Too Many Big Words
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2015, 09:03 AM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2015 09:34 AM by Worom.)
RE: Too Many Big Words
(10-06-2015 08:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-06-2015 08:28 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  That's not a mark against you. It took me a while to grasp it and its implications. It's a principle which is just taken for granted and never discussed, probably because it is a real party pooper. It doesn't allow for things like creator gods and miracles. It also firmly establishes that there is a fundamental distinction between the real and the imaginary. I've been using this argument for a couple of years and it as yet has not even been scratched. I honestly don't think it can be scratched. To deny either premise would be to commit a logical fallacy.

There is a way to use the same principle in an argument but in a way that it is easily understood. It works off of that very same distinction between the real and the imaginary.

1. The imaginary is not real.

2. Things which are not real do not actually exist.

3. If the Christian God is imaginary, then it is not real and does not actually exist.

4. The Christian God is imaginary.

Therefore the Christian God is not real and does not actually exist.

This argument was formulated as far as I know by Dawson Betkrith of Incinerating Presuppositionalism. Theist will find it just as difficult to deal with. Or you can simply ask them: how can I reliably distinguish what you are calling God from something that you are merely imagining? Same principle but presented in a way that anyone, even Christians, can understand. Ask it and watch them squirm.

When Dawson presented this argument on his blog, unbelievably the Christians all attacked premise one. It demonstrates their commitment to the primacy of consciousness. Their program simply falls apart if a distinction is made between the real and the imaginary.

Sorry, no. #4 is simply begging the question. It assumes the conclusion.

The way his original argument was worded is based on an axiom, so im not sure if begging the question applies to the original argument, here is what he posted.

1. If existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness, then the Christian God does not exist.

2. Existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

Therefor the Christian God does not exist.

Premise two if my understanding is correct would be the axiom.
The basis for the true scotsman's argument, the way I understand it, is since the Christian God story used consciousness to bring the everything into existence, the Christian God would be a contradiction to an axiomatic truth of existence existing and consciousness being unable to change or bring something into existence (willing a gold bar into existence out of nothing for example) and therefore God couldn't use conscious will to bring existence into existence as existence has primacy over any conscious act.

It should be noted the definition of nothing is as follows: The absence of anything. No Spacetime, no energy, no matter, no quantum fluctuations, literally nothing

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2015, 12:51 PM
RE: Too Many Big Words
I have to admit thou. I am guilty of feeling dumb when it comes to my limited vocabulary. I've gotten better over the years mostly from watching a lot of debates. But when I'm debating friends or strangers I feel it comes off less confrontational when i use simpler terms.

When I listen to debates such as William Lane Craig he likes to thought out large flary words. I get that sense that he's show boating to the crowd. "Look how large my vocabulary is! That mean's I know more then you. So what i say is true." Then comes in Christopher Hitchens who also has an enormous vocabulary, but i get a better sense of his assertions. He'll use examples for his reasoning. Craig very rarely pulls off script.

The majority of the crowed that is still strongly religious. Are going to be under educated. Not all across the board but primarily.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Commonsensei's post
10-06-2015, 02:53 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2015 02:59 PM by morondog.)
RE: Too Many Big Words
(10-06-2015 08:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-06-2015 08:28 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  That's not a mark against you. It took me a while to grasp it and its implications. It's a principle which is just taken for granted and never discussed, probably because it is a real party pooper. It doesn't allow for things like creator gods and miracles. It also firmly establishes that there is a fundamental distinction between the real and the imaginary. I've been using this argument for a couple of years and it as yet has not even been scratched. I honestly don't think it can be scratched. To deny either premise would be to commit a logical fallacy.

There is a way to use the same principle in an argument but in a way that it is easily understood. It works off of that very same distinction between the real and the imaginary.

1. The imaginary is not real.

2. Things which are not real do not actually exist.

3. If the Christian God is imaginary, then it is not real and does not actually exist.

4. The Christian God is imaginary.

Therefore the Christian God is not real and does not actually exist.

This argument was formulated as far as I know by Dawson Betkrith of Incinerating Presuppositionalism. Theist will find it just as difficult to deal with. Or you can simply ask them: how can I reliably distinguish what you are calling God from something that you are merely imagining? Same principle but presented in a way that anyone, even Christians, can understand. Ask it and watch them squirm.

When Dawson presented this argument on his blog, unbelievably the Christians all attacked premise one. It demonstrates their commitment to the primacy of consciousness. Their program simply falls apart if a distinction is made between the real and the imaginary.

Sorry, no. #4 is simply begging the question. It assumes the conclusion.

I disagree. IMO #4 is an *assumption*. I guess the expectation would be that the Christians would attack #4 - by citing evidence that Christian God is not imaginary. But instead they apparently attacked #1 - tacitly admitting that they have nothing with which they can challenge #4.

ETA: It's crazy that it has to be broken down this far just to get it into some kinda format that theists can understand. Any normal human would understand that imaginary implies non-existence without having to have it spelt out.

Basically it boils down to:
1. Your silly God is imaginary and therefore does not exist.

The genius part is stating it in the more roundabout way, so that the crazies reveal their true crazy determination by attacking the *and therefore* and basically conceding the "is imaginary".

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
10-06-2015, 06:31 PM
RE: Too Many Big Words
(10-06-2015 02:53 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(10-06-2015 08:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  Sorry, no. #4 is simply begging the question. It assumes the conclusion.

I disagree. IMO #4 is an *assumption*. I guess the expectation would be that the Christians would attack #4 - by citing evidence that Christian God is not imaginary. But instead they apparently attacked #1 - tacitly admitting that they have nothing with which they can challenge #4.

ETA: It's crazy that it has to be broken down this far just to get it into some kinda format that theists can understand. Any normal human would understand that imaginary implies non-existence without having to have it spelt out.

Basically it boils down to:
1. Your silly God is imaginary and therefore does not exist.

The genius part is stating it in the more roundabout way, so that the crazies reveal their true crazy determination by attacking the *and therefore* and basically conceding the "is imaginary".

It's like watching a dog chase its own tail, its funny at first but after a while you kinda feel sorry for it.

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Worom's post
12-06-2015, 07:20 AM
RE: Too Many Big Words
(10-06-2015 08:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-06-2015 08:28 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  That's not a mark against you. It took me a while to grasp it and its implications. It's a principle which is just taken for granted and never discussed, probably because it is a real party pooper. It doesn't allow for things like creator gods and miracles. It also firmly establishes that there is a fundamental distinction between the real and the imaginary. I've been using this argument for a couple of years and it as yet has not even been scratched. I honestly don't think it can be scratched. To deny either premise would be to commit a logical fallacy.

There is a way to use the same principle in an argument but in a way that it is easily understood. It works off of that very same distinction between the real and the imaginary.

1. The imaginary is not real.

2. Things which are not real do not actually exist.

3. If the Christian God is imaginary, then it is not real and does not actually exist.

4. The Christian God is imaginary.

Therefore the Christian God is not real and does not actually exist.

This argument was formulated as far as I know by Dawson Betkrith of Incinerating Presuppositionalism. Theist will find it just as difficult to deal with. Or you can simply ask them: how can I reliably distinguish what you are calling God from something that you are merely imagining? Same principle but presented in a way that anyone, even Christians, can understand. Ask it and watch them squirm.

When Dawson presented this argument on his blog, unbelievably the Christians all attacked premise one. It demonstrates their commitment to the primacy of consciousness. Their program simply falls apart if a distinction is made between the real and the imaginary.

Sorry, no. #4 is simply begging the question. It assumes the conclusion.

I don't think so Chas. If this argument begs the question then so does the classic Socrates is mortal syllogism. "man" and "mortal" are both synonymous with Human so they are synonymous with each other. In the same way, "imaginary" and "unreal" are synonymous. But I'm definitely open to persuasion here.

What do the rest of you think. Does the second argument's 4th premise beg the question where the the second premise of the Socrates is mortal syllogism doesn't and why?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2015, 07:39 AM
RE: Too Many Big Words
(12-06-2015 07:20 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(10-06-2015 08:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  Sorry, no. #4 is simply begging the question. It assumes the conclusion.

I don't think so Chas. If this argument begs the question then so does the classic Socrates is mortal syllogism. "man" and "mortal" are both synonymous with Human so they are synonymous with each other. In the same way, "imaginary" and "unreal" are synonymous. But I'm definitely open to persuasion here.

What do the rest of you think. Does the second argument's 4th premise beg the question where the the second premise of the Socrates is mortal syllogism doesn't and why?

No I don't think it does, my reasoning for this is the 4th premise is based on prior axiomatic truths which is an exception to the begging the question fallacy. Basically some assumptions that are universally accepted could pass as not being fallacious.

And in this case you are saying that existence has primacy over consciousness and that existence does exist, the truth of that is universally accepted and self evident, as everyone observes existence at all times. Any argument trying to counter this would be claiming existence doesn't exist.

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2015, 08:36 AM
RE: Too Many Big Words
(12-06-2015 07:39 AM)Worom Wrote:  
(12-06-2015 07:20 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I don't think so Chas. If this argument begs the question then so does the classic Socrates is mortal syllogism. "man" and "mortal" are both synonymous with Human so they are synonymous with each other. In the same way, "imaginary" and "unreal" are synonymous. But I'm definitely open to persuasion here.

What do the rest of you think. Does the second argument's 4th premise beg the question where the the second premise of the Socrates is mortal syllogism doesn't and why?

No I don't think it does, my reasoning for this is the 4th premise is based on prior axiomatic truths which is an exception to the begging the question fallacy. Basically some assumptions that are universally accepted could pass as not being fallacious.

And in this case you are saying that existence has primacy over consciousness and that existence does exist, the truth of that is universally accepted and self evident, as everyone observes existence at all times. Any argument trying to counter this would be claiming existence doesn't exist.
I think you're right but I'm still open to persuasion. I don't want to be like theists out there promulgating arguments that are fallacious. So I'll be happy to be shown my errors if I've made any.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2015, 08:38 AM
RE: Too Many Big Words
(12-06-2015 07:39 AM)Worom Wrote:  
(12-06-2015 07:20 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I don't think so Chas. If this argument begs the question then so does the classic Socrates is mortal syllogism. "man" and "mortal" are both synonymous with Human so they are synonymous with each other. In the same way, "imaginary" and "unreal" are synonymous. But I'm definitely open to persuasion here.

What do the rest of you think. Does the second argument's 4th premise beg the question where the the second premise of the Socrates is mortal syllogism doesn't and why?

No I don't think it does, my reasoning for this is the 4th premise is based on prior axiomatic truths which is an exception to the begging the question fallacy. Basically some assumptions that are universally accepted could pass as not being fallacious.

And in this case you are saying that existence has primacy over consciousness and that existence does exist, the truth of that is universally accepted and self evident, as everyone observes existence at all times. Any argument trying to counter this would be claiming existence doesn't exist.

Also the imaginary/ real distinction is based on the primacy of existence principle which is axiomatic. If consciousness had primacy there would be no distinction between the two.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2015, 08:52 AM
RE: Too Many Big Words
(12-06-2015 08:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(12-06-2015 07:39 AM)Worom Wrote:  No I don't think it does, my reasoning for this is the 4th premise is based on prior axiomatic truths which is an exception to the begging the question fallacy. Basically some assumptions that are universally accepted could pass as not being fallacious.

And in this case you are saying that existence has primacy over consciousness and that existence does exist, the truth of that is universally accepted and self evident, as everyone observes existence at all times. Any argument trying to counter this would be claiming existence doesn't exist.

Also the imaginary/ real distinction is based on the primacy of existence principle which is axiomatic. If consciousness had primacy there would be no distinction between the two.

Right and with that axiom the argument appears immune to begging the question. A theist trying to turn the argument into a proof for their god would fail as they don't have an axiom they can fall upon that I know of. What I found the most interesting in the thread in the christian forum where you used the argument they relentlessly attacked either premise one or two. They kept trying to deny the axiom of primacy of existence principle, essentially denying that existence exists.

I of course could be wrong, and i'm open to counter opinions as well

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2015, 09:11 AM
RE: Too Many Big Words
(12-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  
(12-06-2015 08:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Also the imaginary/ real distinction is based on the primacy of existence principle which is axiomatic. If consciousness had primacy there would be no distinction between the two.

Right and with that axiom the argument appears immune to begging the question. A theist trying to turn the argument into a proof for their god would fail as they don't have an axiom they can fall upon that I know of. What I found the most interesting in the thread in the christian forum where you used the argument they relentlessly attacked either premise one or two. They kept trying to deny the axiom of primacy of existence principle, essentially denying that existence exists.

I of course could be wrong, and i'm open to counter opinions as well

Actually they do have an axiom at the base of their belief. They start with the axiom of consciousness and this is the fatal flaw. It commits not only the stolen concept fallacy by proposing a consciousness without existence (objects) But also the fallacy of pure self reference by proposing a consciousness which references only its own referencing. This is the fatal flaw of theism, that it rests on the primacy of consciousness. This is why the argument from primacy of existence is so absolutely devastating to theism.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: