Varieties of Theism: Monotheism, Polytheism, Deism, Pantheism, and More

[Cinocard]

Well, now, Ascaloth, since many have suggested us to lay its off, it's about time I quit playing around and finish things up

Let us do some practice on a formal logical debate Each time I will lay out concrete logical statements for you to agree or not agree. Be patient, as at times you may see my questions as meaningless, and we may need to do a lot of questions, but it will resolve things for definite. If you agree, you need not say further than "I agree," and await for my next questions. However, if you do not agree, I request you to put on also a counterargument, that can be easily broken down into simple logical formula. Be careful in your answers, as revisions will just get us into circular arguments, again, hence not allowed.

Here goes:

Spoiler for Question 1:

Consider the premise: X if and only if Y.

It will, universally, lead to 2 conclusions:

If not Y, then not X. Like wise, If not X, then not Y.

You agree this logic formula is correct?

Spoiler for Question 2:

As we all know, argumentum ad ignorantiam (AKA argument from ignorance) is a deadly trap.
We have a statement X.

Even If X has yet to be proven to be true (or false), we can not say for definite that therefore X is false (or true).

Is this correct?

Anything else I put under the spoiler tag below is my own little entertainment. And I suggest you, if wanting to reply to them, put the response under the same tag also, to not bother other members further

Spoiler for Pff. Long, beware!:

Oooooh, right. But hey, where's your so-called proof? Nope, I don't see it

I intended to show it, but you yourself told me not to, because it would categorically fail

And like Anh_Minh said, the right way to refute an accusation of a Straw Man, but did you do that? Nooooooooooooo

There are two way to refute an accusation: to prove that the accuser's argument is incorrect (which makes the accusation becomes NOT TRUE); and to prove the opposite claim of the argument is correct (which makes the accusation WRONG for definite).

I never refused to use method 2. I even said I could, if you wanted. I just did not use it because:

Spoiler for Log:

I said what you said can be understood as so, and if you want I can explain how so it can be deduced.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Therefore, I would advise you to desist from pursuing a deduction of this nature, since it would be based on fallacious and shaky logic in any case

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

such an attempt would only be a Straw Man of my actual arguments, and thus logically fallacious no matter which every way you try to "prove" it. So really, no, you don't have to bother.

Pff...

What about method 1? What is your argument to prove that I made a straw man? IT was "categorically so." Which is a form of this argument:

Spoiler for Log:

* Fact 1: X claims statement A.
* Fact 2: X claims that X is not lying.
* Conclusion: Therefore, A is true.

Let's apply it to our situation:
* Fact 1: Ascaloth claims that Ascaloth is correct.
* Fact 2: X claims that X is not lying.
* Conclusion 1: Therefore, Ascaloth is correct.

* Fact 3: Ascaloth claims that sentences ABC do not imply philosophy is unintelligible at all
* Colclusion 1: Ascaloth is correct.
* Conclusion 2: Therefore, sentences ABC do not imply philosophy is unintelligible.
* Extra conclusion: Anyone says "PERHAPS sentences ABC imply so," is a straw man.

Nuh uh, it doesn't work that way. You laid the charge of "screaming that philosophy is stupid" on me, so semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges". In this case, that's you. At the same time, since I'm not the one actively laying charges, therefore I don't carry the onus probandi, conversely I carry the benefit of assumption instead; in other words, I need no evidence to prove my position until you pull up evidence to support your argument. Trying to claim otherwise simply leads to an argumentum ad ignorantium, so suck it up and bring up your "proofs" already.

If you don't understand it fully, don't just pick a link and quote it wrongly...

If my claim is yet to be proven to be right, it is not right. But it is yet to be wrong. If it's not wrong, it's not a straw man.

You accused me of straw man. So you have to prove that it's wrong for definite. If you say that it's because I have yet to prove it's right, it's just argument of ignorance. Burden of Proof is built upon a priori presumption. There is no presumption in our discussion (except the presumption that Ascaloth is always correct

Ask any lawyer. Or you know any law teacher. You can ask anyone.

In any case, legal systems that have laws with presumption of Innocence, the nature of burden of Proof in Laws (yes, laws, not in all logic arguments) becomes that there are two types of judgments: Free of guilty, and declare of Innocence. A person can only be punished if he's proven to be guilty. That's why defendants can refute proof of prosecutors to make suspect free of guilty, or prove for definite that suspect is innocent (declare of Innocence).

There are also others legal systems with Presumption of Guilty, in which the situation totally reverses, and defendants carry the burden of proof. And the statement ""the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges" is obviously not right in general. "burden of proof" is a concept existing mostly only in court, and even in courts, it is not universal.

If you don't understand laws, please go and read books about it first instead of going here and mumbo jumbo about your half-completed knowledge

Why yes, I did say all that. So? I was merely laying it out on the table [wry]out of the goodness of my heart[/wry], showing you why I think you cannot possibly prove what you're claiming about my statements, just to discourage you from pursuing this course (which, as I've now learnt to my sorrow, apparently doesn't work too well against someone as bullheaded as you are). I wasn't even trying to prove that you were wrong; I have the benefit of assumption while the onus probandi is on you, I could have just sat back and let you bash your head in vain. I shall do just that next time, since apparently kindness doesn't get reciprocated

This line of reason is very laughable, rofl. And you keep repeating it so fluently.

"Because you made a claim (which was a question in fact), you have a burden of proof. But the claim is categorically wrong (because I never meant what you claim), you don't need to show your proof. Therefore, you are categorically a straw man."

Tell me that's not your argument

Because you were attempting a plurium interrogationum to attempt to make me admit unwittingly that I made the claim you said I was making unintentionally, unconsciously, out of bad faith, or bad memory. As if that isn't enough, you go on to claim that I'm refuting you out of ignorance, intent to deceive, or error. By so doing, you cast aspersions on my motives and thus my character; thus argumentum ad hominem circumstantial, thus personal attack.

Wow, You must have been so stupid if you could ever be tricked into admitting something like that unwittingly. But you are not. So why do you think I bother?

They were just several examples of reason why my claim about your posts is not categorically wrong. It was a deduction of logical consequences (which can be wrong). But that's not attacking personally. That's attacking your arguments, which if success may result (yeah, may, I always use "may" or "perhaps" in my arguments before something can be proven for definite) in your persona's harm.

However, many of my sentences can be deemed as having underlying meaning and attempting to provoke. But hey, I have yet to make any explicit statement about your personality (yeah, tried really hard not to). So, if we were at a court right now, you would be the one who would get into more trouble than me.

Because, this is what we call explicitly attacking personally:

Spoiler for Log:

"That is an outright lie"
"It's frankly appalling how far you can take your bad faith against me. Seriously, sod off."
"bring it, grasshopper."
"as bullheaded as you are"

Well, no one can blame you even if you lose your temper. Still, you have little right yourself in complaining that I'm attacking you personally.

No big loss to me.

No matter how you say it, it's just throwing a dictionary and repeat the definition. It's a win-win situation for me, really Lessen me the job of reading some mumbo jumbo.

Really? Seems like it's your thigh that caught the bullet, pal.

Wow, both thighs for you now. Must be hard to crawl...

Consensus is rising that this is the best part of the "debate."

when I was engaged in a debate about religious debate, you somehow got the idea that I was "screaming that philosophy was stupid".

Indeed, since the topic was about religion, not philosophy, in the first place. Guess who dragged the discussion off-topic in the first place?

Spoiler for ?:

Why would I consider an artificial social construct originating from the collective imagination of primitive humanity as a possible component of modern-day scientific knowledge based on the rigorous application of the scientific method?

all I have been pointing out is that classical philosophy has no grounding in the modern day scientific method, and thus has no grounding in factual knowledge.

Well, you can reread the topic

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

Well, now, Ascaloth, since many have suggested us to lay its off, it's about time I quit playing around and finish things up

Let us do some practice on a formal logical debate Each time I will lay out concrete logical statements for you to agree or not agree. Be patient, as at times you may see my questions as meaningless, and we may need to do a lot of questions, but it will resolve things for definite. If you agree, you need not say further than "I agree," and await for my next questions. However, if you do not agree, I request you to put on also a counterargument, that can be easily broken down into simple logical formula. Be careful in your answers, as revisions will just get us into circular arguments, again, hence not allowed.

Here goes:

Spoiler for Question 1:

Consider the premise: X if and only if Y.

It will, universally, lead to 2 conclusions:

If not Y, then not X. Like wise, If not X, then not Y.

You agree this logic formula is correct?

Spoiler for Question 2:

As we all know, argumentum ad ignorantiam (AKA argument from ignorance) is a deadly trap.
We have a statement X.

Even If X has yet to be proven to be true (or false), we can not say for definite that therefore X is false (or true).

Is this correct?

Plurium interrogationum. Sorry, I have no intention of playing your little game, since you are just trying to mislead me into admitting whatever you're trying to make me admit. Spare us your sophistry, and just lay out your proofs simply and directly, thanks.

I intended to show it, but you yourself told me not to, because it would categorically fail

Sure, I did. How nice of you to be such a good boy and listen to everything I say, so that I can keep attacking you as long as you didn't lay out your proofs. How does it feel to be responsible for having wasted everyone's time?

There are two way to refute an accusation: to prove that the accuser's argument is incorrect (which makes the accusation becomes NOT TRUE); and to prove the opposite claim of the argument is correct (which makes the accusation WRONG for definite).

I never refused to use method 2. I even said I could, if you wanted. I just did not use it because:

You made a claim that I "have been screaming that philosophy was stupid". You did not offer any proof of that claim in the same post, merely a promise of that proof. As long as you didn't come up with that proof, I'm fully justified in claiming that you made a Straw Man of my arguments. And since I'm pretty damned sure you couldn't come up with that proof, I suggested that you desisted since I cannot see how you can possibly come up with any proofs to that effect. Again, so nice of you to be such a good boy as to follow my suggestion....too bad you proceeded to waste everyone's time with bare assertions instead.

Pff...

What about method 1? What is your argument to prove that I made a straw man? IT was "categorically so." Which is a form of this argument:

Spoiler for Log:

* Fact 1: X claims statement A.
* Fact 2: X claims that X is not lying.
* Conclusion: Therefore, A is true.

Let's apply it to our situation:
* Fact 1: Ascaloth claims that Ascaloth is correct.
* Fact 2: X claims that X is not lying.
* Conclusion 1: Therefore, Ascaloth is correct.

* Fact 3: Ascaloth claims that sentences ABC do not imply philosophy is unintelligible at all
* Colclusion 1: Ascaloth is correct.
* Conclusion 2: Therefore, sentences ABC do not imply philosophy is unintelligible.
* Extra conclusion: Anyone says "PERHAPS sentences ABC imply so," is a straw man.

Like I demonstrated earlier, you made a claim. You didn't offer any proofs, merely the promise of it, which counts for nothing. Therefore, since you have not provided any proof up to this point, I am perfectly justified to call you out on a Straw Man. Quod erat demonstradum, I have proved that my accusation of your claim as a Straw Man is valid, and not a bare assertions"]bare assertion fallacy[/URL]. Try again.

If you don't understand it fully, don't just pick a link and quote it wrongly...

If my claim is yet to be proven to be right, it is not right. But it is yet to be wrong. If it's not wrong, it's not a straw man.

You accused me of straw man. So you have to prove that it's wrong for definite. If you say that it's because I have yet to prove it's right, it's just argument of ignorance. Burden of Proof is built upon a priori presumption. There is no presumption in our discussion (except the presumption that Ascaloth is always correct

Congratulations, you managed to call me out on a logical fallacy correctly! Nicely done on the first correct thing you've managed to did all this while.

Except for one thing; you claim that there was no presumption in our discussion? Not exactly, there was one; it's your claim that I was "screaming that philosophy was stupid". Therefore, it seems that the onus probandi does rest on you after all. And since you have yet to present any proofs, you are simply claiming that you're right about your interpretation, which is simply proof by assertion. And since you keep giving excuses for not showing these "proofs", I am forced to conclude by argumentum ex silentio that you never had any good "proofs" to begin with. Of course, that last one remains legitimate until you finally show your proofs, at which point it becomes illegitimate. Therefore, if you want to prove that your claim is correct, stop wasting time engaging in sophistry and show it.

This line of reason is very laughable, rofl. And you keep repeating it so fluently.

"Because you made a claim (which was a question in fact), you have a burden of proof. But the claim is categorically wrong (because I never meant what you claim), you don't need to show your proof. Therefore, you are categorically a straw man."

Tell me that's not your argument

Like I said, that was a suggestion, although fair enough, I do admit how it could look like an argument. Mea culpa. Then again, why were you such a good boy that you'll listen to what I say and get yourself sidetracked instead of proceeding to prove your case? Stop wasting our time already and get to it.

Wow, You must have been so stupid if you could ever be tricked into admitting something like that unwittingly. But you are not. So why do you think I bother?

They were just several examples of reason why my claim about your posts is not categorically wrong. It was a deduction of logical consequences (which can be wrong). But that's not attacking personally. That's attacking your arguments, which if success may result (yeah, may, I always use "may" or "perhaps" in my arguments before something can be proven for definite) in your persona's harm.

However, many of my sentences can be deemed as having underlying meaning and attempting to provoke. But hey, I have yet to make any explicit statement about your personality (yeah, tried really hard not to). So, if we were at a court right now, you would be the one who would get into more trouble than me.

Because, this is what we call explicitly attacking personally:

Spoiler for Log:

"That is an outright lie"
"It's frankly appalling how far you can take your bad faith against me. Seriously, sod off."
"bring it, grasshopper."
"as bullheaded as you are"

Well, no one can blame you even if you lose your temper. Still, you have little right yourself in complaining that I'm attacking you personally.

You know, attempting an argumentum ad hominem tu quoque against me doesn't serve to disprove the fact that you were casting aspersions on my character in the first place.

Well, you can reread the topic

Oho. Now, we finally come to the crux of the matter. Is this your proof of your claim about my statements? Fair enough, now let me show you where you went wrong.

For the first quote.

Basically, your entire premise was based on a Fallacy of Quoting Out of Context. I will have you note that, at the time when I made that first statement, I was responding to a claim that religion could be part of science. Therefore, what I was saying that religion is not a part of science. There was absolutely no mention of philosophy in it. Therefore, I could not possibly have claimed that philosophy could not be a part of science, since I was never referring to it in the first place.

As for the second quote?

Nicely done, you successfully managed to lead me astray with a Red Herring when you brought up philosophy out of nowhere in the first place. 10/10, well played. Have a beer on my tab.

Nevertheless, you have since demonstrated that philosophy does have a certain extent of grounding in science, and I have since concurred. Plus, it has nothing to do with the fact that I never claimed that "philosophy was stupid" in the first place, and only made the mistake of making the latter statement after you laid a well-played Red Herring at me.

So, I suppose that I have now proved that I have never made the claim you said I made? Of course, I am presuming that you are making your claim based on that statement of mine that you quoted? If not, show me which other statement where I made that claim.

[Cinocard]

Spoiler for Tch..:

Plurium interrogationum. Sorry, I have no intention of playing your little game, since you are just trying to mislead me into admitting whatever you're trying to make me admit. Spare us your sophistry, and just lay out your proofs simply and directly, thanks

No, I do not try to mislead you. Just that some suggest me to finish the business with you, so we can move on. Interrogation is the best method, and the MOST DIRECT to do so. If you can, you can write out a formal logical argument, and I will show you where it went wrong. But pff, in this post of yours you just made me lose purpose for arguing. Read on to know.

I don't know why you refuse to put it in a spoiler tag to save space either.

Sure, I did. How nice of you to be such a good boy and listen to everything I say, so that I can keep attacking you as long as you didn't lay out your proofs. How does it feel to be responsible for having wasted everyone's time?

Good lord, so it's my fault to have a little bit of respect and consideration for my opponent's argument? Want me to say "lol, stfu, as if I can fail categorically, I will go ahead and prove my things, and you can keep staying there and blabber your nonsense things?"

Also, remember, even if I were to prove my "claim" as true, if the statement "wrong categorically" is not proven to be false, it's still in the range of logic to say that: your prove must be false somewhere, since it should be categorically false. Even though I can also say that: your statement must be false somewhere, since my proof is true. Both side arguments have equal weight, and it still rests on my to prove your statement is also false. So, it's logical to prove something step by step, from "not wrong categorically," to "it is true."

Another thing is, I will remind you again: all I have been trying to prove is never that you really said "philosophy is unintelligible" or not. All I have been trying to prove your statement that "I am wrong categorically" is wrong If you want to say I'm wrong and a straw man, at least, wait till I try to prove my "claim."

And now you just admitted that it wasn't a statement, but a "suggestion..." A suggestion can not be "true" or "false." It can only be "good" or "bad." So there's no point in me continuing further in proving that it's false...

So, I suppose that I have now proved that I have never made the claim you said I made?

As I said, I wasn't arguing about that. I was arguing about I was CATEGORICALLY a straw man or not. If you need to prove it, successfully or not, it becomes not "categorically." And if it's not categorically, my purpose is satisfied...

And I thought you knew what we were arguing for and about...

Congratulations, you managed to call me out on a logical fallacy correctly! Nicely done on the first correct thing you've managed to did all this while.

Ain't that and

Spoiler for Log:

* Fact 1: X claims statement A.
* Fact 2: X claims that X is not lying.
* Conclusion: Therefore, A is true.

Let's apply it to our situation:
* Fact 1: Ascaloth claims that Ascaloth is correct.
* Fact 2: X claims that X is not lying.
* Conclusion 1: Therefore, Ascaloth is correct.

* Fact 3: Ascaloth claims that sentences ABC do not imply philosophy is unintelligible at all
* Colclusion 1: Ascaloth is correct.
* Conclusion 2: Therefore, sentences ABC do not imply philosophy is unintelligible.
* Extra conclusion: Anyone says "PERHAPS sentences ABC imply so," is a straw man.

just one and the same?

Except for one thing; you claim that there was no presumption in our discussion? Not exactly, there was one; it's your claim that I was "screaming that philosophy was stupid".

Cmon, you sure can differentiate between a claim and a presumption. A presumption is categorically right, needs no further proof or revision, until something contradict it is proven to be right also.

If you say my claim is a presumption, doesn't that make my claim right and need no proof...

It works the other way around. If I have a burden of proof, the presumption is that you are correct about what you said about your prior posts.

In court, defendants claim: I'm innocence. Prosecutors claim: he's guilty. The presumption is that the defendants always are automatically innocent until proven to be guilty. And there are countries that it works other way around (presumption of guilty).

The nature of the presumption in Law is just that: you can charge somebody of a crime only if he's proven to be guilty (presumption of innocence) OR if he's proven to be guilty or not known to be guilty or innocent (presumption of guilty).

It's a serious misconception of a very frequent logical fallacy. The more common form of the fallacy is to create an illusive onus probandi to an opponent, rather than to wrongly distinguish who has the onus probandi. Because, in most of the case outside the court, our argument do not rest on a definite presumption or belief or axiom. I earnestly suggest you to consult someone around you that can help you with this problem.

Or, if you want to have a quick read about it, read it in this link, not the link about burden of proof laws

Like I said, that was a suggestion

Urgh, I don't know if the way you really, really hung up on it can be considered a suggestion.

Like I've already pointed out above, such an attempt would only be a Straw Man of my actual arguments, and thus logically fallacious no matter which every way you try to "prove" it.

You even "pointed" it out. Soundly, try to prove it of some sort. Or at least that's all of what I can get from that sentence now. Who can really remember what you meant by "pointed out" back them?

You know, attempting an argumentum ad hominem tu quoque against me doesn't serve to disprove the fact that you were casting aspersions on my character in the first place

Oh, the argument wasn't about I didn't fall. It was about you fell harder than me

Oho. Now, we finally come to the crux of the matter. Is this your proof of your claim about my statements? Fair enough, now let me show you where you went wrong.

No, you just don't see it...That's just some simple quote to show that you had philosophy in mind before talking to me. They do not prove that what you had in mind is what I saw...Heck, as I have said many times, I do not really intend to prove it either... Let me explain to you, again, about why we have the discussion in the first place.

Basically, you said God is something primitive. I said the wise (philosophers, including physicist and the like) have been philosophizing about religion and trying to find a satisfying logical answer. Which means religion very closely relates to philosophy, or at least, to philosophers.

This is what happened (or at least I see it happened): You got what I was referring to when I said "the wise." You didn't deny the connection between religion and philosophy either (I said you said A about philosophy (which is when philosophy was explicitly mentioned the first time), and you replied and said: no, I said not A, but B, about philosophy. Which means you got that it involved philosophy prior to when it was mentioned explicitly. And you never mentioned your own view, so I automatically understand that you agreed with me.).

So, to sum it up, you:
1: Keep your opinion of religion should belong to the primitive, "god of the gap."
2: Did not deny the connection between philosophy and religion.
3: Completely refute classical philosophy has grounding in modern science.
4: It's clearly implied that you think anything else rather than modern science system and its method is just random blabbering.

3 and 4 => classical philosophy is some pretty nonsense stuffs.
1 and 2 => classical philosophy is not so much better than the primitive thinking.

Hence, it's obvious classical philosophy is just a greatly improved form of primitive thinking, which soundly means: unintelligible. But hey, it's your belief. I don't exactly complain about it. I myself don't think they make much sense either, even though they have very good and sound arguments.

From your view, nothing seems to be wrong. But remember, my exact sentence was "the wisest brains of the world are struggling." Which means: modern philosophers. You implicitly refuted the importance of their modern philosophical works:

The personal qualities of the so-called authoritative sources you have quoted has no bearing on the relevance of the concepts [religion, God] in question.

You did mention "classical philosophy" explicitly, but it's only right after. Before that, clearly, it's reasonable for me to understand you refuted even modern philosophy's importance (and you did keep that view to a certain degree). Therefore, it's also reasonable for me (at the time I said "philosophy is unintelligible") to see that you group classical and modern philosophy into on category.

But their philosophical view and their scientific achievements, in my opinion, are tightly related. Therefore, in my opinion, it's self-contradictory to say that you believe in science and not in modern philosophy (heck, it's even contradict to totally not believe in classical as well, because of why I think so, I already demonstrated). So I asked:

As far as I can see, You have been screaming that philosophy is stupid and has no whatsoever connection with natural science? If you want me to articulate why it is so, I may will try. If you admit that you think philosophy is unintelligible, then this topic is obviously not for you.

Thus, all I'm seeing is that you were contradicting your own points. So I cannot really know for sure what side you took. That's why I had to ask a QUESTION.

So, depend on your answer, yes or no, I would have:

1: articulate why it is so (namely, proving philosophy and modern science connection). Because I myself DOUBTED that you think philosophy is unintelligible. In fact, I wanted you to answer "no" to that question to be able to prove the contradictory (which would finally serve my once-ultimate-purpose that is related to the topic: religion is not so primitive).

2: depending on the mood, I may leave you alone (I myself said if you admitted it, the topic were not for you) or bash you (it's an easy win against someone who admits they think philosophy is unintelligible).

But you bashed a question (which you keep saying "claim," "claim...") as a straw man...

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

I don't know why you refuse to put it in a spoiler tag to save space either.

Oh c'mon, how much bandwidth can it save?

Good lord, so it's my fault to have a little bit of respect and consideration for my opponent's argument? Want me to say "lol, stfu, as if I can fail categorically, I will go ahead and prove my things, and you can keep staying there and blabber your nonsense things?"

Strangely enough....yeah, I would prefer that. I appreciate conciseness and directness over argumentum verbosium; goodness knows I've had enough of that from certain people. Makes things simpler.

As I said, I wasn't arguing about that. I was arguing about I was CATEGORICALLY a straw man or not. If you need to prove it, successfully or not, it becomes not "categorically." And if it's not categorically, my purpose is satisfied...

Since I have proved that I never made the claim that you said I made, doesn't that make your arguing otherwise a Straw Man by definition until you can prove otherwise?

Ain't that and

Spoiler for Log:

* Fact 1: X claims statement A.
* Fact 2: X claims that X is not lying.
* Conclusion: Therefore, A is true.

Let's apply it to our situation:
* Fact 1: Ascaloth claims that Ascaloth is correct.
* Fact 2: X claims that X is not lying.
* Conclusion 1: Therefore, Ascaloth is correct.

* Fact 3: Ascaloth claims that sentences ABC do not imply philosophy is unintelligible at all
* Colclusion 1: Ascaloth is correct.
* Conclusion 2: Therefore, sentences ABC do not imply philosophy is unintelligible.
* Extra conclusion: Anyone says "PERHAPS sentences ABC imply so," is a straw man.

just one and the same?

Perhaps so. But now that I have proved that I never made the claim you said I made, doesn't that now mean my claim against you of a Straw Man is now valid?

I will admit, I also didn't pull out any proofs on my side and simply tried to dismiss you outright, because I didn't want to get into yet another drawn-out argument coming out of another one with Cipher. It get tiring after a while.

Cmon, you sure can differentiate between a claim and a presumption. A presumption is categorically right, needs no further proof or revision, until something contradict it is proven to be right also.

If you say my claim is a presumption, doesn't that make my claim right and need no proof...

It works the other way around. If I have a burden of proof, the presumption is that you are correct about what you said about your prior posts.

In court, defendants claim: I'm innocence. Prosecutors claim: he's guilty. The presumption is that the defendants always are automatically innocent until proven to be guilty. And there are countries that it works other way around (presumption of guilty).

The nature of the presumption in Law is just that: you can charge somebody of a crime only if he's proven to be guilty (presumption of innocence) OR if he's proven to be guilty or not known to be guilty or innocent (presumption of guilty).

It's a serious misconception of a very frequent logical fallacy. The more common form of the fallacy is to create an illusive onus probandi to an opponent, rather than to wrongly distinguish who has the onus probandi. Because, in most of the case outside the court, our argument do not rest on a definite presumption or belief or axiom. I earnestly suggest you to consult someone around you that can help you with this problem.

Or, if you want to have a quick read about it, read it in this link, not the link about burden of proof laws

Sigh.....aye, you got me there. Fair enough.

So I have proved my case now. Let's hear your counterarguments so we can end this.

Urgh, I don't know if the way you really, really hung up on it can be considered a suggestion.

Like I said, because I was tired as hell and didn't want to get into another argument coming right out of one. I know, it's no excuse.

Oh, the argument wasn't about I didn't fall. It was about you fell harder than me

Technically, incorrect. What I was using against you was emotive language, which did not attack your character specifically. That is distinct from argumentum ad hominem circumstantial, where you were casting aspersions on my character by theorizing several different, but equally negative, motivations on my part for my actions.

Therefore, I was never guilty of the same thing as you. Thus, your tu quoque is not only fallacious, but entirely invalid.

Basically, you said God is something primitive. I said the wise (philosophers, including physicist and the like) have been philosophizing about religion and trying to find a satisfying logical answer. Which means religion very closely relates to philosophy, or at least, to philosophers.

Wait a minute....how the hell was I supposed to connect "wisest brains in the world" (which is what you said) with "philosophers"? For all I knew, you were talking about "religious wise men", which would have made my claim of argumentum ad verecundiam valid, since authority in religious matters has no relevance on whether religion can be a part of modern science. And from the context of this thread itself, it would have been reasonable for me to assume that you were talking about "religious wise men". Your interjection of "philosophy" into this thread was OOT and out of nowhere in the first place, and the fact that you framed it initially in such vague terms didn't help.

So, we wasted more than an entire week just because you thought I was referring to philosophers....?


So. Many. Uses.

But you bashed a question (which you keep saying "claim," "claim...") as a straw man...

If you would use emotive language against me from the start, how was I supposed to interpret it as an innocent "question"?

[Cinocard]

Since I have proved that I never made the claim that you said I made,

Man, I really must let you know that you yourself said that you don't need to prove it. In one of your post you even said something along the line of "you never tried to prove it." You said I was categorically wrong. Then you asked me why haven't proven it. Then I said you need to prove it, and tried to prove it, then you refuted it by saying you didn't really try that at all, because you need not. Then now you admit that you did prove it again.



Though it's not relevant to what I wanted to argue at all. I don't care, really. Because as I said, if you admit have to prove it, my straw man (if it exists) is not categorically fail. Which is the one only I have persistently fought for.

But now that I have proved that I never made the claim you said I made, doesn't that now mean my claim against you of a Straw Man is now valid?

Again, I doesn't care if I made a straw man or not. If you understand why I made that question for you now, you can see that I don't care at all.

I, myself, said way back in page 10 or 11 that I would never attempt to prove that you truly made that claim at all (I myself doubted it after all). So I had already accepted the fact that you may call me fallacious after I made that claim (because further argument would be at my disadvantage, and I wanted you to say "no" to serve my other point which concerns religion, as I had already said). Suddenly, you were the one who gave me a chance to fight back with the claim I could be wrong CATEGORICALLY. Without that word, I would never have any chance to fight back, and we would never have this stupid discussion.

Since I have proved that I never made the claim that you said I made, doesn't that make your arguing otherwise a Straw Man by definition until you can prove otherwise?

See, again, I never persisted on the argument to prove that I'm not a straw man. It was about the fallacy of "categorically wrong."

I really should have requested you to read the posts I wrote for Anh Minh.

Thus, your tu quoque is not only fallacious, but entirely invalid.

Nope, a very basic mistake.

Tu quoque can only happen when I attempt to refuse something, is it not? I didn't try to refute your claim that "I fail" by that mean at all. I made a totally separate statement: "you also fail."

I will admit, I also didn't pull out any proofs on my side and simply tried to dismiss you outright, because I didn't want to get into yet another drawn-out argument coming out of another one with Cipher.

Oh, surely Cipher's fallacies is easier to pick on.

But if you just for the hell of it said you didn't show any proof because you didn't want to, like I said, I would have shut up. We could have talked about religion instead. You just had to go on and cover it by saying "categorically..." and exposed yourself and let me had a chance counter.

Now I fully understand why my mom said lying, even a very casual and random one, would give great rentribution.

Wait a minute....how the hell was I supposed to connect "wisest brains in the world" (which is what you said) with "philosophers"? For all I knew, you were talking about "religious wise men", which would have made my claim of argumentum ad verecundiam valid, since authority in religious matters has no relevance on whether religion can be a part of modern science

Wait a minute, how the hell am I supposed to know what was actually going in your brain when you even answered like THIS:

all I have been pointing out is that classical philosophy has no grounding in the modern day scientific method, and thus has no grounding in factual knowledge.

Which means you didn't understand my posts, but just went along with it? Cmon, man... If you didn't get it, just say so

So, we wasted more than an entire week just because you thought I was referring to philosophers....?

You freakin'ly answered yes..."I referred to it, but with a different meaning than what you claimed..."

If you would use emotive language against me from the start, how was I supposed to interpret it as an innocent "question"?

No, it was not meant to be innocent at all. It was a question, that was meant to result in me arguing against you either way you answered it. But not this way...


So. Many. Uses.

If you have nothing else to say, lets stop the discussion.

[Proto]

I'm pretty sure you guys have been repeating your arguments for a while now. Can we break the endless eight now and like, just decide by democracy who wins? Or taking this to PM? Because I'm sure you could continue ad infinitum, but I'm sure other people want to discuss as well (me , me!), but our meager posts are piled under your wot's.

Failing that we could start betting on who will tire out first in order to encourage some participation from the rest of the members.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

Man, I really must let you know that you yourself said that you don't need to prove it. In one of your post you even said something along the line of "you never tried to prove it." You said I was categorically wrong. Then you asked me why haven't proven it. Then I said you need to prove it, and tried to prove it, then you refuted it by saying you didn't really try that at all, because you need not. Then now you admit that you did prove it again.



Though it's not relevant to what I wanted to argue at all. I don't care, really. Because as I said, if you admit have to prove it, my straw man (if it exists) is not categorically fail. Which is the one only I have persistently fought for.

Because I believed it was self-evident that I never did claim anything of the sort, and indeed, I have never said outright that "philosophy is stupid", like you tried to claim I did. But since you insisted that I too need to show my proof, and you absolutely would not desist until I did otherwise, I merely obliged so as to end this. Since my proof is there, you admit that you made a Straw Man of my statements?

Again, I doesn't care if I made a straw man or not. If you understand why I made that question for you now, you can see that I don't care at all.

I, myself, said way back in page 10 or 11 that I would never attempt to prove that you truly made that claim at all (I myself doubted it after all). So I had already accepted the fact that you may call me fallacious after I made that claim (because further argument would be at my disadvantage, and I wanted you to say "no" to serve my other point which concerns religion, as I had already said). Suddenly, you were the one who gave me a chance to fight back with the claim I could be wrong CATEGORICALLY. Without that word, I would never have any chance to fight back, and we would never have this stupid discussion.

If you admit that you made a Straw Man, then it follows that your claim against me was fallacious and therefore, wrong. Therefore, I am perfectly justified to say just that.

See, again, I never persisted on the argument to prove that I'm not a straw man. It was about the fallacy of "categorically wrong."

I really should have requested you to read the posts I wrote for Anh Minh.

Like I said earlier, what I meant was that I already had an idea as to how you're going to try to prove your case, and since I figured you're going to base it on another fallacy anyway, I was telling you not to bother so we can save us some time.

Granted, I shouldn't have said it like it was a certain thing, but yeah.

Nope, a very basic mistake.

Tu quoque can only happen when I attempt to refuse something, is it not? I didn't try to refute your claim that "I fail" by that mean at all. I made a totally separate statement: "you also fail."

No, not so. A tu quoque is defined by one attempting to discredit another, and does not require the accuser to attempt to refute something to be considered one. Thus, by making the claim "you also fail", you have already committed the logical fallacy against me.

Oh, surely Cipher's fallacies is easier to pick on.

But if you just for the hell of it said you didn't show any proof because you didn't want to, like I said, I would have shut up. We could have talked about religion instead. You just had to go on and cover it by saying "categorically..." and exposed yourself and let me had a chance counter.

Sure, I gave you an opening to call me out for argumentum ad ignorantium, and you did just that. Since you did so, you could have proceeded to show how I did make the claim you accused me of by showing your proofs. On my part, I also revealed my proofs to show how I did not make the statement. So where are your proofs?

Wait a minute, how the hell am I supposed to know what was actually going in your brain when you even answered like THIS:



Which means you didn't understand my posts, but just went along with it? Cmon, man... If you didn't get it, just say so

I already did. I commended you on a Red Herring well-played, if you weren't paying attention.

Nevertheless, to claim I was referring to philosophy in the first place just because this post came after this post simply makes for a post hoc ergo propter hoc. I already demonstrated how you managed to mislead me with your Red Herring above, as the real reason why we ended up in this discussion in the first place.

No, it was not meant to be innocent at all. It was a question, that was meant to result in me arguing against you either way you answered it. But not this way...

So in other words, it was a plurium interrogationum. Noted. I cannot like how you keep trying to set verbal traps before me; it shows your bad faith.

If you have nothing else to say, lets stop the discussion.

Sure, I'm done on my part. Ball's in your court to stop this whole mess.

[Cinocard]

Spoiler for Lol, I thougt it was it.:

Since you did so, you could have proceeded to show how I did make the claim you accused me of by showing your proofs. On my part, I also revealed my proofs to show how I did not make the statement. So where are your proofs?

You still don't get it? I don't care about that. I cared about this:

Granted, I shouldn't have said it like it was a certain thing, but yeah.

No, not so. A tu quoque is defined by one attempting to discredit another, and does not require the accuser to attempt to refute something to be considered one. Thus, by making the claim "you also fail", you have already committed the logical fallacy against me.

Then by discrediting the proposer, it will discredit the proposer's proposition as well. No ad hominem has its final purpose as "discrediting," man. It always involve a position being right or wrong. Like "He is evil, therefore don't believe him" is a tu quoque. But saying only "he is evil" is not a tu quoque.

Like how I say "you fail." regardless of whether you made any argument about "I fail" or not, my argument does not change at all.

Nevertheless, to claim I was referring to philosophy in the first place just because this post came after this post simply makes for a post hoc ergo propter hoc.

That post hadn't even existed when I made my little "claim," mind you. Home come I was supposed to use that post against you?

The way you answered my question, how can I know that you didn't get my question? Tell me.

So in other words, it was a plurium interrogationum. Noted. I cannot like how you keep trying to set verbal traps before me;

Verbal trap? I will say it once again: I needed you to understand my question. Since if you understand and deny that "philosophy is unintelligible," I can use it to prove that religion does not belong to the primitive either.

See that? I wanted you to deny it.

What do I get from "trapping" you? This discussion? Lmao.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Proto

I'm pretty sure you guys have been repeating your arguments for a while now. Can we break the endless eight now and like, just decide by democracy who wins? Or taking this to PM? Because I'm sure you could continue ad infinitum, but I'm sure other people want to discuss as well (me , me!), but our meager posts are piled under your wot's.

Failing that we could start betting on who will tire out first in order to encourage some participation from the rest of the members.

Two massive egos clashing out on an online forum. Doesn't get much better than this...

Anyhow, instead of discussing about the logical fallacies originally made (When did you two even start getting into this long banter?), how about re-explaining the position that you want to present to everyone instead of the one that others interpreted in your eyes to be wrong.

[Ascaloth]

Spoiler for Might as well:

Originally Posted by Cinocard

You still don't get it? I don't care about that. I cared about this:

If that was really all, then I suppose we're more or less done on this part?

Like how I say "you fail." regardless of whether you made any argument about "I fail" or not, my argument does not change at all.

Oh, I get it now. So in effect, what you were trying was an attempt to poison the well against me instead. Noted.

That post hadn't even existed when I made my little "claim," mind you. Home come I was supposed to use that post against you?

The way you answered my question, how can I know that you didn't get my question? Tell me.

If you weren't trying to use that post against me, how come you did it anyway?

And you were the one who set the Red Herring before me. You tell me how you couldn't have known you didn't get my question.

Verbal trap? I will say it once again: I needed you to understand my question. Since if you understand and deny that "philosophy is unintelligible," I can use it to prove that religion does not belong to the primitive either.

....I don't even get it anymore. How does my denying that have anything to do with my statement about religion? How have you ever made the link between these two statements?

[Cinocard]

Spoiler for .:

.I don't even get it anymore. How does my denying that have anything to do with my statement about religion? How have you ever made the link between these two statements?

...
Say, the argument is religion is a philosophical attempt to rationalize mysteries by logical arguments. Then I connect philosophy with modern science. Then if you accept the logic method of modern science, you should accept it in philosophy as well, because it's all the same. Then the philosophical method applied in religion, demonstrated in such works like works of St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, Kant, Nietzsche, etc cannot be easily regarded as "primitive" either.

That's why I wanted you to say no to "philosophy is unintelligible."

I believe I explained this before. Several times

If that was really all, then I suppose we're more or less done on this part?

Should have since last week...

Oh, I get it now. So in effect, what you were trying was an attempt to poison the well against me instead. Noted.

You say I fail is not poison the well, but I say you fail is poison the well, huh? Cut me the slack. Please stop trying your best to attach me with any little fallacy when you yourself know that I do not commit. You have been keeping it up all week.

And you were the one who set the Red Herring before me. You tell me how you couldn't have known you didn't get my question.

It's like you are saying I unintentionally set up a red herring for you and you unintentionally...fell for it.

And what question

[Ascaloth]

Spoiler for ....:

Originally Posted by Cinocard

...
Say, the argument is religion is a philosophical attempt to rationalize mysteries by logical arguments. Then I connect philosophy with modern science. Then if you accept the logic method of modern science, you should accept it in philosophy as well, because it's all the same. Then the philosophical method applied in religion, demonstrated in such works like works of St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, Kant, Nietzsche, etc cannot be easily regarded as "primitive" either.

That's why I wanted you to say no to "philosophy is unintelligible."

I believe I explained this before. Several times

Since when was it argued that religion is a philosophical attempt to rationalize mysteries by logical arguments? I frankly don't remember anything like that ever being argued, so you'll have to point me to anything like that if it exists.

And just because the same philosophical method applies doesn't mean that religion and science is the same. Only the latter makes use of empirical data, and is thus reasonably relevant to the understanding of the material world as we know it, while the former suffers from the problem of induction, and thus cannot be expected to serve as reliable knowledge of the world around us. Why were you even dragging philosophy into this to begin with?

You say I fail is not poison the well, but I say you fail is poison the well, huh? Cut me the slack. Please stop trying your best to attach me with any little fallacy when you yourself know that I do not commit. You have been keeping it up all week.

I have already demonstrated how you were poisoning the well against me, and all you can say in your defense is "I didn't"?

And what question

My bad, I meant your question.

[Cinocard]

Spoiler for .:

Since when was it argued that religion is a philosophical attempt to rationalize mysteries by logical arguments?

I never really argued about that. I intended to put it on the table right after "philosophy is unintelligible." But as you know, we went onto different things instead.

I said several times that my intention was to argue about that though.

Why were you even dragging philosophy into this to begin with?

Because religion and philosophy have a great connection? Didn't I say that?

I have already demonstrated how you were poisoning the well against me, and all you can say in your defense is "I didn't"?

Where? And as I said, I made that argument for the pure sake of "you fail." It has no further purpose.

Anyway, I can be bothered less by it.

[Ascaloth]

Spoiler:

Originally Posted by Cinocard

I never really argued about that. I intended to put it on the table right after "philosophy is unintelligible." But as you know, we went onto different things instead.

I said several times that my intention was to argue about that though.

Then you may go ahead with that argument now. I believe others want to take a crack at it.

Because religion and philosophy have a great connection? Didn't I say that?

Not until recently, no, as far as I can tell. You only just went "I think you said philosophy was stupid" out of nowhere in the beginning.

Well. Let's see what you have. I think we can end this here.

Where? And as I said, I made that argument for the pure sake of "you fail." It has no further purpose.

Anyway, I can be bothered less by it.

Here. To summarize, you presented several possible reasons why I refuse to admit I have ever said anything like you claimed, most of it negative, as an attack on my character. Therefore, just trying to say "you fail" in itself constitutes poisoning the well.

But whatever. Feel like getting back on track in this topic yet?

[Cinocard]

Then you may go ahead with that argument now. I believe others want to take a crack at it.

Don't feel like right now...really...

Spoiler for :

Not until recently, no, as far as I can tell. You only just went "I think you said philosophy was stupid" out of nowhere in the beginning.

Oh yeah, I said it the first time in page 11 or so in a reply to Anh Minh. I didn't say it explicitly in the first or second posts to you though (I thought you got it though).

Here. To summarize, you presented several possible reasons why I refuse to admit I have ever said anything like you claimed, most of it negative, as an attack on my character. Therefore, just trying to say "you fail" in itself constitutes poisoning the well.

Lol. We talked about different things again...I was talking about "attacking personally..."

[Ascaloth]

Spoiler:

Originally Posted by Cinocard

Oh yeah, I said it the first time in page 11 or so in a reply to Anh Minh. I didn't say it explicitly in the first or second posts to you (I thought you got it though).

That I didn't. So we agree that it's a misunderstanding?

Lol. We talked about different things again...I was talking about "attacking personally..."

I'm fairly sure poisoning the well is a form of personal attack.

[Cinocard]

I'm fairly sure poisoning the well is a form of personal attack.

It is. The fallacy does not lay in the attack, but the conclusion derived from the attack to the position made though. And I was talking about you "attacking personally" me just several posts above. Just like I implicitly did so...

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

It is. The fallacy does not lay in the attack, but the conclusion derived from the attack to the position made though. And I was talking about you "attacking personally" me just several posts above. Just like I implicitly did so...

As far as I can tell, poisoning the well is rather special in that it doesn't even need to derive a conclusion to count as fallacious. Maybe I missed something though.

Oh well. We're both agreed that we attacked each other. Let's just leave it at that.