[split] Taq Vs Chippy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-01-2014, 08:46 PM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(27-01-2014 07:35 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Tourette's Chimp with its magic dog:

[Image: CHI_02_RK0051_01_P.JPG]

"I can show my fucking dog a ball and tell her I have a ball, and she knows it's a ball."

[Image: magic_image.gif]

That is fucking adorable.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 08:49 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2014 09:00 PM by Chippy.)
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(27-01-2014 12:37 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  All the arguments in the world are no substitution for evidence.

*substitute

Again you can't see that you are setting up a false dichotomy between argument and evidence and repeatedly attacking a straw-man.

Who claimed that argument could replace evidence?

Quote:Argumentation without evidence is just philosophistic wanking of the sort you wallow in.

So pure maths then is "philosophistic wanking".

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

No I explained the logical structure of cosmological arguments but you are too thick to understand what I posted.

Quote:Bullshit. You are just resorting to the same sort of semantic prestidigitation that WLC and his ilk use.

That is a genuine an ad hominem argument.

Quote: 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".

No, it isn't. There is no formulation of the cosmological argument that leads to a specific deity or even a deity. WLC does not claim that the cosmological argument leads to the triune god of christianity. He gets there with other arguments.


Quote: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.

No, nothing that you have posted demonstrates an understanding either of postmodernism nor cosmological arguments. You are just repeating Bucky Ball's error regarding cosmological arguments.

Quote:The fact is that everyone who panders cosmological arguments has his own particular deity up his sleeve.

That is besides the point. No Christian apologist claims that a cosmological argument leads to the Trinity.

Quote: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.

Now you are a mind-reader also, you know for a fact that everyone that invokes a cosmological argument is being disingenuous.

You claimed that the Kalam Cosmological argument "begs the question". I asked you to show me which premise assumes the conclusion. You have shown me no such premise and now you have changed your claim that the argument relies on special pleading. Special pleading and begging the question are different informal fallacies.

Quote: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.

Your claimed counter-examples do not work, they are idiotic and they actually argue my case for me.

Your rebuttal of lookingforanswers is just as specious as your magic dog counter-example.

Quote:My point was and is that argumentation is nothing without evidence.

And that is an idiotic statement to make in response to a cosmological argument. It shows you don't understand cosmological arguments.

Quote:ibid.

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

Quote:An argument has no value without evidence.

Really? So all a priori knowledge has no value. So all of the results of pure maths and formal logic--which are foundational for science and technology--have no value? So the consistency and completeness proofs of propositional logic have no value? So the proof of Cantor's theorem has no value?

Quote:I have made no claims about cognitive psychology.

Yes you have. You proposed a magical theory of canine object recognition.

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

Yes it does. How do you think object recognition works? By magic?

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


"God" isn't a specific deity, it is a general conception of deity.

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

That isn't a specific deity, it is entirely generic.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 09:31 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2014 09:38 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(27-01-2014 08:49 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 12:37 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  All the arguments in the world are no substitution for evidence.

*substitute

Again you can't see that you are setting up a false dichotomy between argument and evidence and repeatedly attacking a straw-man.


Incorrect.

Quote:Who claimed that argument could replace evidence?

NOTlookingforanswers claimed that his idiotic argument without any evidence "proves" -- his term was "shows" -- a "need" for a creator".

Quote:
Quote:Argumentation without evidence is just philosophistic wanking of the sort you wallow in.

So pure maths then is "philosophistic wanking".

[Image: strawmanargument.jpg]

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

No I explained the logical structure of cosmological arguments but you are too thick to understand what I posted.

Of course I understood what you posted. You tried to weasel past the fact that cosmological arguments presume the existence of a "creator" that magically "does not begin to exist". FAIL.


Quote:
Quote:Bullshit. You are just resorting to the same sort of semantic prestidigitation that WLC and his ilk use.

That is a genuine an ad hominem argument.

No, it's not. Argumentum Ad Hominem would be something like, "ChimpyChump fucks dogs and thinks everyone else does, so his argument is invalid". Figures you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Quote:
Quote: 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".

No, it isn't. There is no formulation of the cosmological argument that leads to deity. WLC does not claim that the cosmological argument leads to the triune god of christianity.

He disingenuously avoids saying it up front in his argument, in a failing attempt to conceal the assumption.


Quote:
Quote: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.
No, nothing that you have posted demonstrates an understanding either of postmodernism nor cosmological arguments. You are just repeating Bucky Ball's error regarding cosmological arguments.

Your pathetic self-delusion strikes again.


Quote:
Quote:The fact is that everyone who panders cosmological arguments has his own particular deity up his sleeve.

That is besides the point. No Christian apologist claims that a cosmological argument leads to the Trinity.

"The trinity"? Hedging your bet again, I see.


Craig goes on and on about arguments "for the existence of Gawd", including the cosmological argument, in this video at 4:12 - 4:30:







Quote:
Quote: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.

Now you are a mind-reader also, you know for a fact that everyone that invokes a cosmological argument is being disingenuous.

The disingenuous lies within the argument itself. 'Nuther straw man.


Quote:You claimed that the Kalam Cosmological argument "begs the question". I asked you to show me which premise assumes the conclusion. You have shown me no such premise and now you have changed your claim that the argument relies on special pleading.

And I answered that it is the thinly "concealed" premise of the existence of a "creator", which "doesn't begin to exist".


Quote: Special pleading and begging the question are different informal fallacies.

You think I didn't know this? The special pleading comes in with the assertion by fiat that the proposed "creator" "does not begin to exist".

Quote:
Quote: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.

Your claimed counter-examples do not work, they are idiotic and they actually argue my case for me.

Your rebuttal of lookingforanswers is just as specious as your magic dog counter-example.

Your wishful thinking at work again.

Quote:
Quote:My point was and is that argumentation is nothing without evidence.

And that is an idiotic statement to make in response to a cosmological argument. It shows you don't understand cosmological arguments.

It shows that I know them well enough to know that they are carnival shell games, and I don't play them.

Quote:
Quote:ibid.

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

Are you really going to try to quibble over grammar? Laughat

Quote:
Quote:An argument has no value without evidence.

Really? So all a priori knowledge has no value. So all of the results of pure maths and formal logic--which are foundational for science and technology--have no value? So the consistency and completeness proofs of propositional logic have no value? So the proof of Cantor's theorem has no value?

[Image: strawman2.jpg]


Quote:
Quote:I have made no claims about cognitive psychology.

Yes you have. You proposed a magical theory of canine object recognition.


That was your straw man. A dog doesn't write out logical proofs in order to recognize a ball.



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

Yes it does. How do you think object recognition works? By magic?

Again: a dog doesn't write out logical proofs in order to recognize a ball.


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

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


"God" isn't a specific deity, it is a general conception of deity.


That is just semantic prestidigitation. It's not working for you.

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

That isn't a specific deity, it is entirely generic.

Irrelevant to the point that it is begging the question of a "creator" that "doesn't begin to exist" via fallacious special pleading, and you know it. No surprise that you would disingenuously attempt to dodge that fact.

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, 09:33 PM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 09:42 PM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
I like the part where tourette's writes things and pretends he has a point to make.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 09:45 PM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(27-01-2014 09:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I like the part where tourette's writes things and pretends he has a point to make.

I like the part where BrownShitStain gets his head stuck all the way up his boyfriend ChimpyChump's asshole.

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, 10:06 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2014 10:42 PM by Chippy.)
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(27-01-2014 09:31 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Of course I understood what you posted. You tried to weasel past the fact that cosmological arguments presume the existence of a "creator" that magically "does not begin to exist". FAIL.

No, that is the conclusion of cosmological arguments and since in a deductively valid argument the conclusion is implied by the premises--that isn't a problem.

Quote:No, it's not. Argumentum Ad Hominem would be something like, "ChimpyChump fucks dogs and thinks everyone else does, so his argument is invalid".

And that is the substance of your debating skills.

Quote:He disingenuously avoids saying it up front, in a failing attempt to conceal the assumption.

You don't understand the difference between deductive validity and begging the question.

Quote:"The trinity"? Hedging your bet again, I see.

The Trinity is the name of the triune god of Christianity.

Quote:Craig goes on and on about arguments "for the existence of Gawd", including the cosmological argument, in this video at 4:12 - 4:30:




Yes he just says there is argument for God called the Kalam Cosmological Argument. He doesn't claim that it leads to the Trinity. The god that the Kalam argument leads to is entirely generic.

Quote:The disingenuous lies within the argument itself. 'Nuther straw man.

No that is you mind reading and imputing motives to people entirely on the basis of your idiotic prejudice.

Quote:And I answered that it is the "concealed" premise of the existence of a "creator", which "doesn't begin to exist".

That isn't a "concealed premise" it is the conclusion that the premises imply. In all deductively valid arguments the conclusion is implied by the premises.

Quote:Your wishful thinking at work again.

That isn't a rebuttal.

Quote:It shows that I know them well enough to know that they are carnival shell games, and I don't play them.

No you have just demonstrated that you don't understand:
--cosmological arguments
--the difference between deductive validity and begging the question
--what the concept of evidence is
--how mammalian object recognition works (even at a broad conceptual level)
--the value of a priori knowledge, i.e. "argument without evidence"


Quote:Are you really going to try to quibble over grammar?

That isn't a grammatical error, it's you not knowing the meaning of what you are posting.

Just a reminder of what you posted:

Quote:Argumentation without evidence is just philosophistic wanking of the sort you wallow in.

So all pure maths and formal logic is "philosophistic wanking".

Quote:That was your straw man. A dog doesn't write out logical proofs in order to recognize a ball.

An argument is not a logical proof.

A dog performs lots of reasoning to recognize a ball. It doesn't just magically come to knowledge.

Quote:Again: a dog doesn't write out logical proofs in order to recognize a ball.

You don't know what a logical proof is.

It is irrelevant that a dog doesn't "write out" arguments, it nevertheless employs them to recognize a ball. Robots with machine vision don't write out arguments either but they are programmed with logic to perform that task.

Quote:That is just semantic prestidigitation. It's not working for you.

The word "God" is an abstraction, it does not refer to any specific deity.

Quote:Irrelevant to the point that it is begging the question of a "creator" that "doesn't begin to exist" via fallacious special pleading, and you know it. No surprise that you would disingenuously attempt to dodge that fact.

An unidentified creator is not a specific deity.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 10:07 PM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(27-01-2014 09:45 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I like the part where BrownShitStain gets his head stuck all the way up his boyfriend ChimpyChump's asshole.

Your shtick is very repetitive.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 10:10 PM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(27-01-2014 09:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I like the part where tourette's writes things and pretends he has a point to make.

What it did was blindly repeat an error that BuckyBall made about the relationship between evidence and argument. I corrected Bucky and he accepted that he had made a mistake. Tourette's however had already committed to Bucky's error and now it isn't trying to defend an entirely absurd position. Hence the magic dog which just recognizes objects without any logical processing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 10:48 PM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(27-01-2014 10:06 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 09:31 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Of course I understood what you posted. You tried to weasel past the fact that cosmological arguments presume the existence of a "creator" that magically "does not begin to exist". FAIL.

No, that is the conclusion of cosmological arguments and since in a deductively valid argument the conclusion is implied by the premises--that isn't a problem.

There you go, dodging again. It is a HUGE problem that these "arguments" presume -- via special pleading -- the existence of a "creator" that "doesn't begin to exist".

Quote:
Quote:No, it's not. Argumentum Ad Hominem would be something like, "ChimpyChump fucks dogs and thinks everyone else does, so his argument is invalid".

And that is the substance of your debating skills.

The fact that I just trounced you on your lack of debating skills and your idiotic misapprehension of a well-known and basic logical fallacy speaks for itself.


Quote:
Quote:He disingenuously avoids saying it up front, in a failing attempt to conceal the assumption.

You don't understand the difference between deductive validity and begging the question.

You don't understand the difference between honesty and dishonesty.

Quote:
Quote:"The trinity"? Hedging your bet again, I see.

The Trinity is the name of the triune god of Christianity.

I am quite aware of that. The point stands.

Quote:
Quote:Craig goes on and on about arguments "for the existence of Gawd", including the cosmological argument, in this video at 4:12 - 4:30:




Yes he just says there is argument for God called the Kalam Cosmological Argument. He doesn't claim that it leads to the Trinity. The god that the Kalam argument leads to is entirely generic.

See, here is where you were trying to go by are hedging your bet, which is why I called you on it. You lack a basic intellectual honesty that is fundamental to discussion and communication, which is why so much of the bullshit you post gets sent to the Vipers Pit.


Again: Craig specifically calls the "cosmological argument" an "argument for 'gawd's' existence". QED. Quit trying to run away from this point, ChimpyChump.


And I note that even you are calling this "creator" that is asserted a "god".



Quote:
Quote:The disingenuous lies within the argument itself. 'Nuther straw man.

No that is you mind reading and imputing motives to people entirely on the basis of your idiotic prejudice.

You can bleat that all day long ad nauseum, but that doesn't make it any less of a straw man. Of course I can dumb it down for ignorant ChimpyChumps again: THE ARGUMENT IS ITSELF DISINGENUOUS.


Quote:
Quote:And I answered that it is the "concealed" premise of the existence of a "creator", which "doesn't begin to exist".

That isn't a "concealed premise" it is the conclusion that the premises imply. In all deductively valid arguments the conclusion is implied by the premises.

And you can bleat that over and over again all you want as well. That this "creator" has this MAGICAL quality of being "without a beginning" -- as well as the ONLY thing in existence that is "without a beginning" is a concealed premise. You can't hide from that.



Quote:
Quote:Your wishful thinking at work again.

That isn't a rebuttal.

I didn't need a rebuttal.

Quote:
Quote:It shows that I know them well enough to know that they are carnival shell games, and I don't play them.

No you have just demonstrated that you don't understand:
--cosmological arguments
--the difference between deductive validity and begging the question
--what the concept of evidence is
--how mammalian object recognition works
--the value of a priori knowledge, i.e. "argument without evidence"

I demonstrated that I understand Three-Card Monte well enough to know that it's a rigged game. Just like these mental-masturbation cosmological arguments you seem to like to wallow in.


Quote:
Quote:Are you really going to try to quibble over grammar?

That isn't a grammatical error, it's you not knowing the meaning of what you are posting.

You are grabbing at straws. Good.

Quote:
Quote:Just a reminder of what you posted:

[quote]
Argumentation without evidence is just philosophistic wanking of the sort you wallow in.

So all pure maths and formal logic is "philosophistic wanking".

Just another straw man to join the straw army stuffed up your ass.

Quote:
Quote:That was your straw man. A dog doesn't write out logical proofs in order to recognize a ball.

An argument is not a logical proof.

I didn't say it was. You are starting to become a fire hazard, what with all that loose straw up your ass.

Quote:A dog performs lots of reasoning to recognize a ball. It doesn't just magically come to knowledge.

Magic is your straw man. A dog doesn't write out a logical proof in order to understand that I have a ball. Mostly because it doesn't have thumbs.

Quote:
Quote:Again: a dog doesn't write out logical proofs in order to recognize a ball.

You don't know what a logical proof is.

You don't know what a fallacious Argumentum Ad Hominem is. And you smell funny.

Quote:It is irrelevant that a dog doesn't "write out" arguments, it nevertheless employs them to recognize a ball. Robots with machine vision don't write out arguments either but they are programmed with logic to perform that task.

You continue to flail at a straw man. The entire point of this was my pointing out that NOTlookingforanswers was and is attempting to do an end run around his/her obligation to the burden of proof.

Quote:
Quote:That is just semantic prestidigitation. It's not working for you.

The word "God" is an abstraction, it does not refer to any specific deity.

Just ask Craig what his concept of "gawd" is. WITHOUT reference to any of his bag of specious "arguments"

Quote:
Quote:Irrelevant to the point that it is begging the question of a "creator" that "doesn't begin to exist" via fallacious special pleading, and you know it. No surprise that you would disingenuously attempt to dodge that fact.

An unidentified creator is not a specific deity.

Identifying a "creator" with specific characteristics (including "not beginning to exist") makes it a specific deity.

But again you disingenuously attempt to dodge the fact that introducing a "creator" that, via special pleading, "doesn't begin to exist" is begging the question. Of course you won't admit it; you couldn't muster a shred of intellectual honesty to save your life.

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: