Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-02-2014, 05:11 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
"In the case of TAG, we start with logic, reason, and knowledge. It's argued that our logic is inherently circular (we use logic to create a hypothesis and then (dis)prove that hypothesis with logic). Therefore, we must conclude God is the source of our logic in order to avoid an infinite regress."

I made a post about this on reddit before, the proof/ disproof of conclusions we make based on logic has NOTHING to do with truth. The process in which we validate/verify that a conclusion is true is either through experimentation or simple observation, and all logic does is provide the conclusion for us to verify. Of course, after a while we are able to predict which axioms of logic will give us accurate and true conclusions but that was done after hundreds of thousands of years worth of application.

The whole pink elephant dilemma points this out perfectly: the whole "all elephants are pink, juanne is an elephant, therefore juanna is pink" thing shows that we can make inaccurate logical conclusions, because it depends on whether or not the axioms or presupposed statements are true. But, again, an observations of the mechanisms and tendencies of reality verifies this, making the whole sentiment that you cannot use logic to prove logic a strawman at best, and a manipulation of language at worst

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 12:20 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
They come up with some of the most absurdly fallacious and ridiculous notions. I don't event think such nonsense should be proclaimed as 'arguments' =.

NO NEED FOR RELIGION -
Resources, Information, News etc. For the Atheist Community!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2014, 08:08 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Conclusion
Well... for those of you who read that entire wall of text, congratulations and thank you. It took me many hours in many days to look up, research, and read all of this information. I know this might have been better as a blog post or something of the sort, but I don't have a blog, and I honestly wasn't excepting it to be this long. As I said in the beginning, please add any of your own common arguments that you hear in your debates.. Also, please correct me on any part of any argument you believe I explained wrong, or could have done better on.

I read the whole text. The arguments you presented don't really match the ones I would use as a theist. Some of them get kind of close but would be framed more in terms of mathematical probabilities, Occam's razor, certain scientific laws like the 3rd law of Thermodynamics, internal consistency for the Scientific method etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2014, 09:57 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(30-07-2014 08:08 PM)Addai Wrote:  
(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Conclusion
Well... for those of you who read that entire wall of text, congratulations and thank you. It took me many hours in many days to look up, research, and read all of this information. I know this might have been better as a blog post or something of the sort, but I don't have a blog, and I honestly wasn't excepting it to be this long. As I said in the beginning, please add any of your own common arguments that you hear in your debates.. Also, please correct me on any part of any argument you believe I explained wrong, or could have done better on.

I read the whole text. The arguments you presented don't really match the ones I would use as a theist. Some of them get kind of close but would be framed more in terms of mathematical probabilities, Occam's razor, certain scientific laws like the 3rd law of Thermodynamics, internal consistency for the Scientific method etc.

Addai,
Would you care to outline in detail an argument you would use as a theist?
Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2014, 02:15 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
I think I can give you the basic gist Doc.


I'm an Old Earth Creationist and follow Dr. Hugh Ross' school of thought in this area. (I do have some personal differences with him in a few areas).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_%...tionist%29




But from my end, which is a social science background, I see this as being a little like Path Analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_analys...tistics%29


But if your not familiar with that the basic run down is essentially this. In research of varying kinds you tend to look for correlations between factors and do so prove your hypothesis or theory. Probably the most famous one we all know is the high correlation between cigaret smoking and cancer. It's that kind of correlation that often makes people believe that you can infer causality when theirs a high statistical correlation. In that case that sort of assumption happens to be true, but that is not always the case. Sometimes you get thrown a curve ball. For instance their is high statistical correlation between eating ice creme and drowning. Does eating ice creme cause drowning? Well maybe in a few cases but generally not. Both those two factors are directly related to a third factor, namely the season of the year and coincidentally people do both things the most during the summer. So in general people have to be careful about infering causation with correlation, however path analysis is one way around that problem.



Anyway when it comes to various issues like Origin of life theories etc. you can do much the same thing. You can look at various scientific theories in biology, astrophysics, geology etc. and test how they fit the model. Do all the new discoveries strengthen the theory or model or does things get more and more doubtful as time goes on.....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2014, 02:18 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-08-2014 02:15 PM)Addai Wrote:  I think I can give you the basic gist Doc.


I'm an Old Earth Creationist and follow Dr. Hugh Ross' school of thought in this area. (I do have some personal differences with him in a few areas).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_%...tionist%29




But from my end, which is a social science background, I see this as being a little like Path Analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_analys...tistics%29


But if your not familiar with that the basic run down is essentially this. In research of varying kinds you tend to look for correlations between factors and do so prove your hypothesis or theory. Probably the most famous one we all know is the high correlation between cigaret smoking and cancer. It's that kind of correlation that often makes people believe that you can infer causality when theirs a high statistical correlation. In that case that sort of assumption happens to be true, but that is not always the case. Sometimes you get thrown a curve ball. For instance their is high statistical correlation between eating ice creme and drowning. Does eating ice creme cause drowning? Well maybe in a few cases but generally not. Both those two factors are directly related to a third factor, namely the season of the year and coincidentally people do both things the most during the summer. So in general people have to be careful about infering causation with correlation, however path analysis is one way around that problem.



Anyway when it comes to various issues like Origin of life theories etc. you can do much the same thing. You can look at various scientific theories in biology, astrophysics, geology etc. and test how they fit the model. Do all the new discoveries strengthen the theory or model or does things get more and more doubtful as time goes on.....

So you don't understand evolution or you just refuse to view the ridiculous levels of evidence for it.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense

[Image: Hitchhikersguide_zps7678fbae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: