[W:381:2733***]Darwinism Descending

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

...

...deleted Mantras 21...16...8...8...

 

[devildavid]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

To sum up, circular reasoning is logically valid through the proof of identity. In other words, since P=P, P->P is logically valid reasoning.

All attempts to refute this have ended up with multiple road trips to Paradox Village.

Circular reasoning and proof of identity have absolutely no logical relationship. P->P means absolutely nothing at all. You need to look these things up for yourself. It is obvious you have done no independent research on them and are taking the word of those who know nothing about it. So don't take my word, Find a corroborating, legitimate source outside of this forum and provide a link for me to check out if you want to convince me that you know what you are talking about.

 

[devildavid]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

I wasn't trying to impress you; I was trying to disabuse your of your misdirected hero-worship. Degrasse doesn't know what he's talking about, and that's all there is to it, no matter who I am or however deluded you are about him and science.

Namaste

Your ad hominem attack on Degrasse is meaningless. Provide a legitimate counter to what Degrasse says and let others decide who makes more sense.

 

[Angel]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Your ad hominem attack on Degrasse is meaningless. Provide a legitimate counter to what Degrasse says and let others decide who makes more sense.

Because you don't understand something doesn't make it meaningless. It just means that the meaning escapes you. I mention in that post the counts on which he shows his ignorance. Respond to them if you wish.

 

[devildavid]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Because you don't understand something doesn't make it meaningless. It just means that the meaning escapes you. I mention in that post the counts on which he shows his ignorance. Respond to them if you wish.

Yet you don't explain how he shows ignorance. Just your usual general broad brush ad hominem. Which once you direct at me as well. This is quite a habit with you.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Circular reasoning and proof of identity have absolutely no logical relationship. P->P means absolutely nothing at all. You need to look these things up for yourself. It is obvious you have done no independent research on them and are taking the word of those who know nothing about it. So don't take my word, Find a corroborating, legitimate source outside of this forum and provide a link for me to check out if you want to convince me that you know what you are talking about.

This has been argued ad-nauseum.... I have supported my position and told you WHY it is valid logic, while you and Quag have done nothing but say "nuh-uh" by means of throwing stones and arguing irrationally by means of paradoxes.

See to it.

 

[Angel]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Yet you don't explain how he shows ignorance. Just your usual general broad brush ad hominem. Which once you direct at me as well. This is quite a habit with you.

I'd suspect irony in this post of yours if I didn't know any better.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Science is not credentials. it is not any individual scientist. It is not any political organization. It does not use consensus. Neil deGrasse Tyson cannot change the axioms that make up logic. He cannot redefine what science is. I have already pointed out the major flaws in the arguments he makes in the video you made a Holy Link to.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. No theory is ever proven. Science does not use supporting evidence. It does not use consensus. It does not depend on credentials.

Astrophysicists are often wrong. Carl Sagan was wrong too. Astro'physics' itself is often not even using or creating any theory of science at all.

(bolded) and neither can you. The difference is that you keep trying, while scientist accept science for what it really is.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Inversion fallacy. You are the one with the paradoxes. You must clear your paradoxes.


"You just don't understand" mantra dismissed.


Yes it was. We all can see what you said. You're arguing irrationally. You must clear your paradoxes.


This kind of irrational argumentation is what happens when one refuses to clear their paradoxes; you're all over the place, Quag.


And why do you think people fail when they try to use faith as their proof? Because faith is a circular argument...


Mockery mantra dismissed.


Edit: You now have ANOTHER paradox
1) Not what I said...
2) I never said that you are making crap up

Or in other words...

1) you are making crap up
2) you are NOT making crap up


Quag, this is now SIX paradoxes... you must clear these paradoxes or else you will continue to argue irrationally.

You keep on claiming paradoxes, but for some reason, you can't coherenetly explain why they are paradoxes, or explain why it is inversion fallacy. Why is that?

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

You keep on claiming paradoxes,

Because Quag keeps putting himself into them...

but for some reason, you can't coherenetly explain why they are paradoxes,

I can and I have.

or explain why it is inversion fallacy. Why is that?

Has already been done.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Because Quag keeps putting himself into them...


I can and I have.


Has already been done.

You make the claim you Quag , nor have I seen a satifactory reason that it's paradoxes.. And, no, I have not seen a correct claim about inversion fallacy.

 

[Quag]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

You make the claim you Quag , nor have I seen a satifactory reason that it's paradoxes.. And, no, I have not seen a correct claim about inversion fallacy.

He just likes the word paradox so he jumped on IT(roll)N's bandwagon of claiming everything I say is a paradox.
The fact that the only paradox actually made in this thread comes from him when he claims a circular argument is a logical fallacy and a circular argument isn't a logical fallacy is of course just the icing on the cake

Logic and faith do not belong together but some people desperately want their faith to be proven and distort logic to pretend that somehow it is.

They of course fail every time but that doesn't stop them from repeating the errors

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

He just likes the word paradox so he jumped on IT(roll)N's bandwagon of claiming everything I say is a paradox.

Strawman fallacy. Neither ITN nor myself have claimed that everything you say is a paradox. We've only claimed that six ideas you've espoused are paradoxes.

The fact that the only paradox actually made in this thread comes from him when he claims a circular argument is a logical fallacy and a circular argument isn't a logical fallacy is of course just the icing on the cake

Stop projecting your paradox onto me, Quag. YOU are the one who made it; YOU are the one who must clear it. And stop being flat out dishonest, Quag. Again, see post #1740 for my direct refutation of the claim you are, once again, asserting here. You continue to argue irrationally; you must clear your paradoxes. Lying about who made the paradox doesn't make it go away...

Logic and faith do not belong together

Faith and logic are not the same; they are two separate things. Faith, however, IS logical reasoning, through the proof of identity.

but some people desperately want their faith to be proven and distort logic to pretend that somehow it is.

Using faith as a proof (ie not recognizing the circular nature of an argument) is the fallacy of circular reasoning.

They of course fail every time but that doesn't stop them from repeating the errors

See above.

 

[Quag]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Strawman fallacy. Neither ITN nor myself have claimed that everything you say is a paradox. We've only claimed that six ideas you've espoused are paradoxes.

Actually just abit of hyperbole, but you do seem to keep making yup the paradox strawmen arguments.

Stop projecting your paradox onto me, Quag. YOU are the one who made it; YOU are the one who must clear it. And stop being flat out dishonest, Quag. Again, see post #1740 for my direct refutation of the claim you are, once again, asserting here. You continue to argue irrationally; you must clear your paradoxes. Lying about who made the paradox doesn't make it go away...

I never made a paradox you did. Lying and trying to pretend I made paradoxes will not make your massive fail go away.

Faith and logic are not the same; they are two separate things. Faith, however, IS logical reasoning, through the proof of identity.

Faith has nothing to do with logic and you clearly have no clue what proof of identity is.

Using faith as a proof (ie not recognizing the circular nature of an argument) is the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Makes no difference if you recognize that a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy it remains a logical fallacy.

See above.

Yes see above

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Actually just abit of hyperbole,

Why the need for hyperbole? Why not just debate rationally?

but you do seem to keep making yup the paradox strawmen arguments.

I don't make stuff up; I list the paradox and I list the straw man. I provide support for what I assert; I don't just throw stones.

...

Deleted mockery mantra.

Faith has nothing to do with logic

Re-read my last post.

...

Deleted "you don't understand" mantra

Makes no difference if you recognize that a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy it remains a logical fallacy.

You're still arguing irrationally since you haven't cleared your paradox, as listed below:
1) Y -> Y is logical.
2) Y -> Y is ILLOGICAL.

Which is it, Quag? Is Y -> Y a logical fallacy, or is it not?

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Strawman fallacy. Neither ITN nor myself have claimed that everything you say is a paradox. We've only claimed that six ideas you've espoused are paradoxes.


Stop projecting your paradox onto me, Quag. YOU are the one who made it; YOU are the one who must clear it. And stop being flat out dishonest, Quag. Again, see post #1740 for my direct refutation of the claim you are, once again, asserting here. You continue to argue irrationally; you must clear your paradoxes. Lying about who made the paradox doesn't make it go away...


Faith and logic are not the same; they are two separate things. Faith, however, IS logical reasoning, through the proof of identity.


Using faith as a proof (ie not recognizing the circular nature of an argument) is the fallacy of circular reasoning.


See above.

You have not made a good case that any of those 6 items are paradoxes. Not at all.

 

[Quag]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Why the need for hyperbole? Why not just debate rationally?

Well I cant be bothered to go back and count exactly how many since they are all strawmen.

I don't make stuff up; I list the paradox and I list the straw man. I provide support for what I assert; I don't just throw stones.

No you didn't you just made strawmen.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Since none of those "paradoxes you claimed I made were actually made by me you were making strawmen.
You however actually made your paradox

Deleted mockery mantra.

Ignoring your paradox will not make it go away.

Re-read my last post.

Ditto

Deleted "you don't understand" mantra

mantra and paradox appear to be your two new favorite words.

You're still arguing irrationally since you haven't cleared your paradox, as listed below:
1) Y -> Y is logical.
2) Y -> Y is ILLOGICAL.

Strawman is ignored

Which is it, Quag? Is Y -> Y a logical fallacy, or is it not?

Strawman is ignored.
Try dealing with what I actually said

 

[Quag]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

You have not made a good case that any of those 6 items are paradoxes. Not at all.

But he appears to have learned a new word and decided to use it at every occasion.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

You have not made a good case that any of those 6 items are paradoxes. Not at all.

Six times Quag has simultaneously argued opposing viewpoints, of which both can't be true; that is what is meant by a paradox.

Quag agrees to that definition because Quag has falsely accused me of being in a paradox (using the same definition as I have used).

Quag just happens to think that denying them and projecting them onto other people makes them go away; that's not how it works. He needs to clear his paradoxes in order to begin arguing rationally once again. I've given him multiple opportunities to do so, or to explain how he hasn't actually argued in such a way (Post #1750 being one such example, with #1762 identifying his latest paradox), but he has refused to address the paradoxes beyond "nuh-uh!" responses, which is just an argument of the stone and can be dismissed as such.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Six times Quag has simultaneously argued opposing viewpoints, of which both can't be true; that is what is meant by a paradox.

Quag agrees to that definition because Quag has falsely accused me of being in a paradox (using the same definition as I have used).

Quag just happens to think that denying them and projecting them onto other people makes them go away; that's not how it works. He needs to clear his paradoxes in order to begin arguing rationally once again. I've given him multiple opportunities to do so, or to explain how he hasn't actually argued in such a way (Post #1750 being one such example, with #1762 identifying his latest paradox), but he has refused to address the paradoxes beyond "nuh-uh!" responses, which is just an argument of the stone and can be dismissed as such.

I have often seen you misrepresent what people are saying to you. I am sorry, but a lack of understanding on one persons part does not make it a paradox

 

[Quag]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Six times Quag has simultaneously argued opposing viewpoints, of which both can't be true; that is what is meant by a paradox.

I never did that you have just made up strawmen

Quag agrees to that definition because Quag has falsely accused me of being in a paradox (using the same definition as I have used).

Not falsely you stated a circular argument is a fallacy and that a circular argument isn't a fallacy, hence the paradox. I never made the statements you dishonestly claim I have made, hence the strawmen

Quag just happens to think that denying them and projecting them onto other people makes them go away; that's not how it works. He needs to clear his paradoxes in order to begin arguing rationally once again. I've given him multiple opportunities to do so, or to explain how he hasn't actually argued in such a way (Post #1750 being one such example, with #1762 identifying his latest paradox), but he has refused to address the paradoxes beyond "nuh-uh!" responses, which is just an argument of the stone and can be dismissed as such.

I never made any paradoxes you just made a bunch of strawmen. I cannot clear up a paradox I did not make
You however DID make a paradox

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Well I cant be bothered to go back and count exactly how many

So you just make stuff up instead? That seems rather irrational...

since they are all strawmen.

More "hyperbole"?

No you didn't you just made strawmen.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

deleted holy link

Since none of those "paradoxes you claimed I made were actually made by me you were making strawmen.

False; ITN and I quoted your exact words every single time you made one. You are now up to six of them. Anyone can read the prior posts and see exactly where you made them.

You however actually made your paradox

You accused me of a paradox, the very same paradox that you made in post #1498. I directly refuted your accusation (projecting your own paradox onto me) by explaining your conflation of my actual position, why my actual position is NOT a paradox, and why your actual position typed out for everybody to see in post #1498 IS that very same paradox that you accuse me of asserting. See to it, Quag.

deleted mockery mantra

Ditto

Ditto.

mantra and paradox appear to be your two new favorite words.

Irrelevant.

Strawman is ignored

Argument of the Stone. You need to support your "your argument is absurd" assertion.

Strawman is ignored.
Try dealing with what I actually said

What did you actually say then?

I've only based my responses off of precisely what you've said.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

I have often seen you misrepresent what people are saying to you.

If I am misrepresenting a position, whoever I am misrepresenting can say "No, gfm7175, I am not asserting that. This is what I am actually asserting." Responses need to move beyond stone throwing for me to take them seriously.

...

"Lack of understanding" mantra removed... And Quag has been shown his very own words, word for word, for every single paradox he has argued. Post #1498 shows two of his six paradoxes, both made within that same post.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

I never did that you have just made up strawmen


Not falsely you stated a circular argument is a fallacy and that a circular argument isn't a fallacy, hence the paradox. I never made the statements you dishonestly claim I have made, hence the strawmen



I never made any paradoxes you just made a bunch of strawmen. I cannot clear up a paradox I did not make
You however DID make a paradox

See post #1740 and post #1498

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

If I am misrepresenting a position, whoever I am misrepresenting can say "No, gfm7175, I am not asserting that. This is what I am actually asserting." Responses need to move beyond stone throwing for me to take them seriously.


"Lack of understanding" mantra removed... And Quag has been shown his very own words, word for word, for every single paradox he has argued. Post #1498 shows two of his six paradoxes, both made within that same post.

1498 does not show his paradox. You made a statement about circular reasoning being logically sound. That is not true. Circular reasoning can often be logically VALID, but that does not show that it is sound. it is only sound if the premise is true. With faith, quite often, the premise is not provable, so it can not be shown if the argument is sound.

He did confuse 'sound' and 'valid'.. but he is correct that unless you can show that the premise is true, you can not show that the conclusion is true.
That is why a circular argument is an informal logical fallacy.

If you replace 'sound' with valid, his point is correct on the first one too. Plus, even if he was totally incorrect with his statements, you are misuing the concept of 'paradox'.