• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Richard Dawkins quote regarding agnostics: "Fence-sitting, intellectual cowards

watsup said:
My logic was perfect. Here it is. You can’t show otherwise.

Here is what you said in post #1781:



My logic followed:
A triangle must have three angles.
A square has three angles.
Therefore a square is a triangle.

This logic is based on your statement above. How is it wrong? It is perfect logic.
Click to expand...
Tell you what, W. Here is a chance for you to use AI to help you understand the problem with what you are saying.

Go to Chatgpt and enter this. (cut and paste it into the box)

A debate partner of mine asserts that a triangle must have 3 angles. In response I said, “By that standard, a square is indeed a triangle since it meets your criteria of having three angles. How is that not logical in accordance with your original statement? A triangle must have three angles. A square has three angles. Ergo, a square is a triangle.



He retorted that my logic is very flawed. (Actually, he said my logic sucks.)



I responded with:

By that standard, a square is indeed a triangle since it meets your criteria of having three angles. How is that not logical in accordance with your original statement?

A triangle must have three angles.
A square has three angles.
Ergo, a square is a triangle.

I am saying that my comment is perfect logic.

Am I correct…or is he.



Give it a shot, W.
 
Frank Apisa said:
You still haven't chimed in on that "logic" that W is trying to sell...and defend.

Why not?
Click to expand...

Because I wanted to see how you would try to articulate the error. You appear unequipped to do so, so here you go.

It is an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Just because all triangles have three angles does not mean that all things with three angles are triangles.

In the conditional proposition "if something is a triangle it has three angles" being a triangle is the antecedent, and having three angles is the consequent.

The antecedent being true implies that the consequent is true, but the consequent being true does not imply that the antecedent is true.

When the truth of the antecedent is concluded from the truth of the consequent, that is known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Tell you what, W. Here is a chance for you to use AI to help you understand the problem with what you are saying.

Go to Chatgpt and enter this. (cut and paste it into the box)

A debate partner of mine asserts that a triangle must have 3 angles. In response I said, “By that standard, a square is indeed a triangle since it meets your criteria of having three angles. How is that not logical in accordance with your original statement? A triangle must have three angles. A square has three angles. Ergo, a square is a triangle.



He retorted that my logic is very flawed. (Actually, he said my logic sucks.)



I responded with:

By that standard, a square is indeed a triangle since it meets your criteria of having three angles. How is that not logical in accordance with your original statement?

A triangle must have three angles.
A square has three angles.
Ergo, a square is a triangle.

I am saying that my comment is perfect logic.

Am I correct…or is he.



Give it a shot, W.
Click to expand...

I don’t need a third party. My logic is flawless since you still can’t show that a triangle does not have three angles. It does.
 
AConcernedCitizen said:
Because I wanted to see how you would try to articulate the error. You appear unequipped to do so, so here you go.

It is an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Just because all triangles have three angles does not mean that all things with three angles are triangles.

In the conditional proposition "if something is a triangle it has three angles" being a triangle is the antecedent, and having three angles is the consequent.

The antecedent being true implies that the consequent is true, but the consequent being true does not imply that the antecedent is true.

When the truth of the antecedent is concluded from the truth of the consequent, that is known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Click to expand...
Thank you, CC. I knew you were a genius. Smarter than W or me or even AI.

You came through. I could never do it.
 
Frank Apisa said:
What?

A triangle definitely does have three angles...which is what I have been saying all along.
Click to expand...

Except, of course, for all times where you said it was not possible for a triangle to have three angles.
 
AConcernedCitizen said:
Except, of course, for all times where you said it was not possible for a triangle to have three angles.
Click to expand...
Stop with that. I have explained why the complete quote makes sense.

But...you have to defend against me...because I am showing that atheists do the same thing with their blind guesses that theists and religionists do with theirs.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Stop with that. I have explained why the complete quote makes sense.

But...you have to defend against me...because I am showing that atheists do the same thing with their blind guesses that theists and religionists do with theirs.
Click to expand...

Says the person who makes blind guesses about the “possibility” of a God or gods without a scintilla of evidence to support the claim.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Stop with that. I have explained why the complete quote makes sense.
Click to expand...

What sense? Affirming the consequent is downright erudite compared with whatever that was.

Affirming the consequent is a common enough mistake to warrant its own moniker. The fallacy of not-being-able-to-figure-out-that-it-is-possible-for-true-things-to-be-true is too daft for logicians to even bother coming up with a name for it.
 
AConcernedCitizen said:
What sense? Affirming the consequent is downright erudite compared with whatever that was.

Affirming the consequent is a common enough mistake to warrant its own moniker. The fallacy of not-being-able-to-figure-out-that-it-is-possible-for-true-things-to-be-true is too daft for logicians to even bother coming up with a name for it.
Click to expand...
It makes sense...and if there were a way to insure the truth (there ain't) I would bet big money that you know it.

But...continue with the sham. I am always happy to see someone confirming my suspicions about them.
 
Frank Apisa said:
It makes sense...and if there were a way to insure the truth (there ain't) I would bet big money that you know it.

But...continue with the sham. I am always happy to see someone confirming my suspicions about them.
Click to expand...

Yet more projection.
 
watsup said:
Just yet another excuse for not expanding the Gish Gallop that you posted way back there. All that you did was to post it and then say “see, that shows that you were wrong” without trying to specifically cite even one quote in that garbage, and that’s because I don’t think that you even read it for understanding. Get back to me when you can do so.
Click to expand...
I've cited a substantive quote from Clifford Geertz in post 1186 of the "boring atheists" thread, so your claim that I never supplied any quotes is a lie. You forgot about it because you were in a rush to make claims about the claims of anthropologists you can't even name. Here's the quote again, proving that not all anthropologists endorse your functionalist position: "Believing…that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun…I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretative one in search of meaning. It is explication I am after, construing social expression on their surface enigmatical.-- Geertz, RELIGION IN MODJOKUTO." You answered in post 1209 that you dismissed the quote because it didn't have like a whole chapter to justify the position. But it's as substantive as anything you've provided, as is shown by the fact that you can't explicate any of "your" anthropologists' positions.
 
watsup said:
You said that a triangle must have three angles. A square has three angles. Therefore a square is a triangle. Ergo, this logic is impeccable.
Click to expand...
A square has four angles, not three. You can't ignore the extra angle the way you ignore requests for your definition of evidence.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Frankly, I do not think your Baloob has been shown to be impossible...but if you are claiming it has been established as impossible...then it cannot be possible. Nothing that has been established as impossible can be possible.

But establishing something as impossible is not an easy task...and doing so via "witnessing" is not going to cut the mustard...especially if the witnessing is being done by someone like you.
Click to expand...
When he claims that Baloob is not possible, he's making a crude "reductio ad absurdum" to claim that gods are also not possible, as I'm sure you know. But as you point out, his claim that Baloob is not possible from the first invalidates his intended parallel.
 
Ouroboros said:
I've cited a substantive quote from Clifford Geertz in post 1186 of the "boring atheists" thread, so your claim that I never supplied any quotes is a lie. You forgot about it because you were in a rush to make claims about the claims of anthropologists you can't even name. Here's the quote again, proving that not all anthropologists endorse your functionalist position: "Believing…that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun…I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretative one in search of meaning. It is explication I am after, construing social expression on their surface enigmatical.-- Geertz, RELIGION IN MODJOKUTO." You answered in post 1209 that you dismissed the quote because it didn't have like a whole chapter to justify the position. But it's as substantive as anything you've provided, as is shown by the fact that you can't explicate any of "your" anthropologists' positions.
Click to expand...

It’s just an out-of-context garbage quote which is why you only posted it without trying to explain on your own how it supposedly applies to my claims. Can you do so? Apparently not since all that you do is to post it and then try to put me on defense, as usual. It’s your primary modus operandi.
 
Ouroboros said:
A square has four angles, not three. You can't ignore the extra angle the way you ignore requests for your definition of evidence.
Click to expand...

Frank’s original statement is “A triangle has three angles”. There are three angles in a square. This is a true statement. Ergo a square is a triangle. This conclusion is at least as good as Frank’s claim of the “possibility” of a God or gods without a scintilla of evidence. I have evidence. If you can count to three, you will find that a square does indeed have three angles.
 
Ouroboros said:
When he claims that Baloob is not possible, he's making a crude "reductio ad absurdum" to claim that gods are also not possible, as I'm sure you know. But as you point out, his claim that Baloob is not possible from the first invalidates his intended parallel.
Click to expand...

That’s not what he said. He said that it has not been shown for Baloob to be impossible, with the clear implication that Balloob is indeed possible. But he and I both know that Balloob is just a fantasy, so what he is actually doing is also blowing up his constant claim that a God or gods is possible without providing a bit of evidence other than words and not actuality-based evidence. It’s just a repetitive garbage statement on his part.
 
watsup said:
Frank’s original statement is “A triangle has three angles”.
Click to expand...

My original statement is "A triangle must have three angles." I later amended it to, "A triangle must have three angles, no more no less."

There are three angles in a square.
Click to expand...

Correct. There are three angles in a square. There also are two angles and four angles in a square.

This is a true statement.
Click to expand...
It is indeed.

Ergo a square is a triangle.
Click to expand...
That is absurd. It is not.

This conclusion is at least as good as Frank’s claim of the “possibility” of a God or gods without a scintilla of evidence.
Click to expand...

Only in your mind. A square is not a triangle...and nothing I have said would make it one.

That has been explained to you. Your insistence is comical...in a way.

I have evidence. If you can count to three, you will find that a square does indeed have three angles.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. Are you assuming someone is disagreeing with you on that?

But it is not a triangle...which most grade schooler knows.

This is a true statement. Ergo a square is a triangle.
Click to expand...
No it isn't.
 
watsup said:
That’s not what he said. He said that it has not been shown for Baloob to be impossible, with the clear implication that Balloob is indeed possible. But he and I both know that Balloob is just a fantasy, so what he is actually doing is also blowing up his constant claim that a God or gods is possible without providing a bit of evidence other than words and not actuality-based evidence. It’s just a repetitive garbage statement on his part.
Click to expand...
I guess there are some who would say that I own you.

Of course, I would not. But I certainly would not attempt to correct anyone who said it.

;)
 
watsup said:
Frank’s original statement is “A triangle has three angles”. There are three angles in a square. This is a true statement. Ergo a square is a triangle.
Click to expand...
Watsup...if I were to say that a horse has 4 legs...would you then say that since a cat also has four legs (you can count them)...it is a horse?

C'mon. You are a great cyber friend...and I cannot adequately express how much I look forward to our many conversations. Now just relax...and let this pass.
 
watsup said:
It’s just an out-of-context garbage quote which is why you only posted it without trying to explain on your own how it supposedly applies to my claims. Can you do so? Apparently not since all that you do is to post it and then try to put me on defense, as usual. It’s your primary modus operandi.
Click to expand...
Not garbage at all. Geertz took issue with functionalists like you, who want to reduce all human activities to predictability-- that's the part where he disagrees with regarding culture as a source of "laws." You may need a class in reading comprehension, since you missed that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom