly clear throughout: you completely ignored it: Your definition doesn’t match what we observe, or how we understand causality.What we intuit and observe about causality requires time; and does not make sense without it. Time travel does not lead to a causality that makes sense - including things like paradoxes; and still involve linear causality (effects always occurs in a causes local future - but not necessarily a global future).But your overt fixation with definitions is missing the point - as should have been clear in the post you ignored.The central point is that no possible solution for the universe matches our understanding of how things work; so we cannot deduce a solution using our current understanding.If we change our understanding of how things work: we have no basis for assessing the validity of what we come up with - so we can draw no probability.This whole weird definition side track demonstrates my point.In order to conclude the universe was created; you have to define causality as non temporal. If you do that; all other options are now just as reasonable.You would be aware of this had you read my argument or had you actually tried to show how changes in definitions impacted my argument - it would also have shown that applying it to your own argument undermines your conclusion.This is why I’m calling you out for constantly ignoring me. My argument doesn’t functionally rely on causality actually being one way or another; something you have yet to wrap your head round; only that it must not follow the rules as we observe or perceive them - and if doesn’t: we have no basis upon which to speculate: in both cases the original conclusion you made - is false.It’s that link back to my argument - and your argument you keep ignoring. It’s not clear how any of your objections link to what we said; thus it appears you’re just trying to find an objection - any objection : Picking peanuts out of poop.
Systematically ignoring everything someone said a pretty clear evidence to everyone that you have conceded the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Most of your questions were highly repetitive and a waste of time. I summarized the whole issue by making it clear that I wanted to come to an agreed upon definition of the Law of Causality.
Cool. I will start doing that. I will just chop our 95% of what you say, don’t link back to your argument; and when called out I will just assert that if was repetitive, a waste of my time and I summarized things
You absolutely did not summarize my post in any way shape or form; in fact you did not reference anything I said in my last post, other than half answering one question.
Do you honestly think this is a valid or intelligent way of having a discussion?
You don’t need to quote every word, or address every line - but you literally ignored every point raised : and nothing you said bore any direct relation to anything in that post; just ignoring everything someone says is cretinously dishonest, and indicative of someone who has no capacity to make an intelligent argument.
Because you were criticizing me for not answering your main point about causality and time. Then when I answered you about causality and time, you wanted to go back and talk about something else and not talk about causality and time.
I was actually criticizing you for making no effort in trying to match your objection against the argument I am making.
Most of your post was highly repetitive and a waste of time. I summarized the whole issue by making it clear that I wanted you to address my argument.. that’s ok, that’s all I have to do right?
I don’t want to go back and “talk about something else”, I simply want you to not ignore an entire post someone makes; I made a whole number of key points, and argument restatements that are critical - because I’m going to now have to restate them for maybe the 6th time as you keep ignoring them ..
My main point is absolutely not about causality and time: it’s about what conclusions we can draw from our intuitions. And you not understanding what my argument is, is exactly why I object to you systematically ignoring it.
Definitions always matter. And the definition of the Law of Causality seems relevant to a discussion about causality.
It only matters if it impacts the conclusion. If whatever definition you want to supply still works - then arguing about the definition is a red herring.
As I pointed out: the definition you’ve used throughout doesn’t impact anything. It still doesn’t really
You have made no attempt to show how the argument is impacted - you’re just saying it is - just objecting to something because you can object...
How have I changed the definition of causality? I have been consistently using the same one. And again, I wanted to come to an agreed upon definition of the Law of Causality before continuing. But you don't want to do that so we'll go back to that if the need arises.
I was pretty clear what I meant by causality from the start; cause and effect coupled in time. Arguing that time is not part of causality is brand new: and something you should have said at the start, no? Rather than simply springing it after a half dozen posts and pretending that this is what you meant the whole time.
Your characterization here is comprehensively false.
Well that depends on your definition of the Law of Causality. I haven't changed mine to suggest this. Your definition seems to be different. As I have said repeatedly, definitions do in fact matter.
I’ve been fairly clear throughout: you completely ignored it: Your definition doesn’t match what we observe, or how we understand causality.
What we intuit and observe about causality requires time; and does not make sense without it. Time travel does not lead to a causality that makes sense - including things like paradoxes; and still involve linear causality (effects always occurs in a causes local future - but not necessarily a global future).
But your overt fixation with definitions is missing the point - as should have been clear in the post you ignored.
The central point is that no possible solution for the universe matches our understanding of how things work; so we cannot deduce a solution using our current understanding.
If we change our understanding of how things work: we have no basis for assessing the validity of what we come up with - so we can draw no probability.
This whole weird definition side track demonstrates my point.
In order to conclude the universe was created; you have to define causality as non temporal. If you do that; all other options are now just as reasonable.
You would be aware of this had you read my argument or had you actually tried to show how changes in definitions impacted my argument - it would also have shown that applying it to your own argument undermines your conclusion.
This is why I’m calling you out for constantly ignoring me. My argument doesn’t functionally rely on causality actually being one way or another; something you have yet to wrap your head round; only that it must not follow the rules as we observe or perceive them - and if doesn’t: we have no basis upon which to speculate: in both cases the original conclusion you made - is false.
It’s that link back to my argument - and your argument you keep ignoring. It’s not clear how any of your objections link to what we said; thus it appears you’re just trying to find an objection - any objection : Picking peanuts out of poop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So just so I understand this right - it’s okay for you to ignore my entire post without explanation. If I ask you to specifically clarify why you ignore my entire post - that’s me evading your question?
Q11: Can you please explain to me why you skipped every single one of these questions without any explanation - and replied as if they didn’t exist.
Q12: Why do you think it’s okay to ignore someone’s entire post without explanation, and then imply they are evading when they question why you didn’t respond?
Q13: establishing definitions only matters if the definition impacts the conclusion. Neither of your definitions appear to change my conclusion; on what basis did you feel the definition changed my conclusion?
Q14: You appear to be changing the definition of causality. Please explain how this impacts my original conclusion - and please explain why you feel this new definition doesn’t invalidate your original argument.
Q15: You have suggested that the definition of causality can be changed to include causes being concurrent with or after effects - do you think this definition is consistent with our intuitive understanding of how cause and effect works? Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I went to a lot of effort going through and explaining the specifics of how your original argument was wrong; why; and pointing out why your responses were irrational.
Could you please explain why you seem to have ignored my post almost in its entirety?
I asked 10 specific questions about how your previous arguments lacked A basic justification.
Q11: Can you please explain to me why you skipped every single one of these questions without any explanation - and replied as if they didn’t exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MonkeyKing
You’re right in that the first part can’t be used broadly to prove the non existence of God. In many ways a big portion is a rephrased PoE argument.
However, religions and the religious are all about making statements about Gods power, will, motivations; and most assuredly sets up God as a Hypothesis.
Ramshutus Razor is a mechanism for testing that hypothesis.
It’s not so much the case it refutes all Gods; but does assuredly refute all specific Gods anyone has ever put forward.
Take a typical Christian approach - God is love, God wants us to chose him, evil exists as a necessity to empower Good. Yadda Yadda.
Wouldn’t this universe better meet those goals if childhood Leukemia had a 10% better survival rate? Or if smallpox killed 1/10 instead of 1/4. What if Paedophillia didn’t exist?
If all bad things that happen for no reason allow for potential better good, would not a universe in which a potential good can always be seen?
Or take the whole nature of the afterlife: God needs us to believe in him - but why not make it a fairer choice? For example - no evolution - or better yet, make ever human know God exists, give them free will, make them know what God wants; and give them tests to show they’re trying, and don’t want to be sinners - but don’t tell them there is a heaven or hell.
Absolutely subjective I ageee - but rapidly leads you to the conclusion that this is such a shitty universe and structure for any God; that they can’t exist - except for maybe Zeus.
The second one is what gives me confidence that Atheism - at least in terms of major theistic themes (as opposed to zeus or being in a simulation) - is correct. I’ve been trying to come up with a collection of motivations and wills for which this universe would be the best - or even close - for 20 years; and you have two options: simple and common motivations that don’t match the universe, of Convoluted and incoherent sets of disparate goals
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
So let’s recap.
I’ve provided an argument for you to engage with. You still refuse to engage.
Instead - you falsely assert that discussing a hypothesis of how reality is, is an invalid way to discuss how reality is.
I’ve walked you through exactly discussion on the validity of a hypothesis is a wholly valid approach. You’ve ignored it.
I’ve walked you through how a discussion on facts and data - without agreement on the underlying assumptions cannot generate an intelligent discussion. You’ve ignored it.
To reiterate - a hypothesis about the real world - is taking about the real world. We are both talking about our own hypotheses; to unilaterally declare I am not allowed to present a counter hypothesis is clearly disingenuous.
In fact, far from being irrelevant: thought experiments, hypotheses, and hypothetical scenarios are absolutely critical to allow two people to explore the logic underpinning behind conclusions. Despite this being continually pointed out - you have yet to offer any argument to support it.
As well as reiterating the same argument I have already replied to - you further demonstrate exactly why we need to start at the bottom and work up: in reply to me questioning your assumption, you simply fire back what you think my entire hypothesis is; allowing an opponent to simply snipe at straw men; rather than argue. What you’re demanding appears targeted to enable disingenuous arguments.
Throughout this back and forward consisting of me constructing a logical argument and you ignoring or rejecting it - and demanding that you will only respond to specific forms of tightly constrained arguments, you have been declaring that I will not present facts - as pointed out, this is a straw man: as I am being straight forward that I will be presenting facts once we have a common basis of agreement. That you continue to peddle the strawman despite having been corrected is disingenuous. This is on top of you having also accused me of not wanting to argue. This is also clearly disingenuous.
I have explained that you appear to be a white supremacist; a point I have justified at length, you have ignored it; and instead have simply dismissed it.
I can even explain why is important: specifically labelling your beliefs and the premises of your world view - helps to frame the discussion in the context of those premises. It helps ascertain your inherent beliefs as they pertain to this topic rather than having to guess them.
Trying to engage in an argument whilst trying to hide or obfuscate the key premises and beliefs you hold is disingenuous in a discussion that is explicitly about some aspect of those beliefs.
The final aspect here; is that trolls, edge lords, nondescript antagonists and sh*tposters with extreme beliefs and are uninterested in real discussion often attempt to hide their true worldview, or beliefs in order to suck people into a debate without being explicitly clear about who they’re arguing with; or being on guard that the question or goal of the conversation maybe loaded.
As I explained, your beliefs make you a white supremacist: there is no reason or justification for you not to call me out and destroy my argument by demonstrating you are not through explaining what aspect of white supremacy you don’t ascribe too - I even gave you a simple way of showing it that would lead to retraction and an apology: and would even help me narrow down the premises of your worldview in order to help know in which direction to drive the argument.
Not defending yourself, and now simply dismissing the label with half hearted denials seems to confirm that you are a white supremacist.
Given that you are a white supremacist, this conversation is about a key aspect of white supremacy, and you won’t clarify whether you hold white supremacist premises that critical to framing this arguments leads me to conclude that your doing it to maintain a facade that these threads are being made in good faith. This would be disingenuous.
In between all this - you’ve called me a shitlib, engages in broad sweeping generalizations of what I am and what I believe; suggested I hate white people with absolutely no supporting argument.
To then declare you won’t engage in an Ad Hom Labelling - which is clearly not what I’m doing is disingenuous.
Indeed, continuing to assert that I am engaging in Ad-Homs despite having corrected you in what they are and how they work multiple times; and simply repeat the claim is also disingenuous.
A key element of free form debate is that both sides must accept the premise that you present logical justification, and attack the other persons logical justification with your own.
The final nail in the coffin here - is that you seem to be systematically unable to do so. While you seem to object to this characterization, and suggest that I haven’t been able to demonstrate (I mean, how is it possible to show that you’re arguments do not contain something).
You’re having to resort to accusations, repeating the already refuted points, and outright denials to try and argue your point. All the way through here, you have simply skipped over points or logic with a wave of the hand, or angry declaration that you will not debate some aspect of my detailed argument.
In many ways, it’s not possible to argue against someone who is simply unable to do much else than scream at how wrong everyone else.
At this point, I think the evidence of what and how you’re arguing is self evident and we can draw a hypothesis for it:
You are a white supremacist who has entered these forums under the fig leaf of wanting a discussion, whilst in reality you’re disingenuous structure, style and approach gives the appearance that you’re not here in good faith. The nature of the argument is constructed to preclude any decent argument, and is angled so that you can easily dismiss claims through straw man sniping, or exploiting the lack of common assumptions; or, simply rejecting complex, or difficult arguments out of hand for silly reasons.
When someone tries to engage with structured argument that isn’t as you want it to be, as you are used to arguing in a bad faith structure, rather than constructing logical counters - You are unable to defend yourself and are forced to resort to clearly Disingenuous non engagement; whilst desperately trying to move the conversation back to the type of simple assumption baiting that is simpler and easier.
This bad faith, disingenuous behaviour on your part, which I’m sure will continue - is exactly why we can only begin with discussing lower level assumption, hypothesis to gain a broad agreement of what is possible, before we do anything more.
I’ve provided an argument for you to engage with. You still refuse to engage.
Instead - you falsely assert that discussing a hypothesis of how reality is, is an invalid way to discuss how reality is.
I’ve walked you through exactly discussion on the validity of a hypothesis is a wholly valid approach. You’ve ignored it.
I’ve walked you through how a discussion on facts and data - without agreement on the underlying assumptions cannot generate an intelligent discussion. You’ve ignored it.
To reiterate - a hypothesis about the real world - is taking about the real world. We are both talking about our own hypotheses; to unilaterally declare I am not allowed to present a counter hypothesis is clearly disingenuous.
In fact, far from being irrelevant: thought experiments, hypotheses, and hypothetical scenarios are absolutely critical to allow two people to explore the logic underpinning behind conclusions. Despite this being continually pointed out - you have yet to offer any argument to support it.
As well as reiterating the same argument I have already replied to - you further demonstrate exactly why we need to start at the bottom and work up: in reply to me questioning your assumption, you simply fire back what you think my entire hypothesis is; allowing an opponent to simply snipe at straw men; rather than argue. What you’re demanding appears targeted to enable disingenuous arguments.
Throughout this back and forward consisting of me constructing a logical argument and you ignoring or rejecting it - and demanding that you will only respond to specific forms of tightly constrained arguments, you have been declaring that I will not present facts - as pointed out, this is a straw man: as I am being straight forward that I will be presenting facts once we have a common basis of agreement. That you continue to peddle the strawman despite having been corrected is disingenuous. This is on top of you having also accused me of not wanting to argue. This is also clearly disingenuous.
I have explained that you appear to be a white supremacist; a point I have justified at length, you have ignored it; and instead have simply dismissed it.
I can even explain why is important: specifically labelling your beliefs and the premises of your world view - helps to frame the discussion in the context of those premises. It helps ascertain your inherent beliefs as they pertain to this topic rather than having to guess them.
Trying to engage in an argument whilst trying to hide or obfuscate the key premises and beliefs you hold is disingenuous in a discussion that is explicitly about some aspect of those beliefs.
The final aspect here; is that trolls, edge lords, nondescript antagonists and sh*tposters with extreme beliefs and are uninterested in real discussion often attempt to hide their true worldview, or beliefs in order to suck people into a debate without being explicitly clear about who they’re arguing with; or being on guard that the question or goal of the conversation maybe loaded.
As I explained, your beliefs make you a white supremacist: there is no reason or justification for you not to call me out and destroy my argument by demonstrating you are not through explaining what aspect of white supremacy you don’t ascribe too - I even gave you a simple way of showing it that would lead to retraction and an apology: and would even help me narrow down the premises of your worldview in order to help know in which direction to drive the argument.
Not defending yourself, and now simply dismissing the label with half hearted denials seems to confirm that you are a white supremacist.
Given that you are a white supremacist, this conversation is about a key aspect of white supremacy, and you won’t clarify whether you hold white supremacist premises that critical to framing this arguments leads me to conclude that your doing it to maintain a facade that these threads are being made in good faith. This would be disingenuous.
In between all this - you’ve called me a shitlib, engages in broad sweeping generalizations of what I am and what I believe; suggested I hate white people with absolutely no supporting argument.
To then declare you won’t engage in an Ad Hom Labelling - which is clearly not what I’m doing is disingenuous.
Indeed, continuing to assert that I am engaging in Ad-Homs despite having corrected you in what they are and how they work multiple times; and simply repeat the claim is also disingenuous.
A key element of free form debate is that both sides must accept the premise that you present logical justification, and attack the other persons logical justification with your own.
The final nail in the coffin here - is that you seem to be systematically unable to do so. While you seem to object to this characterization, and suggest that I haven’t been able to demonstrate (I mean, how is it possible to show that you’re arguments do not contain something).
You’re having to resort to accusations, repeating the already refuted points, and outright denials to try and argue your point. All the way through here, you have simply skipped over points or logic with a wave of the hand, or angry declaration that you will not debate some aspect of my detailed argument.
In many ways, it’s not possible to argue against someone who is simply unable to do much else than scream at how wrong everyone else.
At this point, I think the evidence of what and how you’re arguing is self evident and we can draw a hypothesis for it:
You are a white supremacist who has entered these forums under the fig leaf of wanting a discussion, whilst in reality you’re disingenuous structure, style and approach gives the appearance that you’re not here in good faith. The nature of the argument is constructed to preclude any decent argument, and is angled so that you can easily dismiss claims through straw man sniping, or exploiting the lack of common assumptions; or, simply rejecting complex, or difficult arguments out of hand for silly reasons.
When someone tries to engage with structured argument that isn’t as you want it to be, as you are used to arguing in a bad faith structure, rather than constructing logical counters - You are unable to defend yourself and are forced to resort to clearly Disingenuous non engagement; whilst desperately trying to move the conversation back to the type of simple assumption baiting that is simpler and easier.
This bad faith, disingenuous behaviour on your part, which I’m sure will continue - is exactly why we can only begin with discussing lower level assumption, hypothesis to gain a broad agreement of what is possible, before we do anything more.
I will break down the simplest and best way for you to respond.
Take my claims; take what I’ve said and explain why they’re wrong.
Why shouldn’t we talk about hypotheses related to the real world? What about my description of how an argument would go without establishing a common set of assumptions invalid?
Why is my characterization of you being a white supremacist unfair or unreasonable - why is my justification unreasonable?
The continued lack of whys in all of your replies here is the reason I am more insistent that my approach is the only valid way to continue.
Created:
So, pick a link and discuss that
I did.
Specifically, I questioned the bias and whether the claims are reliable.
But if you want an argument: please look here
Created:
-->
@ethang5
So, pick a link and discuss that
I did.
Specifically, I questioned the bias and whether the claims are reliable.
But if you want an argument: please look here
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
For someone interested in a debate, you sure do have a fairly comprehensive list of all the things you refuse to discuss, and won’t debate. And for someone who is interested in debate and unwilling to talk about ad Homs and labels - you seem solely preoccupied with calling people names and labelling. The irony is not lost on me.
Likewise, you’ve again refused to justify anything you’ve said.
So let’s explain why this is necessary. Let’s take your post.
Broadly speaking, your post lists a set of facts that show that various inequalities of the justice system are derived from black behaviour - and as a result cannot be systematically racist.
Good starting point; the best place to start an intelligent discussion is by assuming everything your opponent says is true, and working back. So let’s do that:
Doing that reveals the assumption inherent in your post: which is that individual behaviour is fully isolated from the socioeconomic system - IE: that everything people do is a product of and solely Influenced by, inherent factors of them.
Your data and argument is meaningless if that assumption is false ; if the system itself is influencing behaviour of individuals through various socioeconomic pressures. Right?
IE: that if African Americans are more likely to be criminals - that is solely down to them, and is not influenced by other factors.
I don’t think that assumption is valid. And inherently, we have to get an agreement on that assumption before we even get to the data or analysis - because the conclusions of the data are inherently based upon it. Right?
So that’s the best approach: to come up with an argument that challenges the underlying assumption of your argument. Debate 101.
Hope you’re keeping up!
So how do I do that? Well, I could advance multiple socioeconomic theories, and ask you to debunk them one by one - but that would be long winded and require substantial effort and time for both of us.
The best use of time is to through our an alternate hypothesis: how socioeconomic factors can influence behaviours.
Rather than arguing in complete abstract, I can create a hypothesis about various socioeconomic policies and their impact - that could explain ALL that data with a different underlying assumption. Right?
That way, I can both challenge the assumption, provide an alternative assumption, and set up a framework for not only how all those things could be true with systemic racism, but also to set up a framework for providing evidence and justification about how it happened.
That’s a legitimate approach to challenging your assumptions, right?
So: I could alternatively, just throw our all my data - but that’s all based on my assumptions which I have not yet justified and we do not agree on. If you judge my data on other assumptions; there’s no ability to get anywhere. Right?
So in that case; the best approach is for me to try and convey my underlying hypothesis for how society has worked could explain the facts and invalidate your assumptions.
I can then ask you whether the hypothesis is reasonable, and we can go from there with a few to coming up with an appropriate agreed assumption upon which all the data can be assessed.
Sound like a plan? Okay. Cool. Perfect. Let’s do that:
Imagine, for a moment, a systemically racist system over a period of more than 100 years that puts policies in place to overtly criminalize, financially and politically disadvantage, and facilitate the social decohesion of a given race.
When those overt policies are taken away; you can replace them with policies and behaviours that maintain that criminalization, financially and politicial disadvantage, and the social de-cohesion; - identical effects on those races - and simply blame it on non race related things
Have you caused the loss of generational wealth in a race, tied schools to the local area, precipitated white flight? Will the cycle of poverty will keep that going?
Did you over police black neighbourhoods because you criminalize being black, and overtly criminalize drugs used by African Americans over those used by whites, and used it to precipitate a period of mass incarceration; that damaged the generational social fabric? Well now you don’t have to pretend that blacks are dangerous criminals; the poverty, lack of schools and break down of the social fabric of many cities - that one will keep taking care of itself too. Right?
I mean: if you overpolice where there is most crime, arrest innocent people in that area that fit a description, or fit a criminal profile, or police them in a way that is more likely to lead to a detection of a crime , force them to plea bargain because they’re poor; send them to prison, give them tough parole conditions that makes it hard to hold down regular inflexible jobs they could find as an ex-con once they leave; then throw the book at them if they then turn to crime, or violate parole; breaking up families, leading to social de-cohesion that then increases poor behaviour at school, and can increase criminality - you only have to do it for so long before you can say you’re only criminalizing them because they’re criminals - ignoring that the criminality is in part historically because they have been criminalized...
Likewise, you’ve again refused to justify anything you’ve said.
So let’s explain why this is necessary. Let’s take your post.
Broadly speaking, your post lists a set of facts that show that various inequalities of the justice system are derived from black behaviour - and as a result cannot be systematically racist.
Good starting point; the best place to start an intelligent discussion is by assuming everything your opponent says is true, and working back. So let’s do that:
Doing that reveals the assumption inherent in your post: which is that individual behaviour is fully isolated from the socioeconomic system - IE: that everything people do is a product of and solely Influenced by, inherent factors of them.
Your data and argument is meaningless if that assumption is false ; if the system itself is influencing behaviour of individuals through various socioeconomic pressures. Right?
IE: that if African Americans are more likely to be criminals - that is solely down to them, and is not influenced by other factors.
I don’t think that assumption is valid. And inherently, we have to get an agreement on that assumption before we even get to the data or analysis - because the conclusions of the data are inherently based upon it. Right?
So that’s the best approach: to come up with an argument that challenges the underlying assumption of your argument. Debate 101.
Hope you’re keeping up!
So how do I do that? Well, I could advance multiple socioeconomic theories, and ask you to debunk them one by one - but that would be long winded and require substantial effort and time for both of us.
The best use of time is to through our an alternate hypothesis: how socioeconomic factors can influence behaviours.
Rather than arguing in complete abstract, I can create a hypothesis about various socioeconomic policies and their impact - that could explain ALL that data with a different underlying assumption. Right?
That way, I can both challenge the assumption, provide an alternative assumption, and set up a framework for not only how all those things could be true with systemic racism, but also to set up a framework for providing evidence and justification about how it happened.
That’s a legitimate approach to challenging your assumptions, right?
So: I could alternatively, just throw our all my data - but that’s all based on my assumptions which I have not yet justified and we do not agree on. If you judge my data on other assumptions; there’s no ability to get anywhere. Right?
So in that case; the best approach is for me to try and convey my underlying hypothesis for how society has worked could explain the facts and invalidate your assumptions.
I can then ask you whether the hypothesis is reasonable, and we can go from there with a few to coming up with an appropriate agreed assumption upon which all the data can be assessed.
Sound like a plan? Okay. Cool. Perfect. Let’s do that:
Imagine, for a moment, a systemically racist system over a period of more than 100 years that puts policies in place to overtly criminalize, financially and politically disadvantage, and facilitate the social decohesion of a given race.
When those overt policies are taken away; you can replace them with policies and behaviours that maintain that criminalization, financially and politicial disadvantage, and the social de-cohesion; - identical effects on those races - and simply blame it on non race related things
Have you caused the loss of generational wealth in a race, tied schools to the local area, precipitated white flight? Will the cycle of poverty will keep that going?
Did you over police black neighbourhoods because you criminalize being black, and overtly criminalize drugs used by African Americans over those used by whites, and used it to precipitate a period of mass incarceration; that damaged the generational social fabric? Well now you don’t have to pretend that blacks are dangerous criminals; the poverty, lack of schools and break down of the social fabric of many cities - that one will keep taking care of itself too. Right?
I mean: if you overpolice where there is most crime, arrest innocent people in that area that fit a description, or fit a criminal profile, or police them in a way that is more likely to lead to a detection of a crime , force them to plea bargain because they’re poor; send them to prison, give them tough parole conditions that makes it hard to hold down regular inflexible jobs they could find as an ex-con once they leave; then throw the book at them if they then turn to crime, or violate parole; breaking up families, leading to social de-cohesion that then increases poor behaviour at school, and can increase criminality - you only have to do it for so long before you can say you’re only criminalizing them because they’re criminals - ignoring that the criminality is in part historically because they have been criminalized...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MonkeyKing
Ramshutus Razor.
I should not be able to think of a universe that is better than the one we live in - if we measure “best” in terms of Gods values and motivations.
If you postulate a God, what their values and motivations are, then if you can think of a universe that better meets those values and motivations than the one we are in, that God cannot exist.
Conversely, one can take the universe and determine in what way it appears optimal; and use that to determine motivations and values.
The first - no postulated God passes the razor.
The second - no postulated values for which the universe appears optimal are logically coherent with concepts of God.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
No. First, no one asked you to disprove them
You did:
Can nobody evaluate any of the arguments in the links and give a reasoned rebuttal?
Or pick a single link and say something about why you agree or disagree. Otherwise, why are you in this thread?
I did: I pointed out that the sources were biased and the claims could not inherently be relied upon.
Second, how do you know the articles are non-sensical if you didn't read them?
I’m not claiming they are nonsensical - I am claiming that one cannot assume their conclusions are reliable.
If I were to follow your standard, I would without discussion dismiss any liberal here quoting CNN, Huffpost, or MSNBC as offering nonsensical ridiculous sources. By coming to a debate website, you imply you at least intend to listen to viewpoints different than your own.
You do. Opinion offered by Huffpost, MSNBC is regularly rejected as “fake News“, or rejected as having liberal bias. And if someone only posts a link, I think that’s fair. It’s only when someone spends the time and effort to present an argument that yoi should be reasonable expected to debunk it.
Remember. Laziness and anti social. It appears you deliberately left that one out again!
I would, and I do. I tolerate loony liberal nonsense all the time for the sake of argument. If you will only engage political views that agree with your own, you're pretty much useless here.
The OP did not provide an argument to engage in: he engaged in a Gish gallop of claims; for which he provided no argument. In this respect there is nothing to engage with.
If your views are so right and those with different views are hopeless, why did you bother to post here? Go and do those things you think are much better. The rest of us wish to debate, and not just leftist Pollyanna topics either.
This wasn’t debate. Links were presented - I offered a comment on the authority on the link...
Are you saying that if someone offers a link as an argument, I cannot comment on that link?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Loudly and vehement protestations about how wrong I am are meaningless.
Please explain why you think what I am suggesting is wrong: that’s how an argument works.
I have explained In great detail why and how your demands are not reasonable in the posts above.
What is your objection? Why do you think I am unreasonable? On what grounds do you think your preferred demand is the right way to approach this?
I have explained - that a discussion without first setting our broad areas of agreement first is not possible: again, you have not offered any rational disagreement; you have not offered any argument.
I have explained why my labelling is valid, and how it is justified; and how it is not an Ad-Hom; as before, you have not defended your claims.
Indeed, you have protested and contested that you are a white supremacist: and I have offered a list of options for you to disagree with. Far from being irrelevant - if you are not a white supremacist - answering no to one of those questions would give me a specific baseline of agreement upon which we can frame a discussion: so it’s extremely relevant to the conversation.
Indeed - I have even offered you an apology and retraction - simply in return for you looking at one of those items and replying no. At this point therefore it is clear that the answers must necessarily all be yes.
In all your replies; you are yet to offer an argument in defense of your claims.
Indeed; these last half dozen pages of arguments have you been simply trying to avoid trying to offer an argument on anything: whilst oddly accusing me of doing the same. This smacks of projection.
It’s not possible to simply provide evidence and justify the existence of systemic racism if we can’t agree on what it is, how it could work, where it came from, the social principles that govern it and allow it to work. It’s just not possible. If you and I can’t agree on what I’m using my data to show, or that the principles it’s showing are valid, then there is no possible way we can discuss it.
Yet you are continuing to assert that this is how I must argue, and why it’s unreasonable for me to deviate. Again, no explanation of how or why that is the case.
Given that thus far you have been unable to defend your accusations and are not resorting to insults - as if calling me a “shitlib”, or for some bizarre reason suggesting that I hate where people, in lieu of having an explanation or justification - I strongly suspect that your demand to ONLY have an argument in an area in which there is no established agreement is deliberate:
It is very easy to discount or discard any data or argument when there Is no established agreement - and that’s often why people like you try and force the argument in that direction. Like the example I gave of flat earthers.
I think that’s likely your debate comfort zone - I mean, I have been giving you explanations, justifications and reasoning for everything I’m saying: you’re simply making accusations - you have not been giving the impression of someone who is able, or willing to defend what they’re saying.
This will absolutely be a sourced argument that proves systemic racism: but the data comes towards the end of that process - not at the beginning.
So; which is it to be: are you willing or able to defend your claims and accusations? Or will your reply be simply another set of claims and accusations?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
So let’s start at the beginning.
I label you a white supremacist because that’s what I think you are.
I defined it, showed how what you are arguing matches that definition, and gave you the opportunity to object by listing three possible questions that you could answer “no” to; that would demonstrate that you were not.
Indeed, I will absolutely retract that accusation, and apologize if you simply tell me which one of those things was a “no”.
If you spent as much time explaining why I was wrong, and why my reasoning is flawed as you did brazenly asserting that I am; perhaps we would get further.
If you’re not willing to defend yourself against the well reasoned accusation - I would suggest you stop objecting to it.
To continue: in the midst of you repeatedly telling me that I do not want to argue, that I have no interest in a discussion etc - I have come dozens of posts calmly and carefully explaining why you are wrong.
I am still patiently awaiting your response to my argument.
If you recall, we are where you are because you don’t want to argue with what I said. You’ve made a serious of objections, which I have explained are erroneous; and I have explained my justification and approach.
I am simply waiting for you to re-engage; as this far you have presented no valid reason that you are able to justify as to why what I presented was unreasonable.
In this respect I have provided the argument - however you are simply dancing around a set of nonsensical and unreasonable demands that you assert unilaterally without defending them; then accuse me of sophistry.
I am defending every claim, every point, and every single line I am stating here; in totality - whilst you are still reeling of a never ending swathe of assertions which you continually fail to support.
This has culminated in this post; which consists of a unending rant of accusations about what you feel I will do, what my motivations are, and accusations about my hatred of white people.
Nothing says “I have the intellectual high ground” more deeply than resorting to insults in response to a clear and concise argument as to why you should respond to the argument I made many posts ago.
I will repeat. I want to start with getting you agreement on the outline of the hypothesis: a broad description of what may or may not occur, how things could potentially happen, and an acceptance of the logic involved: that A may lead to B; so that I can thus show A, and the consequences B to confirm that part of hypothesis.
Without that agreement on process, you are free to object to A and B for whatever arbitrary reason you can think of, even though that objection may have no bearing - or may even be consistent with the hypothesis.
Or to give a more concrete example:
If I were arguing with a flat earther; I would not produce an image of a mountain with half its peak missing; it can be dismissed - “refraction can occur”, or “perspective can shift the position of mountains”, etc.
You start at the beginning and work up; you quantify refraction, quantify perspective, agree on a common set of principles and a common hypothesis, so that you can agree the conditions of refraction, the conditions of perspective so that when the image is shown - the flat earther has already agreed to the reasons the image is valid.
That’s the aim here, and that’s why I’m starting off with a simple, hypothetical question, that has a simple discussion that you seem to want to avoid; whilst going what feels like 20-30 posts asserting that it is instead I who is wanting to duck the argument.
I have a completely valid, logical and rational reason for taking the argument via a different route.
By all means; feel free to explain what part of my rationale you object to; if you can explain why you feel your approach is more likely to result in a rational debate; go ahead. Thus far all I seem to be reading is demands and assertions.
Your complete inability to offer a defence of anything you’re saying so far does not give me confidence It will be forthcoming.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
One cannot argue straight Trigonometry with a flat earther; one cannot argue Straight up bioinformatics with a Creationist, and one cannot argue Straight up Systemic Racism with a White Supremacist.
The only possible means of doing it, is by finding common points of agreement, logic and justification, then build up the proof from agreed blocks from first principles.
I have no doubt you are scared of such an open first principles argument - one does not launch into a forum argument about white supremacy without having a learned of objecting to contrary data - and such a deviation would leave you defenceless and simply dependent on your powers of reasoning to defend your position.
Given that you have not been able to argue with anything I have said; not to provide an argument to contest being labelled a white supremacist - seems to indicate that reasoning is either lacking, or unvalued.
The characterization that I want to show something is theoretically true, it means it is definitely true is a fairly ridiculous straw man
- which I have pointed out as faulty from the very start.
The remainder of your replies - consisting of repeated accusations, assertions and repeated demands that I do what you want; with no justification of how or why is the very reason that my approach is necessary; if an opponent is able and willing to so wildly mischaracterize such a basic argument; the steps must be kept small and simple; so as each step can be agreed before proceeding.
I am very sorry that you are not willing or able to defend what you say, or claim; I was hoping to have a constructive discussion.
Alas, it seems you have withered in the face of someone who is trying to justify themselves; dropping everything, and finally even finding assertions insufficient to maintain the facade that you have any attention of defending your claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
I have given a pretty detailed set of reasons why doing that is not actually that simple, why and how it’s unlikely to lead to a productive discussion, and how it’s unlikely to lead to any valid points or acceptance of anything.
Thus far you have been unable to offer any reasons as to why what I’m suggesting is unfair, unreasonable or invalid.
It appears given this that you have conceded the argument that what I’m suggesting is the best approach, and yours is not - but are still demanding to do the way you want.
If you’re not able to justify why I should argue the way you want, why should I?
In addition, you appear to have dropped all your other objections.
Am I right in assuming that you are conceding that my labelling is not an Ad-Hom, and is accurate?
I will assuming that given that you cannot simply chose which one of the three options I gave you is a “no” after having been pressed twice, my statements are correct and you’re conceding that what you’re advocating is white supremacy.
If you wish to object, instead of protestation, please refer back to one of the three questions and explain which you would answer no to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Ramhustu is trying to argue that America is inheritably bureaucratic and doesnt fall into the will of the people
What? Huh?
No.
I’m arguing that there must be some ultimate arbiter of laws legality; and that the constitution provides the power for this arbiters, and provides for their appointment through democratic means, with democratic processes of removal should their positions be abused.
The way the will of the people is followed; is through a representative federal republic that appoints judges based on democratically elected individuals.
I also believe I defended the constitutions reasoning - that such an arbiter must exist and your idea that things have to be expressly against the constitution is still clearly a usable; and that the person should In a position that they need not be forced into making popular decisions in order to keep their job - that’s for senators and the house.
In this respect - the judges having this much power was the intent.
As I said originally, the only time this becomes an issue is if one party tries to game the system and force through unqualified or overtly partisan judges, including through shenanigans; because that lends to a system that judges are definitely making bad decisions for political power,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
You are not building your arguments correctly.
On what basis have you concluded this? I have outlined exactly what my approach is. In what respect is it unreasonable, why is it unlikely to yield a valid answer.
Thus far I have offered up a pretty detailed justification for why what I said is valid and has value.
You do not seem to be doing anything more than simply telling me I’m wrong.
I am open to correction, if you think my way is wrong, please explain why and how.
Nobody but you cares about the 'principles we agree on', your "imagine" speeches or whether I'm a 'white supremacist' or not. These are objectively irrelevant and a waste of time in regards to systemic racism.
Actually - you should. In order to have a discussion one must agree on basic sets of facts and conditions, certain approaches of logic and in arguments like this, whether certain processes, effects, events, and conditions are valid.
In fact - it’s a central principle that we have to broadly agree on whether a hypothesis is valid before we can debate its evidence, no?
So indeed: EVERYONE who wants to engage in logical debate necessarily cares about the principles involved.
State your argument involving systemic racism, defend it with data/research/studies, and we'll go from there. That is how arguments are formed. Your Ad Hominem and red herring pivots are not worth engaging.
Firstly, at each stage I have justified my position; offered explanation and reasoning - only for you to loudly shout about how wrong I am.
Secondly - I have stated my argument - you are ignoring it.
This argument states particular real world conditions, and events that could create systemic Inequality with overtly racist laws for which can be replaced with non-racist laws to maintain that inequality.
If we can’t agree that it’s even theoretically possible, and can’t discuss how and what those processes may be, what they look like, and how significant they would need to be - how on earth can you be expected to process evidence that they exist?
Indeed, despite your denial, and assertions to the contrary; starting off by stating the hypothesis, figuring out its logic, processes etc, to determine how to falsify or validate it - there is no real basis or framework upon which both sides can agree upon the validity of the evidence.
Simply regurgitating the same demand to “show the evidence”; without agreement on a framework, a working hypothesis, is not a valid way of having an intelligent discussion; because there is simply too much to be challenged and defend.
Ground up breaks it down to a peace meal set of agreements, that allow a minimum set of evidence to be agreed, and a simple determination of whether it has been met to be found.
That’s why it is necessary; and the only reason one would object to it - was if you were not interested in a valid argument, but are relying on the vast breadth of the topic making it impossible to fully argue without derailing the thread.
Finally; I’m addressing all of your assertions. You have not really been making arguments, which require you to justify a position - but are simply stating what you think is true.
As a result; I don’t believe there is any argument for me to construct a red herring, Ad Hom, or pivot from.
Indeed, in assessing all your criticisms head on, in context without any omission or dismissal. That’s a valid argument.
You may object to my labelling you as a white supremacist - I have explained why, provided a justification of why it’s a valid assessment of your position; and is no more an Ad Hom, or Red Herring as is your use of “shitlib” in various threads
In my last reply, I have even gone so far as to offer you a very easy set of questions that would allow you to completely shut down my label - all you need to do is tell me which one of those questions you would answer no to.
Given that you object to me calling you a White Supremacist, and that you think it’s Incorrect - it would stand to reason that any normal person would happily say “no” to one of those questions, no?
That’s what an argument is - rather than simply throw out accusations, one must show that the accusation is true. I have done exactly that with my label; and feel it completely valid in a thread where you have repeatedly labelled people “shitlibs”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
You didn’t offer any justification: simply blurting our what you think is true, is not a valid way to have an argument.
Pointing out that they are no more justified than any random nonsense you want to pull from your a$$, is perfectly valid.
I mean, I can assert that it is not possible for a fully formed intelligent being, with will and super powers to simply exist without cause: and the demand that you have to demonstrate it’s possible by making such a thing occur, would not be reasonable, right?
Complexity can come from Simplicitly - we see it every day in nature with things like emergence. Simple genetic algorithms use simple processes to build up staggeringly optimized solutions by unguided duplicating and pruning.
Simple reinforcement processes can make a simple, stupid Neuron “learn“, connecting them together can make a them find patterns.
RNA can form And self assemble, self replicate naturally.
So I’m terms of your question going from nothing to a fully formed intelligence is many, many steps over a long, long period of time.
So far we can get from protons and elections, to stars, to planets, to chemistry.
We can get from planets and chemistry to simple self contained RNA in cells - if we have luck.
Self replicating RNA in Protocells, to more complex cellular machinery in 500m years is a bit unclear.
From single cells to multi-cells is known, from multi-cellular colonies, to small differentiation, and then to larger differentiation is not well understood; to basic multicellularity is simple - and from there to multiple types of animals is also simple - and from simple animals to all life, just needs evolution and evo-devo.
So breaking it down, not only explains why your demand is ridiculous - it also explains exactly why there are not that many vast and insurmountable gaps between the high energy protons At the Big Bang; and you and I talking about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Inanimate forces can't produce intelligent outcomes
Assertion; a false assertion as well.
Descent with modification, combined with selective pressure is one of the most successful and powerful optimizing function; and is emergent from very simple sub elements.
inanimate materials can't begin to build things into existence as if they had knowledge.
assertion.
That is ridiculous. It requires intelligence, mind and forethought to know and understand how to produce functioning and working results....a desired product.
assertion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
I’m attempting to engage in an argument with you, by starting off with a base hypothesis from which we can then build on a set of agreed principles.
I have explained in detail why I want to start this way, what my intent is; and how it is relevant. I’ve also explained why that approach is valid and why it is necessary.
If you wish to not engage in an argument or discussion - don’t pin the blame on me for not wanting to jump into throwing data without having firmly established a framework we both agree on.
It’s too easy to get nowhere.
Like I said; if your intent is to have an argument - I am offering you one - it’s just not the one you want, at a level you are comfortable with.
Likewise; you keep using the phrase Ad Hom. I would suggest you look up what it means, as none of the specific cases you have asserted were Ad Homs are; in fact attacking arguments as Ad Homs as way of dismissing them very much is.
Finally: If your intent is to reject without question a point I made, this is again your prerogative, but it is not an argument - but rhetoric.
White Supremacy is the belief that the white Race is superior to others, and their position of dominance over others is justified.
Your arguments firmly indicate that your position that the white race has some inherent superiority over others - by stating that the reasons that another race is disadvantaged is inherent in their race, and thus their position of dominance is justified.
By all means show me how I’m wrong:
- Do you believe that African Americans - as a racial group - have various traits specific to their race that account for all, of most the inequality we see in society?
- Do you Believe that the white race does not suffer from these same racial traits?
- Do you believe, then, that socioenomic inequality is therefore justified and not something that must be corrected?
If the answer to the above are all yes - which I believe they are; then the label “white supremacist” is valid.
Please tell me which of those points you disagree with?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Just stop with the fakery. He has not demanded that you accept anything. Where is your brain? Why do you need to accept their authority in order to evaluate their arguments? Can you not think for yourself?What does it matter who the man is if what he is saying is right or wrong? He is asking you to think for yourself. But obviously being out of the herd makes you uncomfortable.
I actually covered this in the part of the post you - miraculously, oddly, for some strange reason - did not quote. I will explain:
The OP did no work, made no effort and presented no argument.
He simply presented a set of links and asserted that they showed he was right.
That is presenting those links as authoritative; IE as the accepted reason he is right.
Making no effort to make an argument, and simply linking stuff someone else has said as an argument - then demanding someone else goes through line by line and debunk it is lazy and antisocial.
To make sure your aware - this is a debate website; and just posting a link saying it shows you’re right is not an argument - and in that respect - all that I need to do is give a good reason why the link may not show what is claimed to meet a reasonable burden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
To start with, you’re simply avoiding a discussion when the point, the logic and argument are not in a position where you feel comfortable to defend.
I am talking about real things, real scenarios, real situations in a given context.
The purpose of this, is to generate agreement of how things are, but to determine whether some specific chain of events, or collections of behaviours if specifically targeted can cause a particular thing to happen.
That’s not an esoteric, unreasonable or unfair argument strategy, but the premise of constructing a working hypothesis.
How am I to convince you that the facts support a given hypothesis without first getting you to accept the logical validity of the hypothesis?
Start at the bottom and work up.
People with extreme views who don’t wish to be challenged develop strategies of attacking facts directly: without a framework one can agree on - those sorts of conversations cannot go anywhere.
Given that, and giving you the benefit of the doubt that this is not your intent: I will well reiterate my request to review my hypothesis, and answer my question.
No lol.
You're just a slanderous anti-white shitlib intent on talking about hypotheticals rather than reality.
I am very willing to talk about reality: but we must first agree on shared common reality - which you can do via hypotheticals.
Secondly. : Correct me if I’m wrong - but on this website, almost all your posts present are aligned with a single position - including this one - that the reasons there are such significant inequality between races; is down to racial differences; and the inequality in outcomes is down to inherent racial inferiority; not systemic problems that cause racial inequality.
You have been arguing that systemic racism doesn’t exist. Race is real, and is responsible for much of that inequality as opposed to the system people live in causing racial inequality.
Believing the social and economic inequality of one race is justified, because whites have an inherent racial advantage - effectively that they are superior - is almost the exact definition of white supremacy. That definition is not changed by and is not predicated on whether someone thinks that position is justified or not.
Unless I have completely misunderstood your position - which I really don’t believe I have - calling you a white supremacist is not slanderous, but specifically describing your beliefs ; whether or not you like it.
It’s an accurate label, and no more unreasonable than you calling me a liberal, atheist, or British. That’s what I am and that is, again unless I have completely misunderstood everything you’ve said thus far, what you are.
All that remains is whether that position is defensible. And it seems that you’re unwilling to accept any specific challenge to your views that don’t fall into a specific subset that you are comfortable with.
That’s fine: not everyone wants to stray from their comfort zone: but I am very much going to press you to defending that position at every opportunity.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
Just to reiterate, you have posted a number of links as if they are authoritative. I have presented a number of key reasons why the authority you give to these link is not justified.
Thus far, you have given no reason why I should accept the authority, and in the absence of a good reason why I should accept these arguments as credible - there is no argument left for me to argue against: as you have made no other argument.
Your implicit demand that I must accept what these sources say, is therefore “shifting the burden of proof”.
You have offered no argument against this, and so I must presume you accept my argument.
As my argument is legitimately attacking the authority you give the links with valid reasons as to why one should not accept their authority - this cannot be considered an Ad-Hom; I am not suggesting that they are wrong because they are not credible or biased sources - I am suggesting that the authority you give these links is unfounded because of their lack of credibility and bias. That is clearly nor an Ad Hom.
Secondly, the implied demand you make that I should take a link for which you give no reason why I should accept, and then suggest that I should debunk the argument someone else has made; is not a fair demand.
It suggests laziness - in that you are unwilling to put the same time and effort into your post that you expect of others; and is anti-social as such an implicit expectation is not consistent with respecting the time the people you’re arguing with.
The purpose of this part of my post: is to explain why your demands are unfair, and why this should not be your expectation of others.
This is clearly not an Ad Hom - as the attack is wholly relevant to the point.
Remember, an Ad Hom is fallacious only when the attack is not relevant to the point, and is used as a substitute for an argument:
“You are wrong because you’re stupid”. Is an Ad Hom.
“You made an Ad Hom, you’re clearly wrong”. Is also, ironically, an Ad Hom.
In this respect, I find it ironic that you’ve ignored multiple key arguments from multiple people - and yet seem to be very quick to accuse those same people of not being willing to engage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i know that Ram thought that all answers about the origin of the universe, breaks down. while i agree, my only quibble with that, is that i think we can have some potential answers to origins that makes more sense than others.... and the common atheistic answers make less sense, scientifically.
My general point is that our common understanding of how things work break down when applied to the universe and any deeper reality; so we shouldn’t try and use our understanding of how things work to try deduce how the universe works.
Causality, creation, cause or no cause all have critical errors showing science or our common understanding can’t be applied - so don’t bother.
The issue with Atheism vs Theism here; is that to account for the universe, they both have to make the exact same set of assumptions, with theism having to make more additional assumptions.
So at a metaphysical level - you and I both assume that it must be possible for *something* to exist without being caused.
Even an infinite regress; the *existence* of that regress must be possible without being caused.
We only differ as to what that something is.
You believe that at a metaphysical level; it is possible for a mind, an intelligence with will and thought, and that has power to shape and create and manipulate, and to bring about and interact with new planes of reality: to exist without cause or reason.
I believe that at a metaphysical level; it is possible for some form of reality to exist that operates by simple rules from which what we observe to be the universe is emergent.
In that respect, you and I differ only by the number of things we stack into our assumption: if you only assume the minimum number of things you can possibly imagine that would be necessary to explain what we see - it precludes God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Your "imagine" rhetorical device doesn't prove anything.
Well no: the argument but after does he work to set up my point; so far you’ve been kinda trying to avoid it.
Demonstrate using data, facts and research that systemic racism is real.If you can't do that (you haven't so far), you have no logical argument.
No no no. Right now - my intent isn’t to prove systemic racism exists - that would be you moving the goal posts.
As I’m debating a white supremacist with extreme views - we have to start at a point of common understanding and agreement: and from there we can build up.
Everyone has their own strategies for how to defend their beliefs from direct attacks; so you have to start at the bottom and work up.
So we’ve got to the point where you acknowledge that one race being in a position of economic, political and social dominance can and do pass laws that can be systemically racist.
I don’t think you would object to the statement that the US was definitely there in the past, right? I mean segregation, extrajudicial lynchings is pretty explicit, right?
From there, I’m setting up the premise here, that a group of explicitly racist laws that makes one race poorer, and creates a cycle of poverty and crime; can be replaced with non overtly racist laws that maintain that racial inequality by propagating that cycle of poverty and crime.
That’s the bit you’re stuck on right now.
I would like to hear what your reply is, because thus far you seem to be doing your best to try not having a discussion by evading the argument presented.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
You are posting links with no argument or justification presents them as if they are credible and authoritative on a matter.
I have given fairly detailed reasons to believe they are neither credible or authoritative - and cannot be accepted as credible.
Simply posting a link from some random source claim it is true; and then just demanding that everyone open the link, and accept its contents or disprove it - is not just shifting the burden of proof, it is also intellectually lazy and antisocial.
I mean, you are swanning into a forum, making a post that makes absolutely no intellectual effort, and spends absolutely no time throwing out a bunch of claims you’re making no attempt to justify - and then demanding that everyone spends time you are unwilling to spend yourself to disprove a bunch of arguments you didn’t even make.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Okay. Wow.
So, your post can be broken down into two real parts.
First, is the collection of unsupported assertions you make about the nature of the nature and properties of nature the universe and reality - specifically about some weird notion of “fixed reality” and that the universe is a backdrop where it’s not really clear what any of it really means.
You have no basis upon which to ground or support any of these ideas; and they are really no more than wild, unsupported speculation - building an argument upon them makes the argument unsupported too and thus needs no counter.
So yes - if I just wildly speculate a universe that has rules in which God is not necessary, I can use that speculation to “prove”, that God doesn’t exist - and that would be just as well supported as your own...
How can anyone counter unsupported speculation about the nature of metaphysics in a realm where we have no basis to draw any real conclusions or even to assess what is even possible?
In this respect - unless you can provide a logical argument to support this speculation - which I know you can’t - I’m not going to waste more time talking about it.
The second part, is where you tell me, based on this speculation that various temporal words such as before and after can make sense in that context. Your description is jumbled and rather incoherent. It’s not clear exactly what you’re talking about because you keep mixing in a bunch of temporal words into your vague assertions and so trying to disentangle time and lack therefore is near impossible.
It’s really the mother of all equivocation where before doesn’t mean before, but also does.
One key thing here, is that your reasoning for letting yourself use these temporal words and terms in the way you are when there is no time, is based on you asserting all this nonsense about the universe, together with reasoning that - having read what you said twice - still isn’t wholly clear.
For example, you can’t say there is a “before” the universe if the universe includes time - like north of the North Pole.
You don’t really explain why as far as I can see: you kinda handwave and point me to your assertions about how things work; which is unhelpful.
So let me restate this.
We have a bunch of temporal concepts upon which we build our understanding of the universe, and what is possible based on what we know happens and what we can observe. Things have a cause, things can exist, can be created, there are before, afters.
The way we use those words doesn’t apply to any physical reality in which there is no time in the same sense we experience it.
IE: if time starts at the Big Bang; there can be no before; if there is no before, then our idea of causation cannot apply:
How can something be created if it exists at all points of time?
How can something be caused if the cause doesn’t occur at any point in time?
Beginning is similar: the universe has a beggining in the same sense a film has a beginning; or the planet earth has a beginning.
There is a point you can get to in one dimension where you cannot go any further.
What is North of the North Pole, what do you see when you rewind before the start of a film, what is before the Big Bang.
The question itself is incoherent.
In this respect they have a “beginning” - a location that specifies the extent of a dimension.
However, that’s distinct from a causal, creative or bounding beginning - which is the point on a given dimension that frames the extent of a thing within that dimension.
Something cannot be created in the way we understand the word if there is no point in time in which it does not exist, right?
Likewise, how can you say something hasn’t always existed if there is no point in time where it did not exist. If something exists for all time - does that not imply it is eternal by definition?
You don’t answer those questions above: what you do is assert that the concepts definitely do make sense with hand waving, and reference back to your speculation. Neither of which is valid.
The bottom line is this: we can’t apply our notions of causality to the universe itself - because they don’t work any more.
We can’t draw any conclusions of his things because we have no basis or framework for making any determinations if those notions are invalid.
Sure - you can pull random speculation out of your a** and say it solves the problem, or define some sort of universe in which before and after can be redefined - but we have basis upon which to assess its validity.
If you try, any conclusions you draw from it is beginning the question, as the conclusion is based on the rules you have assumed without justification.
That’s the triumvirate.
The undistributed middle fallacy: where you set up an argument for a universal cause, then sneak in all other properties of God.
Special Pleading: when you set up your assumptions and assertions such that you have arbitrarily exempted God from a problem that exists for the universe.
Begging the question: when you make speculative assumptions about the universe that force the conclusion of God, but cannot be justified.
Theists make large, convoluted, multi-layered argument to obfuscate and obscure where the above fallacy lies in their argument.
So, your post can be broken down into two real parts.
First, is the collection of unsupported assertions you make about the nature of the nature and properties of nature the universe and reality - specifically about some weird notion of “fixed reality” and that the universe is a backdrop where it’s not really clear what any of it really means.
You have no basis upon which to ground or support any of these ideas; and they are really no more than wild, unsupported speculation - building an argument upon them makes the argument unsupported too and thus needs no counter.
So yes - if I just wildly speculate a universe that has rules in which God is not necessary, I can use that speculation to “prove”, that God doesn’t exist - and that would be just as well supported as your own...
How can anyone counter unsupported speculation about the nature of metaphysics in a realm where we have no basis to draw any real conclusions or even to assess what is even possible?
In this respect - unless you can provide a logical argument to support this speculation - which I know you can’t - I’m not going to waste more time talking about it.
The second part, is where you tell me, based on this speculation that various temporal words such as before and after can make sense in that context. Your description is jumbled and rather incoherent. It’s not clear exactly what you’re talking about because you keep mixing in a bunch of temporal words into your vague assertions and so trying to disentangle time and lack therefore is near impossible.
It’s really the mother of all equivocation where before doesn’t mean before, but also does.
One key thing here, is that your reasoning for letting yourself use these temporal words and terms in the way you are when there is no time, is based on you asserting all this nonsense about the universe, together with reasoning that - having read what you said twice - still isn’t wholly clear.
For example, you can’t say there is a “before” the universe if the universe includes time - like north of the North Pole.
You don’t really explain why as far as I can see: you kinda handwave and point me to your assertions about how things work; which is unhelpful.
So let me restate this.
We have a bunch of temporal concepts upon which we build our understanding of the universe, and what is possible based on what we know happens and what we can observe. Things have a cause, things can exist, can be created, there are before, afters.
The way we use those words doesn’t apply to any physical reality in which there is no time in the same sense we experience it.
IE: if time starts at the Big Bang; there can be no before; if there is no before, then our idea of causation cannot apply:
How can something be created if it exists at all points of time?
How can something be caused if the cause doesn’t occur at any point in time?
Beginning is similar: the universe has a beggining in the same sense a film has a beginning; or the planet earth has a beginning.
There is a point you can get to in one dimension where you cannot go any further.
What is North of the North Pole, what do you see when you rewind before the start of a film, what is before the Big Bang.
The question itself is incoherent.
In this respect they have a “beginning” - a location that specifies the extent of a dimension.
However, that’s distinct from a causal, creative or bounding beginning - which is the point on a given dimension that frames the extent of a thing within that dimension.
Something cannot be created in the way we understand the word if there is no point in time in which it does not exist, right?
Likewise, how can you say something hasn’t always existed if there is no point in time where it did not exist. If something exists for all time - does that not imply it is eternal by definition?
You don’t answer those questions above: what you do is assert that the concepts definitely do make sense with hand waving, and reference back to your speculation. Neither of which is valid.
The bottom line is this: we can’t apply our notions of causality to the universe itself - because they don’t work any more.
We can’t draw any conclusions of his things because we have no basis or framework for making any determinations if those notions are invalid.
Sure - you can pull random speculation out of your a** and say it solves the problem, or define some sort of universe in which before and after can be redefined - but we have basis upon which to assess its validity.
If you try, any conclusions you draw from it is beginning the question, as the conclusion is based on the rules you have assumed without justification.
That’s the triumvirate.
The undistributed middle fallacy: where you set up an argument for a universal cause, then sneak in all other properties of God.
Special Pleading: when you set up your assumptions and assertions such that you have arbitrarily exempted God from a problem that exists for the universe.
Begging the question: when you make speculative assumptions about the universe that force the conclusion of God, but cannot be justified.
Theists make large, convoluted, multi-layered argument to obfuscate and obscure where the above fallacy lies in their argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I have to summarize here, as it seems you have lost track of what is being argued.
1.) You listed the possible options, and suggested one of those options appeared most likely.
2.) I pointed out problems with the nature of temporal causality; and showed how a restated list more accurately shows the issues with our notions of causality.
Q1 Can you please explain what aspect of my restructuring you felt was illogical?
Q2 Can you explain how you account for the issues of temporal causation that I raised in your argument? This is a critical omission on your part.
3.) You challenge the definition of “causality” that I use.
Q3 It’s not clear how using either definition of causality - including the one you prefer invalidates any of the points I was making? Can you please refer back to my original post and explain why and how using a different definition causes my point to be invalid?
4.) I pointed out which of the definitions you use is irrelevant as my argument still stands - as the temporal aspects of causality is the specifically critical part.
I even quoted it again.
5.) you repeat the accusation.
You fail to show how the definitions apply to my argument.
(See Q2 and Q3)
6.) I address your claim by taking each definition in turn and showing how assuming that definition and using it to show how your original claim - and my original restatement still holds.
So all caught up!
Your response:
1.) You listed the possible options, and suggested one of those options appeared most likely.
2.) I pointed out problems with the nature of temporal causality; and showed how a restated list more accurately shows the issues with our notions of causality.
Q1 Can you please explain what aspect of my restructuring you felt was illogical?
Q2 Can you explain how you account for the issues of temporal causation that I raised in your argument? This is a critical omission on your part.
3.) You challenge the definition of “causality” that I use.
Q3 It’s not clear how using either definition of causality - including the one you prefer invalidates any of the points I was making? Can you please refer back to my original post and explain why and how using a different definition causes my point to be invalid?
4.) I pointed out which of the definitions you use is irrelevant as my argument still stands - as the temporal aspects of causality is the specifically critical part.
I even quoted it again.
5.) you repeat the accusation.
You fail to show how the definitions apply to my argument.
(See Q2 and Q3)
6.) I address your claim by taking each definition in turn and showing how assuming that definition and using it to show how your original claim - and my original restatement still holds.
So all caught up!
Your response:
“It matters because you are using a flawed definition of the Law of Causality”
“Please explain why a cause must have a cause.”
Huh, wut? I am not making that claim. Anywhere. In fact, if you had read my argument, it should be clear that this is the utter, complete, inside out opposite of what I am doing.
My argument explains the conditions where the word cause makes sense and can be applied, and where it does not. My first reply to you, and all other since expressly and explicitly point out that certain configurations of the universe cannot be considered to have a cause - because the word no longer has meaning.
Q4: can you please walk me through the logical process you used to determine that my argument assumed all things have a cause - when it’s central premise was to question whether certain things can be said to have a cause? I’m scratching my head.
Perhaps you are confused with my walk through. I simply took both definitions, and applies them to my argument:
For your information, I apply the first definition when I said:
“That something can exist without
....
So that’s one side of your definition.”
And the second definition when I said:
“Now, the final possible option is that the rules of causality do not require a cause to itself have a cause...”
Both definitions are right there in my previous post..
Q5: Can you please re-read my last post, and explain how you took it to mean I was assuming one definition, when the post was clearly and explicitly in two parts, and explicit about how I was assessing both definitions?
You also appear to object to me applying a given definition to you; which is weird, since I have done no such thing.
As I reject the central premise of your reply - that I am forcing a definition on you, there’s really no more to say - I have no need to defend an argument I’m not making.
As you appeared to have come of the rails - by diving into a side track and forgetting what we are talking about - I forced you back to my original point (you confuse this with circling back).
So as your argument is attacking an argument I’m not making; and as you still appear to be ignoring what I’m trying to argue: let me restate my point again.
Your original list is not appropriately constructed because time is central to discussions of cause; and you have to start from the point of determining the conditions where cause as we understand it makes sense. You can’t pepper your language with the word “cause” if you haven’t established the conditions in which the word makes sense.
IE: to have a beginning, to have a cause, to be caused, etc - in the way we understand the terms - requires time to exist.
That’s the central point I am making.
Q6: You have not raised any objection to this temporal aspect of causality any time I have raised it. It’s fair to presume that your repeated lack of objection indicates you accept it, right?
As a result, to ask whether the universe has a cause or was created; one must separate configurations where those words have meaning and where it doesn’t.
IE: does the universe exist at all points of time, or not.
If it does - discussion of cause, or creation, etc, is meaningless because it’s not possible to have the cause preceding effect with no time reference.
That applies equally to both of your definitions of causality; so my argument remains valid in both cases. Indeed, I have been explicitly using examples of the universe having a cause and not having a cause.
Q7: Why on earth did you ask whether my definition of causality requires everything to have a cause in an argument where I am using examples of things having a cause or not?
Q8: How on earth do you feel it’s valid to accuse me of assuming all things have a cause, when the core of my argument is explicitly about explaining the conditions where a thing cannot have a cause? Are you reading my argument?
This is what I don’t get, it’s like you didn’t actually read it: and you simply found some part you could object to; and ignored whether the objection was relevant at all.
The upshot of my point: is that time itself cannot be caused in any way we understand the word without violating our understanding of causality: that a cause and effect must be temporally related.
Q9: do you object to this point? That time cannot be caused in any way we understand it? What is your objection? You’ve ignored this when I have pointed this out.
So we are left with two options: that universe (the root physical reality in which time is manifest) wither wasn’t caused, or our concept causality breaks down.
Or in other words: I am not assuming all things have a cause or not - I don’t know - each is a possible solution from argument. Hence why demanding that I say which I have been choosing is kinda weird.
So in your list; plugging that into your list we get.
The universe(the root physical reality in which time is manifest) is eternal: time wasn’t created and is infinite or time wasn’t created and is finite.
Time
The universe came from nothing/caused itself: this is either functionally the same as above; or is not a coherent option because our notions causality break down.
The universe was caused by something else: this is not a coherent option because our notions of causality break down.
This leads me back to my original conclusion. You suggest the first is more reasonable, but that’s clearly nonsense; because what you are describing is inherently incoherent.
Now, here’s the fundamental thing: we are left with 3 possible options from the above:
Everything has a cause: (first definition)
Some things don’t need a cause: (second definition)
We don’t understand causality, and our notion of cause doesn’t apply to the universe.
I have no clue which it is: though My personal preference is the latter - I have no basis in which to declare our notions of causality is universal even though that seems to be the basis for all theists in this thread.
Your original conclusion - that the universe must have been caused by something, however, is equally invalid in all three possibilities. (Can’t need to be caused if wasn’t caused, can’t need to be caused if doesn’t need a cause, can’t need to be caused if the nature of causation is invalid)
Q10: given this is time #3 explaining why your list and conclusion is faulty, and how, which part of my reasoning do you object to and why?
As you appeared to have come of the rails - by diving into a side track and forgetting what we are talking about - I forced you back to my original point (you confuse this with circling back).
So as your argument is attacking an argument I’m not making; and as you still appear to be ignoring what I’m trying to argue: let me restate my point again.
Your original list is not appropriately constructed because time is central to discussions of cause; and you have to start from the point of determining the conditions where cause as we understand it makes sense. You can’t pepper your language with the word “cause” if you haven’t established the conditions in which the word makes sense.
IE: to have a beginning, to have a cause, to be caused, etc - in the way we understand the terms - requires time to exist.
That’s the central point I am making.
Q6: You have not raised any objection to this temporal aspect of causality any time I have raised it. It’s fair to presume that your repeated lack of objection indicates you accept it, right?
As a result, to ask whether the universe has a cause or was created; one must separate configurations where those words have meaning and where it doesn’t.
IE: does the universe exist at all points of time, or not.
If it does - discussion of cause, or creation, etc, is meaningless because it’s not possible to have the cause preceding effect with no time reference.
That applies equally to both of your definitions of causality; so my argument remains valid in both cases. Indeed, I have been explicitly using examples of the universe having a cause and not having a cause.
Q7: Why on earth did you ask whether my definition of causality requires everything to have a cause in an argument where I am using examples of things having a cause or not?
Q8: How on earth do you feel it’s valid to accuse me of assuming all things have a cause, when the core of my argument is explicitly about explaining the conditions where a thing cannot have a cause? Are you reading my argument?
This is what I don’t get, it’s like you didn’t actually read it: and you simply found some part you could object to; and ignored whether the objection was relevant at all.
The upshot of my point: is that time itself cannot be caused in any way we understand the word without violating our understanding of causality: that a cause and effect must be temporally related.
Q9: do you object to this point? That time cannot be caused in any way we understand it? What is your objection? You’ve ignored this when I have pointed this out.
So we are left with two options: that universe (the root physical reality in which time is manifest) wither wasn’t caused, or our concept causality breaks down.
Or in other words: I am not assuming all things have a cause or not - I don’t know - each is a possible solution from argument. Hence why demanding that I say which I have been choosing is kinda weird.
So in your list; plugging that into your list we get.
The universe(the root physical reality in which time is manifest) is eternal: time wasn’t created and is infinite or time wasn’t created and is finite.
Time
The universe came from nothing/caused itself: this is either functionally the same as above; or is not a coherent option because our notions causality break down.
The universe was caused by something else: this is not a coherent option because our notions of causality break down.
This leads me back to my original conclusion. You suggest the first is more reasonable, but that’s clearly nonsense; because what you are describing is inherently incoherent.
Now, here’s the fundamental thing: we are left with 3 possible options from the above:
Everything has a cause: (first definition)
Some things don’t need a cause: (second definition)
We don’t understand causality, and our notion of cause doesn’t apply to the universe.
I have no clue which it is: though My personal preference is the latter - I have no basis in which to declare our notions of causality is universal even though that seems to be the basis for all theists in this thread.
Your original conclusion - that the universe must have been caused by something, however, is equally invalid in all three possibilities. (Can’t need to be caused if wasn’t caused, can’t need to be caused if doesn’t need a cause, can’t need to be caused if the nature of causation is invalid)
Q10: given this is time #3 explaining why your list and conclusion is faulty, and how, which part of my reasoning do you object to and why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I objected to the assumptions, and have reasons why they cannot be assumed.
I didn’t chance any assumptions.
I was boxed in because the assumptions were deliberately engineered to manufacture God as an answer, with the assumptions themselves are completely unjustified.
In a round about way, I am pointing out that you all are begging the question...
Created: