[split] Taq Vs Chippy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2014, 11:54 PM
[split] Taq Vs Chippy
(24-01-2014 08:05 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Arguments are not evidence. Semantic prestidigitation is not evidence.

This is trivially true, like saying a fish is not a theodolite.

But you are missing the point Tourette's Chimp. The premise--broadly conceived rather than an actual premise--of cosmological arguments is that the existence of a universe is evidence of the existence of a deity. Below you make an accusation of begging the question and here you are begging the question. Naughty Tourette's Chimp.

Also, evidence has meaning and significance only within the context of some argument. The bloody knife in a murder trial isn't presented to the jury without comment; it is at least implicitly accompanied by some argument that establishes its evidentiary significance, e.g.

P1. Only knives of type K produce stab marks of type M.
P2. The victim has stab marks of type M.
C. The victim was probably stabbed using a knife of type K.

Reasoning entails argument. Evidence and argument are not mutually exclusive and evidence doesn't replace argument. Tourette's Chimp is introducing a false dichotomy between evidence and argument. Naughty Tourette's Chimp.

Quote:Incorrect. It was meant to prove ALLAH, the islamic gawd. And it fails to prove that as well.

You are being a silly Tourette's Chimp aren't you? Merely because the Kalam Cosmological Argument was a product of Islamic religious philosophy it doesn't mean that the argument is somehow bound to a particular deity. There is no formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument which has any premises that are specific to Allah. All cosmological arguments are generic. Tourette's Chimp is committing a genetic fallacy. Naughty Tourette's Chimp.

Quote:HE????? Aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself, even for having already gotten ahead of yourself? What does this entity need a penis for? Don't you see that you are begging the question over and over again?

You too are begging the question Tourette's Chimp. Naughty Tourette's Chimp.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 08:38 AM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(24-01-2014 11:54 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 08:05 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Arguments are not evidence. Semantic prestidigitation is not evidence.

This is trivially true, like saying a fish is not a theodolite.

But you are missing the point Tourette's Chimp. The premise--broadly conceived rather than an actual premise--of cosmological arguments is that the existence of a universe is evidence of the existence of a deity. Below you make an accusation of begging the question and here you are begging the question. Naughty Tourette's Chimp.

Also, evidence has meaning and significance only within the context of some argument. The bloody knife in a murder trial isn't presented to the jury without comment; it is at least implicitly accompanied by some argument that establishes its evidentiary significance, e.g.

P1. Only knives of type K produce stab marks of type M.
P2. The victim has stab marks of type M.
C. The victim was probably stabbed using a knife of type K.

Reasoning entails argument. Evidence and argument are not mutually exclusive and evidence doesn't replace argument. Tourette's Chimp is introducing a false dichotomy between evidence and argument. Naughty Tourette's Chimp.

Quote:Incorrect. It was meant to prove ALLAH, the islamic gawd. And it fails to prove that as well.

You are being a silly Tourette's Chimp aren't you? Merely because the Kalam Cosmological Argument was a product of Islamic religious philosophy it doesn't mean that the argument is somehow bound to a particular deity. There is no formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument which has any premises that are specific to Allah. All cosmological arguments are generic. Tourette's Chimp is committing a genetic fallacy. Naughty Tourette's Chimp.

Quote:HE????? Aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself, even for having already gotten ahead of yourself? What does this entity need a penis for? Don't you see that you are begging the question over and over again?

You too are begging the question Tourette's Chimp. Naughty Tourette's Chimp.

[Image: 45215567.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 08:13 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2014 08:51 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: My biggest question about atheism
So, Chimpy, I had a good laugh today when I finally had time to properly go through the abortion you wrote below. I find it hysterically funny that you try to claim that I don't know anything at all about logic, and then you turn around and stuff so much logical Fail in a single post. Let's look:


(24-01-2014 11:54 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 08:05 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Arguments are not evidence. Semantic prestidigitation is not evidence.

This is trivially true, like saying a fish is not a theodolite.

It's not "trivially" true at all. It is TRUE. That you admit that it is true is noted.

Quote:But you are missing the point Tourette's Chimp. The premise--broadly conceived rather than an actual premise--of cosmological arguments is that the existence of a universe is evidence of the existence of a deity.

And here you admit that the existence of a "creator deity" is a premise (NOTlookingforanswers claimed it was a conclusion). It is a badly HIDDEN premise (actually, it isn't hidden at all, the people pandering this nonsense only THINK they have been able to conceal it and are only fooling themselves), but a premise just the same.

Quote: Below you make an accusation of begging the question and here you are begging the question. Naughty Tourette's Chimp.

You see, Chimpy, this is just another example of what I told you: just because you say something or think something doesn't make it true. You are afflicted with a mental handicap that prevents you from distinguishing your angry fantasies from reality. You can claim all day that I am begging the question, but you haven't shown ANYthing at all to support that ad hoc assertion. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated NOTlookingforanswers' question-begging by pointing out the underlying, badly hidden premise that his supposed creator deity exists and his disingenuous attempt to make an end run around his responsibility to the burden of proof of his claim of said deity. But away you go now, belligerently jerking off a huge straw man, totally unaware that you are making a colossal fool of yourself:


Quote:Also, evidence has meaning and significance only within the context of some argument.

I didn't claim otherwise AT ALL. But don't let that stop you with your preposterous tirade, Rosanne Rosannadanna:

Quote: The bloody knife in a murder trial isn't presented to the jury without comment; it is at least implicitly accompanied by some argument that establishes its evidentiary significance, e.g.

P1. Only knives of type K produce stab marks of type M.
P2. The victim has stab marks of type M.
C. The victim was probably stabbed using a knife of type K.

Reasoning entails argument.

But even so, that is not always necessarily true. For example, if I say "I haz a baseball" and pull it out of my pocket to show the good people here, there is no need at all for argumentation. I have made my claim and shown evidence to back my claim and everyone is satisfied. But you, you drooling idiot, are still flailing away at the straw man:

Quote: Evidence and argument are not mutually exclusive and evidence doesn't replace argument. Tourette's Chimp is introducing a false dichotomy between evidence and argument. Naughty Tourette's Chimp.

I did not claim that evidence replaces argument at all, nor did I claim that the two are mutually exclusive. I was making the point that argumentation does not replace evidence. Notlookingforanswers made a claim that his argument alone proves the bollocks he is attempting to pander; his exact words were "shows that a 'creator' is necessary". You lifted my comments out of context -- another logical fallacy, and distorted them to mean something else, attacking the straw man you created. VERY sloppy use of "logic", Mister Philosophist who thinks I don't know shit about logic.

Quote:
Quote:Incorrect. It was meant to prove ALLAH, the islamic gawd. And it fails to prove that as well.

You are being a silly Tourette's Chimp aren't you? Merely because the Kalam Cosmological Argument was a product of Islamic religious philosophy it doesn't mean that the argument is somehow bound to a particular deity.

And off you go with ANOTHER straw man. They should stop manufacturing straw men with built-in dildos; perhaps you might leave them alone. But probably not.

My point wasn't that the cosmological argument is somehow bound to any particular deity; my point is that it could be used to support the claim of any imaginary figure at all -- that is, if it weren't already fatally flawed at birth. NOTlookingforanswers took off immediately when he/she/it thought the kalam was proven straight into babbling about this "gawd" and its supposed qualities, including being MALE ("He").


Quote: There is no formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument which has any premises that are specific to Allah. All cosmological arguments are generic. Tourette's Chimp is committing a genetic fallacy. Naughty Tourette's Chimp.

Again, Chimpy, it is YOU who is committing a Straw Man fallacy. You who claimed that I know nothing of logic. Very sloppy Chimpy, very sloppy.

Quote:
Quote:HE????? Aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself, even for having already gotten ahead of yourself? What does this entity need a penis for? Don't you see that you are begging the question over and over again?

You too are begging the question Tourette's Chimp. Naughty Tourette's Chimp.

You have not shown at all where you think I am begging the question. All you have done is make an ad hoc assertion with no support at all. Naughty Angry Chimpy. Shall I also point out that you failed to insert a comma after the word "question" here, since you have taken to being a pedantic prick over any typos I make?

Bad Chimpy, Bad.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
26-01-2014, 02:03 AM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2014 02:12 AM by Chippy.)
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(25-01-2014 08:13 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  It's not "trivially" true at all. It is TRUE. That you admit that it is true is noted.

No it is trivially true just like "a cat is not a dog". It is true and not worth making hence it is trivially true.

Quote:
And here you admit that the existence of a "creator deity" is a premise (NOTlookingforanswers claimed it was a conclusion). It is a badly HIDDEN premise (actually, it isn't hidden at all, the people pandering this nonsense only THINK they have been able to conceal it and are only fooling themselves), but a premise just the same.

Read what I wrote, "broadly conceived rather than an actual premise". Cosmological arguments attempt to use the existence of the universe as evidence for the existence of a deity. That being the case you are misguided in asking for evidence of the existence of a deity in the context of an exposition of a cosmological argument.

Quote:You see, Chimpy, this is just another example of what I told you: just because you say something or think something doesn't make it true. You are afflicted with a mental handicap that prevents you from distinguishing your angry fantasies from reality. You can claim all day that I am begging the question, but you haven't shown ANYthing at all to support that ad hoc assertion. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated NOTlookingforanswers' question-begging by pointing out the underlying, badly hidden premise that his supposed creator deity exists and his disingenuous attempt to make an end run around his responsibility to the burden of proof of his claim of said deity. But away you go now, belligerently jerking off a huge straw man, totally unaware that you are making a colossal fool of yourself:

No, you just don't understand cosmological arguments. None of the premises of any of the cosmological arguments I have seen implicitly assume the existence of a deity. Here is a formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.

2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Tell me which premise assumes the conclusion.

Quote:I didn't claim otherwise AT ALL. But don't let that stop you with your preposterous tirade, Rosanne Rosannadanna:

You implied otherwise and in your response you explicitly stated otherwise.

Quote:But even so, that is not always necessarily true. For example, if I say "I haz a baseball" and pull it out of my pocket to show the good people here, there is no need at all for argumentation. I have made my claim and shown evidence to back my claim and everyone is satisfied. But you, you drooling idiot, are still flailing away at the straw man:

No, all reasoning entails an argument. To reason is to draw a conclusion from premises. Your behaviour is meaningful only because your audience is able to reason about your claim to have a ball and your presentation of a ball. The argumentation that you think doesn't exist is implicit and gives your action a meaning which it would otherwise lack. The idea that neither you or the people you are addressing are not reasoning--or at least trying to--is risible.

Tourette's Chimp, you are in over your head and don't know what you are talking about.

Quote:I did not claim that evidence replaces argument at all, nor did I claim that the two are mutually exclusive.

Yes you did and you repeated that false claim again in your flawed "I haz a baseball" example. There is no such thing as evidence that exists independently of some chain of reasoning, of argument.

Quote:I was making the point that argumentation does not replace evidence. Notlookingforanswers made a claim that his argument alone proves the bollocks he is attempting to pander; his exact words were "shows that a 'creator' is necessary". You lifted my comments out of context -- another logical fallacy, and distorted them to mean something else, attacking the straw man you created. VERY sloppy use of "logic", Mister Philosophist who thinks I don't know shit about logic.

You clearly "don't know shit about logic".

Your idiotic "I haz a baseball" example indicates that I have your meaning as you intended. And again you are setting up a false dichotomy between argument and evidence. A fact has evidentiary value because it is embedded in some process of reasoning, in an argument. In the absence of this reasoning it would just be a fact and have no evidentiary significance.

You are demonstrating that you know nothing about logic and cognitive psychology.

In the absence of reasoning in the audience, i.e. of argumentation, your presentation of a ball would be incomprehensible to them. Your behaviour is comprehensible because those that are watching it are using a cascade of inductive and deductive arguments to make sense of it. There is no you just say "I haz a baseball" and show the ball and by magic your audience understands and is persuaded. What the fuck do you think brains do? You are an idiot.

Quote:My point wasn't that the cosmological argument is somehow bound to any particular deity; my point is that it could be used to support the claim of any imaginary figure at all -- that is, if it weren't already fatally flawed at birth. NOTlookingforanswers took off immediately when he/she/it thought the kalam was proven straight into babbling about this "gawd" and its supposed qualities, including being MALE ("He").

Again this is just a platitude that you are trying to present as a profound discovery. No one claims that cosmological arguments lead to a specific deity. That is a straw-man that you have invented.

Quote:You have not shown at all where you think I am begging the question. All you have done is make an ad hoc assertion with no support at all.

Yes I have, it's just that you are too dull to notice. You are begging the question--i.e. assuming to be true that which you need to demonstrate to be true--when you claim that that cosmological arguments themselves beg the question. You need to actually demonstrate this alleged flaw not just assume it and carry on like an idiot.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 02:35 AM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(23-01-2014 09:13 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(23-01-2014 10:34 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  As I understand it, science involves scientific facts (ie. objects fall at a certain speed and acceleration), scientific theories that constitute the widely accepted best explanation based on the scientific facts (ie. the theory of gravity) and hypotheses (theories that do no have sufficient support to be elevated to the stature of scientific theories).

You do not understand science AT ALL.

No you do not understand science. That is overall roughly correct.

Quote:Hypotheses are generated based upon observable patterns of data: EVIDENCE. You have no EVIDENCE whatsoever.

In a cosmological argument the existence of the universe serves the role of evidence.

Quote:
Quote: The hypothesis of a creator God is based on the collection of scientific facts that exist in the universe (the existence of a universe, the evidence of the big bang, our observations of the cosmos, etc). It is a theory that explains the existence of anything at all.

Dead wrong.

No, he's right. God is offered as an explanatory hypothesis by theists. The only thing he's wrong about is the attribution of this to cosmological arguments. You can argue about whether it is a successful hypothesis but you can't just assert that it isn't as you are doing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 04:58 AM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(25-01-2014 08:13 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  For example, if I say "I haz a baseball" and pull it out of my pocket to show the good people here, there is no need at all for argumentation. I have made my claim and shown evidence to back my claim and everyone is satisfied.

This is basically a magical theory of human cognition. It just all happens by mysterious magic--no reasoning involved.

That scenario is loaded with implicit argumentation that the concerned brains are processing in order to be able to make sense of it. The obvious deduction is the one that occurs in the process of recognizing the ball as a baseball:

P1. A baseball has attributes A, B, C, D,...,Z
P2. Tourette's Chimp's ball has attributes A, B, C, D,...,Z
C. Tourette's Chimp has a baseball.

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about and you are entirely wrong but you will not concede your error will you?

The notion of evidence implies some argument that surrounds the fact(s) that comprise the evidence which thus renders it evidence. The act of presenting the baseball has evidentiary significance because of the preceding claim that you have a baseball on your person. In the absence of the claim, producing the baseball has no evidentiary significance. A deductive argument connects the claim to have a baseball and the presentation of the baseball:

P1. If Tourette's Chimp has a baseball on his person he can produce it.
P2. Tourette's Chimp produced a baseball from his person.
C. Tourette's Chimp had a baseball on his person.

There is no such thing as evidence that exists independently of all reasoning. To even suggest that indicates that you don't actually understand what evidence is.

Evidence is evidence of some thing, it is a fact which implies (or makes more probable) some other fact. There is no magical connection between evidence and what it evinces which your retard "I haz a baseball" example implies. The link between evidence and what it evinces is a set of arguments. Regardless of whether these arguments are implicit or explicit they are indispensable.

You don't know anything about logic, epistemology or cognitive psychology. You are a presumptuous retard that can't even reason through a simple scenario which you offered as a counter-example. Spend less time collecting internet memes and more time reading books.

Does a knobhead like you read books? What was the last book your read?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 12:37 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2014 07:06 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(26-01-2014 02:03 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(25-01-2014 08:13 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  It's not "trivially" true at all. It is TRUE. That you admit that it is true is noted.

No it is trivially true just like "a cat is not a dog". It is true and not worth making hence it is trivially true.

You can bleat that bullshit ad nauseum all you want, Chimpy. That doesn't make it true. All the arguments in the world are no substitution for evidence. Argumentation without evidence is just philosophistic wanking of the sort you wallow in.

Quote:
Quote:
And here you admit that the existence of a "creator deity" is a premise (NOTlookingforanswers claimed it was a conclusion). It is a badly HIDDEN premise (actually, it isn't hidden at all, the people pandering this nonsense only THINK they have been able to conceal it and are only fooling themselves), but a premise just the same.

Read what I wrote, "broadly conceived rather than an actual premise".

I did read what you wrote. You tried to hedge your bet and lost.

Quote:Cosmological arguments attempt to use the existence of the universe as evidence for the existence of a deity. That being the case you are misguided in asking for evidence of the existence of a deity in the context of an exposition of a cosmological argument.

Bullshit. You are just resorting to the same sort of semantic prestidigitation that WLC and his ilk use. The existence of a "creator" deity is assumed, and further, that "creator deity" is assumed to be something -- adn the ONLY thing -- that "has no beginning".

Quote:
Quote:You see, Chimpy, this is just another example of what I told you: just because you say something or think something doesn't make it true. You are afflicted with a mental handicap that prevents you from distinguishing your angry fantasies from reality. You can claim all day that I am begging the question, but you haven't shown ANYthing at all to support that ad hoc assertion. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated NOTlookingforanswers' question-begging by pointing out the underlying, badly hidden premise that his supposed creator deity exists and his disingenuous attempt to make an end run around his responsibility to the burden of proof of his claim of said deity. But away you go now, belligerently jerking off a huge straw man, totally unaware that you are making a colossal fool of yourself:

No, you just don't understand cosmological arguments.

That is just a stupid a statement as your idiotic claim that I don't understand "postmodernism". I understand them quite well, and I see them for the shell games that they are.


Quote: None of the premises of any of the cosmological arguments I have seen implicitly assume the existence of a deity.

Fallacy Appeal to Personal Incredulity. The fact is that everyone who panders cosmological arguments has his own particular deity up his sleeve.


Quote: Here is a formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.

2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Tell me which premise assumes the conclusion.

The very use of the phrase "begins to exist" belies a disingenuous assumption (SPECIAL PLEADING) of the existence of something that "doesn't begin to exist". Of course, that thing is the deity that the panderer has up his sleeve.


Quote:
Quote:I didn't claim otherwise AT ALL. But don't let that stop you with your preposterous tirade, Rosanne Rosannadanna:

You implied otherwise and in your response you explicitly stated otherwise.

I did not imply otherwise at all, either. You are flailing away at the straw man again. Of course, that's all you have, so no surprise here. I pointed out an exception to your claim as an aside, and it has nothing to do with my rebuttal to NOTlookingforanswers' claims. No surprise that you would take that and run with it. Have fun chewing on it by yourself.


Quote:
Quote:But even so, that is not always necessarily true. For example, if I say "I haz a baseball" and pull it out of my pocket to show the good people here, there is no need at all for argumentation. I have made my claim and shown evidence to back my claim and everyone is satisfied. But you, you drooling idiot, are still flailing away at the straw man:

No, all reasoning entails an argument.

Oh, look, another straw man. I don't claim otherwise.

Quote:
Quote: To reason is to draw a conclusion from premises. Your behaviour is meaningful only because your audience is able to reason about your claim to have a ball and your presentation of a ball. The argumentation that you think doesn't exist is implicit and gives your action a meaning which it would otherwise lack. The idea that neither you or the people you are addressing are not reasoning--or at least trying to--is risible.

Funny, my dog gets that I have a ball in my hand when I tell her I have a ball in my hand.

Quote:Tourette's Chimp, you are in over your head and don't know what you are talking about.

Angry Baby Chimpy, you are wallowing in wishful thinking and self-delusion. As usual.


Quote:
Quote:I did not claim that evidence replaces argument at all, nor did I claim that the two are mutually exclusive.

Yes you did and you repeated that false claim again in your flawed "I haz a baseball" example. There is no such thing as evidence that exists independently of some chain of reasoning, of argument.

Again, Chimpy ,you are chasing after your own straw man and flat-out lying. I was rebutting NOTlookingforanswers' 'claim that s/he had "shown the need for a creator" through argument alone and without a shred of evidence to back it. My point was and is that argumentation is nothing without evidence. You can wail and bleat all you want, but all you are doing is jacking off a straw man.




Quote:I was making the point that argumentation does not replace evidence. Notlookingforanswers made a claim that his argument alone proves the bollocks he is attempting to pander; his exact words were "shows that a 'creator' is necessary". You lifted my comments out of context -- another logical fallacy, and distorted them to mean something else, attacking the straw man you created. VERY sloppy use of "logic", Mister Philosophist who thinks I don't know shit about logic.

You clearly "don't know shit about logic".

Your idiotic "I haz a baseball" example indicates that I have your meaning as you intended. [/quote]

ibid.

Quote: And again you are setting up a false dichotomy between argument and evidence. A fact has evidentiary value because it is embedded in some process of reasoning, in an argument. In the absence of this reasoning it would just be a fact and have no evidentiary significance.

An argument has no value without evidence. It is YOU who is setting up the false dichotomy. And banging away at your straw man.

Quote:You are demonstrating that you know nothing about logic and cognitive psychology.

I have made no claims about cognitive psychology. And your constant strawmanning and wallowing in fallacies clearly tells anyone watching all they need to know about your poor grasp of logic.


Quote:In the absence of reasoning in the audience, i.e. of argumentation, your presentation of a ball would be incomprehensible to them. Your behaviour is comprehensible because those that are watching it are using a cascade of inductive and deductive arguments to make sense of it. There is no you just say "I haz a baseball" and show the ball and by magic your audience understands and is persuaded. What the fuck do you think brains do? You are an idiot.

My dog doesn't need argumentation to get that I have a ball in my hand.


Quote:
Quote:My point wasn't that the cosmological argument is somehow bound to any particular deity; my point is that it could be used to support the claim of any imaginary figure at all -- that is, if it weren't already fatally flawed at birth. NOTlookingforanswers took off immediately when he/she/it thought the kalam was proven straight into babbling about this "gawd" and its supposed qualities, including being MALE ("He").

Again this is just a platitude that you are trying to present as a profound discovery.

More Angry-Chimpy self-delusional wishful thinking.


Quote: No one claims that cosmological arguments lead to a specific deity. That is a straw-man that you have invented.


Yes, that's why it's known as the "cosmological argument FOR GOD".

Fucking idiot.

Quote:
Quote:You have not shown at all where you think I am begging the question. All you have done is make an ad hoc assertion with no support at all.

Yes I have, it's just that you are too dull to notice. You are begging the question--i.e. assuming to be true that which you need to demonstrate to be true--when you claim that that cosmological arguments themselves beg the question. You need to actually demonstrate this alleged flaw not just assume it and carry on like an idiot.

Yes, I did. They assume that a "creator" exists, and that this "creator" is the one thing that "doesn't begin to exist" QED.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 02:35 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(26-01-2014 02:22 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 07:04 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  No, if you make the First Cause argument without God as a premise, then the only conclusion you can come to is "an agent capable of causing the start of the universe".

And that is exactly what cosmological arguments are intended to demonstrate. Additional arguments follow regarding the necessary attributes of that agent.

Translation from ChimpySpeak: Cosmo arguments cannot survive and are part of a larger shell game of circular arguments.


Quote:This is way to vague of a conclusion to infer that it means "God". The only way you can get God specifically to be in the conclusion is if you either assume him in your premise or if you redefine "God" to mean "universe creator" and nothing else.

I don't know of any apologist that claims that a cosmological argument leads to their particular deity. [/quote]


Every one of the claims it leads to their own particular gawd-thing.

Quote:
Quote:If you can say that God is the conclusion and that he is not in the premise, then I can just as easily assert the conclusion of the First Cause argument is fleems.

Indeed you can and that isn't a deficiency of cosmological arguments.

It's only one of their many deficiencies.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 02:42 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(26-01-2014 02:35 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(23-01-2014 09:13 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  You do not understand science AT ALL.

No you do not understand science. That is overall roughly correct.

Trotting out a few buzz words one has no comprehension of doesn't mean one understands science, and NOTlookingforanswers' posts clearly demonstrate s/he doesn't know fuck about science.
Quote:
Quote:Hypotheses are generated based upon observable patterns of data: EVIDENCE. You have no EVIDENCE whatsoever.

In a cosmological argument the existence of the universe serves the role of evidence.

A single data point is not a pattern of data. The mere xistence of the universe does not by any rational stretch indicate the existence of a deity. The fact tht you think it does only belies your abject idiocy.

Quote:
Quote:Dead wrong.

No, he's right. God is offered as an explanatory hypothesis by theists.

A wild-ass guess is not a hypothesis, ignorant Chump.

Quote: The only thing he's wrong about is the attribution of this to cosmological arguments. You can argue about whether it is a successful hypothesis but you can't just assert that it isn't as you are doing.

That's not the only thing he is wrong about by any stretch, as has already been pointed out by me and others here.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 02:54 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(26-01-2014 04:58 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(25-01-2014 08:13 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  For example, if I say "I haz a baseball" and pull it out of my pocket to show the good people here, there is no need at all for argumentation. I have made my claim and shown evidence to back my claim and everyone is satisfied.

This is basically a magical theory of human cognition. It just all happens by mysterious magic--no reasoning involved.

Not at all. Your sad attempt to cast it so only belies your desperation.

Quote:That scenario is loaded with implicit argumentation that the concerned brains are processing in order to be able to make sense of it. The obvious deduction is the one that occurs in the process of recognizing the ball as a baseball:

P1. A baseball has attributes A, B, C, D,...,Z
P2. Tourette's Chimp's ball has attributes A, B, C, D,...,Z
C. Tourette's Chimp has a baseball.


Quibbling over the attributes of a baseball, Chimpy? Could you get any less relevant?

Let's dumb it down for the Angry Chimp: I can show my fucking dog a ball and tell her I have a ball, and she knows it's a ball. She doesn't need it mapped out for her with a proof like you do.

Quote:Clearly you don't know what you are talking about and you are entirely wrong but you will not concede your error will you?

And you are back to your pathetic wishful thinking.

Quote:The notion of evidence implies some argument that surrounds the fact(s) that comprise the evidence which thus renders it evidence. The act of presenting the baseball has evidentiary significance because of the preceding claim that you have a baseball on your person. In the absence of the claim, producing the baseball has no evidentiary significance. A deductive argument connects the claim to have a baseball and the presentation of the baseball:

P1. If Tourette's Chimp has a baseball on his person he can produce it.
P2. Tourette's Chimp produced a baseball from his person.
C. Tourette's Chimp had a baseball on his person.


It sure means a lot to my dog. Fucking dumbass.

Quote:There is no such thing as evidence that exists independently of all reasoning. To even suggest that indicates that you don't actually understand what evidence is.

Oh, look, the idiot Chimpy is again resorting to wanking away at the straw man. I made no claim about "evidence existing independently of all reasoning". I pointed out that argumentation fails without evidence to support it.


Quote:Evidence is evidence of some thing, it is a fact which implies (or makes more probable) some other fact. There is no magical connection between evidence and what it evinces which your retard "I haz a baseball" example implies. The link between evidence and what it evinces is a set of arguments. Regardless of whether these arguments are implicit or explicit they are indispensable.

Have fun chewing on your straw man. Hobo


Quote:You don't know anything about logic, epistemology or cognitive psychology. You are a presumptuous retard that can't even reason through a simple scenario which you offered as a counter-example. Spend less time collecting internet memes and more time reading books.

Does a knobhead like you read books? What was the last book your read?

I know enough to show you up for the fool you are. Again.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: