P implies P

[soylentgreen]

Still too frightened to actually quote something I wrote? Surely if you really formed all of these opinions about me it would be trivial to quote me? could it be you are just unable to argue rationally and so there's nothing left but anger?

You mean apart from post #17 where i pointed out yours was a strawman attack.

And no anger is not my problem. Dealing with someone who uses arrogance and dishonesty to maintain his argument as you do is.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You mean apart from post #17 where i pointed out yours was a strawman attack.

And no anger is not my problem. Dealing with someone who uses arrogance and dishonesty to maintain his argument as you do is.

I really don't see how my OP, the first post in the thread (which I agree, you did quote in your post #17) can be described as a "strawman" argument Soylent:

I'd like to hear what others think of statements like "The universe is simply evidence of the universe" (with the intent of conveying that is cannot be, is not evidence of something else).

I regard this as a meaningless statement (in the sense that it's vacuous, conveys no information) or even a misuse of the term "evidence".

I regard the term as only meaningful when in statements like "X is evidence for Y" X and Y are different.

Discuss, is the phrase ever meaningful or is it in and of itself an invalid use of the term "evidence"?

A "strawman" argument is defined as:

A strawman is a fallacious argument that distorts an opposing stance in order to make it easier to attack. Essentially, the person using the strawman pretends to attack their opponent’s stance, while in reality they are actually attacking a distorted version of that stance, which their opponent doesn’t necessarily support.

It was in fact said (elsewhere) that "The universe is simply evidence of the universe" and it is the syntactic validity of this that I question.

Where is the "distorted version" of someone's position? there is none, and so there is no strawman, this is what someone said and that is what I questioned in the OP.

 

[watsup]

Still too frightened to actually quote something I wrote? Surely if you really formed all of these opinions about me it would be trivial to quote me? could it be you are just unable to argue rationally and so there's nothing left but anger?

Last sentence: ad hom.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Last sentence: ad hom.

Yes I think in that case you are correct, I did post an ad hominem attack.

 

[soylentgreen]

I really don't see how my OP, the first post in the thread (which I agree, you did quote in your post #17) can be described as a "strawman" argument Soylent:



A "strawman" argument is defined as:



It was in fact said (elsewhere) that "The universe is simply evidence of the universe" and it is the syntactic validity of this that I question.

Where is the "distorted version" of someone's position? there is none, and so there is no strawman, this is what someone said and that is what I questioned in the OP.

You are just laughable. Your op you state.

"I'd like to hear what others think of statements like "The universe is simply evidence of the universe" (with the intent of conveying that is cannot be, is not evidence of something else)."

While in post #119 you argue that.

"You wrote "He created this thread with the intent that others would quickly join him in condemning the statement..." this clearly refers to my intent does it not?

My intent is unknown to you and it is immaterial to the discussion, the truth or want thereof of a proposition does not depend in any way on my reasons for making said proposition."

You cannot even keep track of the crap you say and end making yourself look foolish.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You are just laughable. Your op you state.

"I'd like to hear what others think of statements like "The universe is simply evidence of the universe" (with the intent of conveying that is cannot be, is not evidence of something else)."

You are engaging in an ad-hominem right there Solylent, whatever my intent was it is irrelevant, period; the instant you refer to it and use in any way as part of your own counter argument is when you commit the fault of ad-hominem attack.

Saying "I'd like to hear what others think of statements like 'The universe is simply evidence of the universe' " is not a violation of any forum rules or the norms of respectful debating, please I encourage you to reach out to moderators and seek their opinions.

While in post #119 you argue that.

"You wrote "He created this thread with the intent that others would quickly join him in condemning the statement..." this clearly refers to my intent does it not?

My intent is unknown to you and it is immaterial to the discussion, the truth or want thereof of a proposition does not depend in any way on my reasons for making said proposition."

You cannot even keep track of the crap you say and end making yourself look foolish.

And? attacking someone's intent is ad-hominem, plain and simple, you did it right above and Watsup did it earlier, that's pretty much that.

 

[watsup]

You are engaging in an ad-hominem right there Solylent, whatever my intent was it is irrelevant, period; the instant you refer to it and use in any way as part of your own argument is when you commit the fault of ad-hominem attack.

Saying "I'd like to hear what others think of statements like 'The universe is simply evidence of the universe' " is not a violation of any forum rules or the norms of respectful debating, please I encourage you to reach out to moderators and seek their opinions.



And? attacking someone's intent is ad-hominem, plain and simple, you did it right above and Watsup did it earlier, that's pretty much that.

You are trying to broaden the term "ad hom" to the point where debate comes almost impossible and becomes more about accusations of ad hom rather than staying on topic.
The most often used understanding of the term has to do with a DIRECT ATTACK on the CHARACTER of the person in question by using negative and loaded terms in personal insult towards that person. To use the term "dishonest" refers to the ARGUMENT made rather than to the character of the person directly. And do I have to remind you of the literally DOZENS of times that I have seen you use the term with respect to your debate opponents over the couple of months that I've been here?
When you insist on inserting terms like "intent" or "motive" into the definition, then we could literally spend all our time arguing about whether the other person attacked those items instead of focusing on the topic.
For what it's worth, I do find that you are a quite dishonest chatter. I'm not saying that as a personal insult, per se, but simply as an opinion of the debate methodologies that you have used since I've arrived, and continue to use. That, and the fact that you use the term VERY often against others. Let's get back to the topic, per se, instead of quibbling about what ad hom is and/or isn't.
And when I use the term "ad hom" with respect to a post that you have made, one can always go back and find the PERSONAL attacks that you have made on the other chatter's CHARACTER. Those should be kept to an absolute minimum in that they show a weakness on the part of the person using the ad hom rather than the person on the receiving end.
Anyway, those are my thoughts.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You are trying to broaden the term "ad hom" to the point where debate comes almost impossible and becomes more about accusations of ad hom rather than staying on topic.
The most often used understanding of the term has to do with a DIRECT ATTACK on the CHARACTER of the person in question by using negative and loaded terms in personal insult towards that person. To use the term "dishonest" refers to the ARGUMENT made rather than to the character of the person directly. And do I have to remind you of the literally DOZENS of times that I have seen you use the term with respect to your debate opponents over the couple of months that I've been here?
When you insist on inserting terms like "intent" or "motive" into the definition, then we could literally spend all our time arguing about whether the other person attacked those items instead of focusing on the topic.
For what it's worth, I do find that you are a quite dishonest chatter. I'm not saying that as a personal insult, per se, but simply as an opinion of the debate methodologies that you have used since I've arrived, and continue to use. That, and the fact that you use the term VERY often against others. Let's get back to the topic, per se, instead of quibbling about what ad hom is and/or isn't.
And when I use the term "ad hom" with respect to a post that you have made, one can always go back and find the PERSONAL attacks that you have made on the other chatter's CHARACTER. Those should be kept to an absolute minimum in that they show a weakness on the part of the person using the ad hom rather than the person on the receiving end.
Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Here's some definitions for you:

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

A fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim.

But I'm done, it is such an utter waste of time trying to discuss anything with people who don't even know when they are wrong.

 

[watsup]

Here's some definitions for you:





But I'm done, it is such an utter waste of time trying to discuss anything with people who don't even know when they are wrong.

Ad hom.

 

[soylentgreen]

You are engaging in an ad-hominem right there Solylent, whatever my intent was it is irrelevant, period; the instant you refer to it and use in any way as part of your own counter argument is when you commit the fault of ad-hominem attack.

Saying "I'd like to hear what others think of statements like 'The universe is simply evidence of the universe' " is not a violation of any forum rules or the norms of respectful debating, please I encourage you to reach out to moderators and seek their opinions.



And? attacking someone's intent is ad-hominem, plain and simple, you did it right above and Watsup did it earlier, that's pretty much that.

But your use of intent in the op was not irrelevant. It was an attempt to create a strawman and dishonestly hide why the comment was in context to.

If you have a problem then contact the mods yourself But do not try using them as an excuse to continue making false claims.

And again, as i have said. I have no problem with your continuing to demonstrate the dishonesty a theist will go to.

Nor have i attacked you nor is it an ad hom to point out that your thread is a laughable joke that does nothing more than demonstrate your own inability to argue honestly.

And if you are going to claim my pointing to your intent is an ad hom then your own claim of intent in the op must also be an ad hom. But will you admit that or just continue trying to avoid your obvious hypocrisy.

 

[Quag]

Somebody created it.

Clearly I was asking what the point of the thread was.
Would you care to elaborate on that?

 

[lwf]

Only if you assume that time is real and linear and not just a human construct.

Construction cannot happen outside of linear time. Experience itself cannot exist outside of linear time. If time had a beginning, then whatever "started" it is the first cause. If we assume a creator, or just human experience, then that is the first cause. But this is a baseless assumption that requires one extra logically-inconsistent entity than the other baseless assumption that it simply always was and is all there ever was. Occam's razor requires that we not add extraneous entities.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

But your use of intent in the op was not irrelevant. It was an attempt to create a strawman and dishonestly hide why the comment was in context to.

None of that matters, the truth of a proposition does not depend on the characteristics, beliefs or motives of the proponent.

You cannot evaluate a proposition based on what you think my "motive" is for proposing it, it is either true or false.

 

[watsup]

None of that matters, the truth of a proposition does not depend on the characteristics, beliefs or motives of the proponent.

You cannot evaluate a proposition based on what you think my "motive" is for proposing it, it is either true or false.

And the truth is that most people did indeed disagree with your "proposition" and also saw through the reason that you posted it. That is quite fair.

 

[Drawdown]

Construction cannot happen outside of linear time. Experience itself cannot exist outside of linear time. If time had a beginning, then whatever "started" it is the first cause. If we assume a creator, or just human experience, then that is the first cause. But this is a baseless assumption that requires one extra logically-inconsistent entity than the other baseless assumption that it simply always was and is all there ever was. Occam's razor requires that we not add extraneous entities.

Declaring something true does not make it true.

 

[watsup]

Declaring something true does not make it true.

True.

 

[watsup]

Once again for the hard of hearing this thread is about the syntactic validity of propositions of the form "P is evidence of P" - if you and others cannot discuss this abstract question without referring to "God" all the time then what does that tell me about you?

You take every opportunity to derail the discussion, and we both know why. It is because you fear that if I expose the vacuity inherent in "P is evidence of P" then I show that it is a fallacious proposition to say "The universe is evidence of the universe" and by extension perceive this is a weakness in the atheists ability to argue, which of course it is.

It appears to me that you are attempting to have a syntactic debate about syntax. It all gets very confusing.

 

[lwf]

Declaring something true does not make it true.

Correct. Nor can we ever know for sure what is true. All we can do is speculate about a "first cause." It could be that the space time continuum/universe is itself simply uncaused. Or we can postulate that it was "caused" by something else in a different space and time, which itself was caused by something else in an even earlier space time, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

 

[Drawdown]

Correct. Nor can we ever know for sure what is true. All we can do is speculate about a "first cause." It could be that the space time continuum/universe is itself simply uncaused. Or we can postulate that it was "caused" by something else in a different space and time, which itself was caused by something else in an even earlier space time, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Time is a human construct to make sense of change. "First" is only a regressive theory that may or may not exist.

 

[soylentgreen]

None of that matters, the truth of a proposition does not depend on the characteristics, beliefs or motives of the proponent.

You cannot evaluate a proposition based on what you think my "motive" is for proposing it, it is either true or false.

It is irrelevant. It is basic logic 101. Without giving the context you are so desperate to deny, yours like all your posts is meaningless drivel.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It is irrelevant. It is basic logic 101. Without giving the context you are so desperate to deny, yours like all your posts is meaningless drivel.

Man!

So is that an agreement with me that motive is irrelevant? if so why the insulting remarks about drivel and desperation?

 

[soylentgreen]

Man!

So is that an agreement with me that motive is irrelevant? if so why the insulting remarks about drivel and desperation?

Because that is all you have with this thread as you have had in other threads. I do not agree with you that motive is is irrelevant. I do point out what a hypocrite you are to complain of ad hom when your intent is pointed out while using a strawman argument of intent in your own op.

Did i not make that clear enough. Is this a comprehension skill you are lacking in or just another example of dishonesty that you try to sweep this under the carpet by falsely pretending it is about irrelevance.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I do not agree with you that motive is is irrelevant.

I see, so let me dispense with the other parts of your reply that are just ad-hominem and lets focus on this.

The definition of ad-hominem (there are of course a great many) all emphasize the the questioner, his race, motives, beliefs, personal traits, age, gender etc etc are irrelevant when forming a counter argument to something they have argued.

So for example if someone argued for increasing educational coverage of the history of slavery, you couldn't argue "Yes well, your black so you would say that" if they were black - do you at least agree? that the race of the person is irrelevant?

 

[soylentgreen]

I see, so let me dispense with the other parts of your reply that are just ad-hominem and lets focus on this.

The definition of ad-hominem (there are of course a great many) all emphasize the the questioner, his race, motives, beliefs, personal traits, age, gender etc etc are irrelevant when forming a counter argument to something they have argued.

So for example if someone argued for increasing educational coverage of the history of slavery, you couldn't argue "Yes well, your black so you would say that" if they were black - do you at least agree? that the race of the person is irrelevant?

i understand. You are badly loosing this argument and to cover over your loss you try to change the subject. Again another example of how bad you debate with tricks that are so obvious. Nothing i have said is an ad hom. Pointing out your dishonesty when you are in fact being dishonest is not an ad hom.

Your thread is a fail. And the best you can do is pretend that it is just ad homs instead of legitimate points of your inability to make a case.

 

[watsup]

I see, so let me dispense with the other parts of your reply that are just ad-hominem and lets focus on this.

The definition of ad-hominem (there are of course a great many) all emphasize the the questioner, his race, motives, beliefs, personal traits, age, gender etc etc are irrelevant when forming a counter argument to something they have argued.

So for example if someone argued for increasing educational coverage of the history of slavery, you couldn't argue "Yes well, your black so you would say that" if they were black - do you at least agree? that the race of the person is irrelevant?

Once again you are offering a fakey definition, just like you do with atheism. Ad hom basically has to do with name calling, of which you do more than anyone else in DB. To add all sorts of subtexts would basically make debate impossible because the chatters would spend all of their time trying to show the ad hom of their opponents.
Like you are doing now.