Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Well... I definitely wouldn't call myself a man, but thanks. I just prefer the classic pizza, pepperoni, that's all you need. No need to complicate the formula
Created:
Posted in:
I have no idea if anyone cares to ask anything, but in the case, people are curious about me, ask me anything.
Created:
I'm not sure if this was based on some other conversation, but I'll put my two cents in, I don't know.
Fundamentally - Trump was impeached, not fully, but he was at least voted to be impeached by the house.
Democrats still control the house (at least so far), so if something like happens again, and most everyone just votes on partisan lines again, even if they try it probably wouldn't work. Also, unlike with Trump, there are very few perceived issues one could have with Biden (unless he does something stupid, which isn't impossible), where with Trump, almost everything he did was controversial or debatable.
TLDR: I'm not sure, if they try they have less ammunition, and probably won't get as far as the democrats did with Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
It's been called, if these reports are true, Joseph Biden will be the 46th president of the United States of America.
There has been much discussion even here, what will the Democrats do now that they have the office? Was the election a fraud and should the Republicans take it to court? Will it be exactly how it was 4 years ago? So many questions and no solid answers, I can't hope to provide those answers, but I ask one that's a little more topical and broad. What happens next?
What happens next for America?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You are confusing perceived fact with fact, they aren't synonymous.
Created:
-->
@seldiora
I said legally, and I never said this was objectively the case, also notice: Human Rights, as in referring to humans, I don't think human rights are objective, but if you presume human rights as we did in that debate, we could make objective claims of who would get them.
Created:
-->
@seldiora
Perhaps, I personally don't buy objective morality at all, as I'm sure you're aware. So I find the entire discussion kind of useless, with regards to their necessarily being an agent anyways.
Created:
-->
@seldiora
I could care less what "Roy" thinks is self-evident - that is a huge claim, then what he must prove is simple shifted, why is it self evident? 60 seconds equaling one minute is by virtue of the definition of one minute, 60 seconds, the same is not true for objective morality. It is not true by its definition. You must now prove why this standard is self-evident, shifting the BoP is fallacious, as it still falls on the one who made the claim.
Created:
-->
@seldiora
You might be confusing "objective moral system" which does not exist, with objective right and wrong.
In order for there to be objective right and wrong, there must be a standard to base those on. Without one, there is no objective reason to prefer those rights and wrong. They are unproved essentially.
On the other hand, we have consistently valued ourselves and our own society with no exception, observing the human universal objective morality.
That isn't objective, that is presumptuous and fallacious, it does not matter if humans have valued the same thing forever, that does not equate to an objective moral standard. I would recommend actually parsing a claim before using it as a proposition.
humans need to exist to have human objective moral ideals.
Human objective morals - Applying objective to any species, isn't objective, its presumes an axiom where humans objectively matter, which has not been demonstrated.
We are merely here to observe our own transcendental moral objectives.
This is claim twofold - that humans exist for any particular reason, and that moral objectives are transcendental - both need to be demonstrated.
Praying mantis eat their own kind after mating, making cannibalism objectively permissible within the realm of mantis objective morality
No, this presumes that mantis's objectively matter, which has not been demonstrated.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
@seldiora
A. Intuition.P1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.P2: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously.C1: Morality is objective.
Seldiora messed up here whenever they only objected to MisterChris's second premise though his first premise is cleverly disguised as something that seems apparent, the use of the word, well, use is what unwraps it.
Let's take a closer look at premise 1 to illustrate what I'm talking about.
If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.
If morality is objective
Notice that the premise starts with an If, emulating the popular If x, then y, style of deductive reasoning, a conditional statement to simplify for the general public. Essentially, this is true IF and ONLY IF the next phrase can be demonstrated true.
then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.
A couple of things, first of all, use? Why use? It is a non-sequitur to conclude that because one uses an objective moral standard that there is one. Why is this the case? Its essentially conflating what the use of a thing is and the actual objective claim of the standard. Everyone could be using the same standard and be wrong. We have seen occurrence after the occurrence of this happening throughout history.
For example; Everyone believed the earth to be flat at one point, yet does this mean that the earth is necessarily flat? Essentially this is a fancy version of an appeal to populism, and this premise leads to a syllogism which is not valid. MisterChris is presuming that use of x and x's objective correctness are the same, when in fact they are not and MisterChris does not demonstrate that they are.
This is not to say that MisterChris's second premise is true either, let's investigate it as well:
All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously.
All humans use and appeal to this standard..
This demonstrates why we should not use intuitive arguments to present their case, as they are often flawed, or presumptuous in some regard. Saying that every single human use one standard is a massive burden, and a single example would demonstrate this premise wrong, but if we were to continue, looking at the aside..
if only subconsciously
Not only is this presumptuous, but if a human mind is what appeals to this standard, and this standard is objective because humans use it, then definitionally it can not be objective. As objective is something which is true independent of a mind.
Therefore this conclusion
Morality is objective
Is rendered bunk, neither valid nor sound, as well as heavily fallacious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Why would an all loving and all powerful Being create pediatric cancer?
This is a fair thing to point out, though usually not very convincing towards actual believers. Here's why
Fundamentally - Most theists believe that the blame of sin is on humans, and particularly people who believe that "Man partook of the fruit" and all that. Even though it doesn't logically follow that:
p1: God created everything
p2: Suffering is a part of everything
Con: Therefore humans caused suffering?
Obviously, the conclusion of humans should be replaced by god, often indoctrination is so deep, and against the idea that it seems an absurd notion to blame god for anything bad, much less suffering itself
Of course, the theists could always interject: "But god told the humans to not eat of the tree to avoid suffering!"
I would respond with the fact that god made the tree in the first place and that she decided the punishment for eating of said tree. But again the theist will usually not be convinced, insisting that it was all man's fault.
I would agree that an all-benevolent god wouldn't cause cancer, and the only arguments in favor of such a position are either non-sequiturs or appeals to ignorance.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
I suppose he's starting to lean left more than other presidents, I just don't understand how his boiled down medicare could be such a big issue. He's just saying, as a base standard, everyone gets medicare. In fact, he's even arguing that private healthcare is still something he very much supports (a very not socialist position). I guess my point is that he leans left more than your average democrat. So what?
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
I wouldn't say in most cases it wouldn't be a negative thing, in fact, I don't think the Overton Window should be shifted left or right, just plain in the middle. It's the concept that, because the Overton is shifted to one side, the other side is compared to the worst examples of that spectrum. I.e, the comparing of Biden to a socialist..... Biden? A socialist? The socialist would be insulted. In fact, even calling Bernie a socialist is a very big stretch, and no socialist would accept the man as one.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Fair enough, but my main point was that Biden isn't that controversial of a figure, at least he wouldn't be without Trump and his followers. His age is literally what Trump points out as his major flaw, ignoring the fact that physicians have actually said that Trump fits the signs of a dementia case, when Trump is only 3 years younger. Yet Americans only ever so slightly voted Trump out (or so it seems), by the barest of margins.
That scares me. If it's only this close of a call, then that says that democrats really need to step it up and do something about their case of apparent laziness. One good note, is that during the debates, Biden admitted he made mistakes, which is already a category that makes him better than Trump, so just maybe something will be changed? I don't know, at this point we can only do our best to shift the voting in favor of what needs to happen.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Well, that difference is in what framework we're viewing the political spectrum. The Overton Window in America is shifted dramatically to the right, where those in Europe are just standardly to the left or barely leaning to that side of the spectrum, are considered radically left or Marxists or Communists in America. Essentially, I'm not really viewing it through the Overton Window of America, at least not your typical one.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
@HistoryBuff
As a pretty left democrat, I very much disagree that Biden was a strong candidate, and agree that yes the democrats are learning the wrong lesson here. Biden is actually a pretty electable candidate (or he would have been in pretty much any other election), he's really not that left-winged, in fact, I wish he was more to the left. He's nearly a center politician, and while he went a little more to the left with some of his policies most of them are still pretty moderate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Scientific theories are a consensus of facts, this has been the case for decades, I can even get you the definition: "a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses, and facts."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
I see the argument you are implying to make here:
p1: god is maximally great
p2: Something which exists is greater than something that does not
Con: Therefore god exists
Or the Ontological argument for the existence of god.
There are the obvious reductio ad absurdum that one can employ such an argument:
p1: There is an island where chickens have taken over
p2: This island is maximally great
p2: Something which exists is greater than something that does not
Con: Therefore this island exists
The problem being the labeling of a maximally great being. Why does your god deserve this label? What demonstrates your god as maximally great? Even the other three things are philosophically contradictory (An all-powerful creator who can create anything, can that creator create a rock they can't move, etc, etc)
A god that is maximally great is not in the standard definition of the word, thus you have the burden to prove this.
As I am unconvinced of your claim which god exists, I do not believe in god, as one should hold their belief where the evidence lies, and therefore do not believe in god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
The fundamental problems with some incest is consent
As you know a large and very important part of any romantic or sexual relationship is consent, it is a necessary concept that both parties must freely give. Due to the inherent power dynamic between parents and child, consent not influenced by the parent is impossible to accurately determine, therefore one ought not commit it.
"That's only some of them though!" You might interject, "What about cousins and other cousins, there isn't a power dynamic at all!"
I'm actually not sure, besides the obvious genetic problems with children produced from inbreeding, of course, relationships aren't maintained just to sire children. So I'm not sure for those parts, not that I'm gonna make the claim without evidence.
So, some incest is, some incest isn't, at least according to what I know currently
Created:
-->
@seldiora
You've said it yourself Seldiora, we haven't seen Ragnar debate anyone "competent" therefore coming to any conclusions on it isn't warranted. However, based on his votes, and analysis alone, I would easily put him top 10 if not top 5 here. I agree with RMM that he has a very in-depth knowledge of how the actual interworkings of a debate work. Now, could he be less skilled than his analysis suggests? Yes, but typically how well you can analyze and break down arguments is a good indicator of a skilled debater. For that reason, I would put Ragnar within the ranks of Whiteflame, Oromagi, Misterchris, Danielle, and all of those debaters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You have to show me that I should accept that definition - which is made not of philosophic grounds, but of usage by a particular theology, and is therefore a claim one must demonstrate.
Bunk
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Just kind of a preface before I spend a while on responding, lol, is that first of all: Thank you for your compliments, very kind of you. Second of all: I am glad you decided to respond at all, I remember being distinctly disappointed that you wouldn't respond. So I'm pretty happy you decided to, thank you. :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Even if I were to accept the definition - you would have to prove any god would actually be the ultimate reality - don't try to shift something to where it's not, as the one making the claim you must demonstrate it with evidence, not the opposite
bunk
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Fool according to your definition, if I was feeling I could easily deflect it back at you, however, I don't think I'll do that, instead, I'll just end this convo here. You have failed and refused to answer my question, failed to meet my criticisms, failed to counter my rebukes and refutations, and are generally being fallacious.
If one wants proof for these claims essentially:
READ THE TOPIC
No really, after a while, Mopac just starts dismissing my arguments without valid criticism (sometimes none at all), so.... yeah, I feel like this conversation isn't getting anywhere, and is going in circles and circles. If you have a new argument perhaps that would interesting to bring up, but... right now, it seems like the same repetition of the same fallacious position.
Created:
Posted in:
No one's posted here for ages, but yes refugee from DDO as Intelligence can attest
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I'll be trying to implement it into my style of debating, which hasn't actually been solidified quite yet, I'm still trying to find a good format that's concise and comprehensive enough to work. I guess my style is being flexible? Idk, but the link (warrant) to the impact refutation actually helped me reframe a refutation I made in my debate against RationalMadman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I remember briefly going over these sorts of things while I was studying for Cross-X, but these paraphrased and easier to understand versions were very helpful references!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
None of this actually addresses my point, add in straw man and gish gallop to the list of fallacies you employ
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What you don't understand, is that we do not have an example of a god that behaves as an "ultimate reality" all examples of gods we have fall short of this definition, therefore regardless if certain regions (because no, this was not hos every singe religion defined god historically) may have defined it this way, you are redefining the word. And yes you are perfectly capable of understanding if you don't, in fact, you understand better
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Not only do you demonstrate exactly none of your positions, but you misunderstand mine once again. I believe in NO gods. Any god which fit the proper definition of god is one I do not believe in.
The point where we disagree with is how we should define god and how we should apply said god to that demonstration. If you give me valid reasons to accept your god as the ultimate reality, then I will become a theist.
So please, if you care about my salvation answer this question: Why should I apply "Ultimate Reality" or "Supreme Being" to the concept of god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Explain my lack of education then, go on, I'll wait. If a proposition is true, one should be able to demonstrate it using deductive, inductive, or abductive reasoning. You have done none of the above. Before you commit a category error, how about you be capable of actually backing up your position. As so far - you have been nothing but dismissive and flawed in your reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
It's a very interesting one, I like it, good job!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But it is presumptuous to ascribe god that quality - which is typically, definitionally, culturally, and factually not the ultimate reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So... you're presuming your god exists then? Again, presuming your conclusion in your premises, begging the question, this entire argument of yours could be summed up with: False definitions and Begging the question
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No.. I don't know everything, but you don't know that a god exists either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No, not reall, if what you mean by god is "ultimate reality", then she can not be the god of the bible, or anything more than a pantheist's sort of god, if you are implying that god is simply definitionally axiomatic, you are both inccorect and logically flawed in your thought process.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What would I consider proof that the god you referring to is the ultimate reality? Hmm, an interesting question, I suppose some direct link between the two that was stronger than a definition. (A definition which isn't even how you interpret it, and there are better ones), the definition argument is so flimsy, and if you're claiming that your link is theology then you are on even more flimsy grounds. At least the dictionaries have some degree of authority, if religion or some theology claims that god is the ultimate so and so, then that is really nothing more than an assertion. Which would mean they would have to demonstrate it.
Basically - why is god the ultimate reality? What's your thought process there? Is there a thought process, or are you simply presuming that god is the ultimate reality because you misinterpreted a definition and theology told you so?
Could I give you specific things that would demonstrate god? No, not really, I wouldn't know precisely what kind of evidence would convince me, but I know if this theoretical evidence is logically sound and valid, I will accept it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
This is the problem. You are a theist. Your conception of god is foundationally superstitious.
When I say the objective reality, I am talking about reality as it truly is. The absolute truth. There is no doubt concerning this reality.
The problem with your reasoning, which is also the same problem that Tradesecret has with his reasoning, is that you both take God as an axiom
God is not an axion that you presume, rather, god would be a conclusion one must demonstrate through deductive reasoning
Certainly, you could use faith to assume that there is god, but the fact of the matter is you shouldn't need faith.
The existence of God has not been proven. There is no valid argument in favor of her existence. All your arguments are contingent on making god something other than what she is, namely the truth.
IF you make god something equivalent to the truth, you aren't really talking about god.
And the problem with tradesecret, in particular, is that he doesn't want me to demonstrate the existence of this god either. Rather they want to argue over rather she's axiomatic or not.
The obvious truth of the matter is that if the theist validly demonstrated god, the atheist would accept it, the ignorance of your worldview should become glaringly obvious now. That being the case, you need to ignore all reason and ignore every point to appear strong
Your understanding of god is wrong and unproven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
For this first reponse - I am going to present your arguments back at what I believe to be the most charitably interpreted - this is to steel man your arguments so to speak and ensure I know precisely what I'm arguing against.
Again, this is not a rebuttal, just seeing if these are what you mean, (Note: when I say, "therefore god", I mean "therefore god is most reasonable to believe in")
1. Unexplainable Phenomena
But the fact is that science has managed to gather together reliable laws and ideas of the universe (such as speed constant of light, force of gravity). As such, people name this as part of "God"'s design. That is why "God" (supreme being who may or may not follow laws of physics on his or her whim) may be reasonable to believe in.
Essentially: There are consistent/reliable laws of the universe, these laws can be attributed as god's design, therefore god.
2. Power of the mind
I think it is due to the fact that nature and culture cannot be controlled by yourself. So constantly believing in yourself, but failing to achieve goals, can be a downer, especially since you don't know everything (unlike the "God"). As such, we attribute our excellent mind to have a superior creator above it, such that we can excuse ourselves, place hope in the hands of fate.
Essentially: We cannot control the wider society at large, this can be psychologically distressing, if there was a god she could handle this control allowing us to relax, therefore god
3. Innocent until proven guilty
The external motivation is arguably more powerful than the internal motivation system, and so the leap of faith allows the person to do their duty as a human, without having to debate over various moral systems, and simplify it to lack of crimes and being sinless. The forgiveness and interaction with people that Jesus gives is an inspirational attitude that highly resonates with the idea of believing people are innocent, until evidence is placed.
Essentially: That god can motivate humans to be good humans, this works more effectively than contesting other moral systems, therefore god.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Thanks for the response, lets dig into this shall we?
i disagree with your reasoning and therefore your conclusion. It stands to reason that in a system created by God that everything per se would be evidence for God's reality. It also stands to reason in a system without God, that there could be no evidence for God's existence. The former is a truism just as the latter is. The difficulty with this of course is that no matter what the reality is - the theist is convinced by all of reality and the atheist is convinced there is no evidence. Hence - both are either lying to themselves, deluded, or unwilling to examine the evidence properly - and that means without prejudice.
Except for the problem here is, you would still be assuming something, that god exists or does not exist. Whenever you look at a piece of evidence, you disregard all bias, essentially, whenever I look at a piece of evidence, I am a hard agnostic, and I look at the validity of the evidence that is being presented not rely on some former bias. Essentially I do not presume their is no god, I take the default position that the position with the least amount of assumptions is preferable to the one with more of them. As the evidence i have regarded thus far speaks, there is no valid reason to believe in a god.
I am literally doing what you are saying - to look at the evidence without prejudice, or at least as much as I aware of - I can grant a point for the sake of argument, I can disregard my position if evidence indicative of a god comes forth. My point is - no - just because I do not believe there is a god, that does not mean there is no evidence for a god, simply that I have found none which is compelling to explain a god. There could be, and I have admitted as such, but before I change my mind and take on the mantel of a theist, I would have to actually been presented that evidence.
I am not assuming a conclusion within my premise. That is not true. It also has nothing to do with the burden of proof. I think the burden of proof by the way is with the atheist, not with the theist. The question is not about God - it is about reality. And what explains it better. If it were about God per se - then perhaps an argument might be made - although personally I think the argument is thin.You can only assume a piece of evidence from the position you are in. And if you commence a question by asking if God exists, it implies implicitly that God does not exist. That is where a conclusion is found within its premises. The issue of God is not about questions - it is about axioms.
I find your conclusion very faulty, a non sequitur if you will, no asking if a god does not imply there is none. It simply means, I have no reason thus far to believe there is one, therefore I am asking you (someone who believes there is a god) if there is any evidence proving the proposition. Anyways to get back to the beginning of this response - yes - in fact if what I believe you are saying is what you think, you are exactly saying this. You claim god is axiomatic, therefore a presupposition (or a true statement simply to be accepted), then you are actually exactly presuming your conclusion - that god exists - in your premise - that god is axiomatic.
Even if the argument what is the inherent axiom - you would have to demonstrate that god true, and therefore to be considered an axiom. Also, the burden of proof would be with the one making the assertion, all I would be asking would be for you to demonstrate god, not the other way around. If a god were to exist, she would be an incredible being, and therefore arguing for her existence would require incredible, extraordinary some might say, evidence. As the level of the claim suggests, I am unconvinced of that claim and am therefore an atheist. Not to say I don't have arguments against the existence of a god, just to say I don't need to present them unless I claim it.
I have an axiomatic position on God. This is by its very nature a circular argument. It is the same as an axiomatic position on logic or reason. Reason or logic can be proved logically - but it would also assume an axiom that logic is logically. Every person in the world has an axiomatic position. We all start at different places. Yet we all fall back to our axioms.
This is most certainly not incorrect, but it is implying something false, the indirect comparison of concluding god an axiom and concluding logic an axiom. Without logic, you could not even reach the position that logic was faulty in the first place, something similar would have to be demonstrated of a god, you would have to prove the axiom-aticy of the god so to speak.
It means little to me as I don't believe in the god that the atheist does not believe in. This logically probably makes me an atheist and yet it would not be true. Think about this for a moment. The atheist looks at the bible and can only see an evil God. He or she chooses to try and find this god, or evidence for this evil god's existence. Where ever they look they cannot find it. The Theist - or me in particular looks at the bible and only sees a good God. I see evidence for this God everywhere. But is the God that the Atheist sees in the bible the same one that I see? I think not. What makes the difference? What is it that makes me see that God is good, created the world good, that humanity rebelled - and that God punished this rebellion with death. What is it that makes me see that this God then sent his son to this earth to die on a cross for the sins and rebellion of humanity as a good thing? What is it that makes me see that God is good and that humanity is sinful - but also deserving of punishment? On the other hand what is it that makes atheists not only not see any evidence for the good God in the Bible, but only injustice, unfairness, brutality, genocide, homophobia, and every other evil thing?
I mean - yes I do see evil in the bible - inherently so - but I do not dismiss the claims of a god on that axiom alone. Note on a debate (I'm actually not sure which one something about god or what not) that I noted that the problem of evil is not a particularly effective argument at refuting the existence of a god. An all-good one god? Well I'm assured that's not the case, but it doesn't convince me that their is no god. What I believe the problem of evil is effective at is fighting against the dogma of religion and faith, you literally assert it is something you presume, without justification. I do not presume the existence or lack of existence of a god, I looked at the evidence and was convinced there was no god. Not the other way around.
What is the difference? Well, I would say cognitive dissonance, dogma, tradition, etc, etc, of the believer, but you could easily point back at me and say the same. No, what I think the difference is that when an atheist looks at the bible, they no longer presume her existence, looking for evidence instead of being blindly convinced by assertions. Let me be crystal clear here: if you do not believe in any god(s) you are an atheist, if you believe in any god(s) you are a theist (or diest). That's really all there is to it. Now, a more proper way to put it might be that we have two different interpretations of the god of the bible, and that would be true, we most certainly do, but then it comes down to the question of who's is more legitimate.
If billions of people can read the bible and see the Good God and millions of people can read the Bible and only see the evil God, then what is going on here? Surely it is absurd to suggest it is because one entire group has looked at the evidence wrongly. Something else must be going on.
No, it really isn't, millions of people believed the earth to be flat, millions believed the earth to be in the center of the universe with the sun and the planets revolving around it, millions believed that being gay was evil, millions of people believed lots of things that are incorrect. The number of people who have gotten the evidence wrong has no bearing on whether that evidence is true or not.
I never admitted the same. You drew the false inference and then took it to your own conclusion.
I what I was saying here was that taking an axiomatic position of a god, is the same as admitting a logical fallacy, it was more wit or sarcasm than saying you literally accepted a logical fallacy.
While we may disagree, this is certainly a unique objection, don't take my rebukes as aggressive please, this is nothing more than a response. I don't have anything against you personally or the like, I actually find these objections quite interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
First off, yes I have, reread this forum and you'll find I responded to every one of your assertions. Second of all, even if I were to concede there being a god, I would definitely not concede it to be the god of the bible. Also, once again, stories and accounts, not reasons why I should take the definition as you claim it is.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Sure, just pm or link the forum and I'll follow
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Your knowledge that god is truth? That's not knowledge that's an assumption based on faulty reasoning. The rest is a blatant no true Scotts man
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Exactly!
I am making an assertion
Yes, yes you are, and therefore you have adopted a burden of proof!
The context you believe from is fallacious! Because you are assuming your conclusion in your reasoning! It is not overreliance on reasoning, it using reasoning correctly!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Oh, would you look at that, you got it! Yes, you have to demonstrate your definition is the most accurate or logically consistent - as the claim that god is axiomatically true is an incredible claim, it will require incredible evidence, evidenced you have not validly provided.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The problem, is that you are just telling me to accept your proposition. The thing is, propositions do not work that way, and you know that. That's why you engaged with my first argument after all. I will not just agree to a syllogism which presumes it's conclusion, that is a fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'll only accept a god's existence if you demonstrate them beyond using your semantic argument, which is flawed in the first place.
Created: