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

[Cinocard]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

So you totally failed to steer the conversation because you relied on sketchy interpretation of someone's words and refused to even acknowledge the possibility that you were the one in the wrong. Why didn't you move on and either try to prove your case or concede?

I admited that my intepretation can be wrong. I've never dismissed that possibility. But I'm sure I didn't fall into any straw man, at least, the first time he said that I did. So his aggressive behavior kinda ticked me off, and I defend myself. That's all.

No. You see, the proper response to someone predicting you'll fail is to prove him wrong by succeeding. What you did was waste everyone's time by refusing to do so. I note that you still haven't tried. How long has it been?

I (and Ascaloth, I'm sure) never expected this to drag for so long. I thought it would be quickly resolved. On the other hand, a linguistics battle might have been real draggy.

And I already mentioned, I never really intended to go for that linguistic battle in the first place.

When I said he made claim A, I awaited for him to admit so, so that I could go on and bash him there (It would be an easy, relaxing one-side battle, and somehow relevant to the topic). But he said he never made that claim A. "Too bad, then, I will let him go and not debate anything this time" (If I engaged in a linguistic battle of "no, you obviously made that claim A," it would be real boring. If I lost, I would be an outright loser. If I won, I still did not get anything from picking up an opponent's sentence construct and word usage mistake and such. And it would be way off-topic). So I let that go.

But he did not stop at denying only, he went on and attacked me for being a straw man. I defend. He continued to attack. I continued to defend. All of the discussion was about my defense against his straw man attack back then.

Yes, which is his way of saying "I didn't say what you claim I said". Which is a perfectly reasonable answer - unless you prove otherwise.

It was not a reasonable answer. It was a very aggressive response.

I bet anyone can be pissed off with that kind of response, which just cannot wait to point out others mistake and inferiority or something. And it depended on my mood when I read it too.

[ChainLegacy]

"Winning" this discussion really shouldn't be anyone's focus. Why not just be intellectually honest and discuss the subject at hand, without getting your ego involved?

[james0246]

Who would have guessed that discussing religion could create such hostility...

[Cinocard]

Originally Posted by james0246

Who would have guessed that discussing RELIGION could create such hostility...

Yeah, who would have guessed...

The hostile part was not about religion though

[C.A.]

Religion has always been full of hostility and conflicts, battle between god and demons, good and evil etc. Humans fighting have always been part of religion as well.

Anyway when one argues because he wants to 'win', he already lost.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Proto

Ahemm... back to seriousland, maybe we should get back to discuss about (ctrl-c)Varieties of Theism: Monotheism, Polytheism, Deism, Pantheism, and More(ctrl-v). You know, being on topic and what not. This meta discussion has gone on so long that I'm starting to believe we should just start another thread about it or something.

Don't worry, as the semi-creator of this thread, I consider it amusing and on-topic.

But the heated discussion of religion doesn't just have to do with religion. I think it more has to do with the fact that people don't like to be told that their way of thinking is wrong, which is often the case in topics regarding religion.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

I admited that my intepretation can be wrong. I've never dismissed that possibility. But I'm sure I didn't fall into any straw man, at least, the first time he said that I did.

Make up your mind. If you base your arguments on a false interpretation of his words, then you're using a Straw Man. You can't dismiss the latter one without dismissing the former.

So his aggressive behavior kinda ticked me off, and I defend myself. That's all.

You defended yourself with sophistry, thus wasting everyone's time.

I (and Ascaloth, I'm sure) never expected this to drag for so long. I thought it would be quickly resolved. On the other hand, a linguistics battle might have been real draggy.

Thus begging the question of why you'd use the word "explicit".

And I already mentioned, I never really intended to go for that linguistic battle in the first place.

You put word in someone's mouth and didn't expect to get called out on it?

When I said he made claim A, I awaited for him to admit so, so that I could go on and bash him there (It would be an easy, relaxing one-side battle, and somehow relevant to the topic). But he said he never made that claim A. "Too bad, then, I will let him go and not debate anything this time" (If I engaged in a linguistic battle of "no, you obviously made that claim A," it would be real boring. If I lost, I would be an outright loser. If I won, I still did not get anything from picking up an opponent's sentence construct and word usage mistake and such. And it would be way off-topic). So I let that go.

You expected him to be dumb enough to let you put words in his mouth and based your entire game plan on it? How often does that work out for you?

But he did not stop at denying only, he went on and attacked me for being a straw man.

For using a straw man. Do you know what it means? If not, I suggest you go consult the relevant link. That's what he posts them for. (Ascaloth: do you have a macro or something?)

I defend. He continued to attack. I continued to defend. All of the discussion was about my defense against his straw man attack back then.

Again, the proper defense against such an accusation was to prove your case. Sophistry only wastes everyone's time.

It was not a reasonable answer. It was a very aggressive response.

You put words in his mouth. He called you out on it. How is that not reasonable? He did get more aggressive over time, but only after you repeatedly refused to desist. And got condescending to boot.

I bet anyone can be pissed off with that kind of response, which just cannot wait to point out others mistake and inferiority or something. And it depended on my mood when I read it too.

Your emotional state isn't relevant. As it stands, you've still not attempted to prove your interpretation of his words was justified.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

What you truly intended to claim has no importance. No one can verify what you really wanted to say back then. What's important is your sentences you wrote.

Linguistically, I believe it's possible to interpret your sentences as what I claimed they are. It can be failed, but why does it categorically fail?

Now, we come to the root of the flaw in your logical reasoning. The original claim I made was something that was relevant to the main discussion; by attempting to place undue emphasis on some obscure implications of my statement which apparently only you can see, and which in itself has no relevance to the main topic in question, you have already committed a Straw Man-cum-argumentum ad hominem circumstantial-cum-ignoratio elenchi from the get-go. In short, you were the one who was dragging the discussion off-topic, and I was striking directly at your credibility as per my usual protocol for discouraging you from pursuing a course of action which was pointless to begin with.

Could you prove your claim? Maybe, although I highly doubt it. Would it serve to prove anything? No. Sod off.

I see, we have been having such a big disconnection in the discussion. I do not defend for now, I defend for what was back then, Acaloth. Reread the last part of page 9.

Had you, prior to my post, denied anything? No. So the me at the time that wrote that post had no idea about it. At that point, with a single sentence expressing my interpretation of your post (I even politely used "as far as I can see" and not a claim, mind you), you accused me of straw man right away.

What the fuck? How the hell am I supposed to deny anything you claim when it didn't even exist before you claimed it?

And my accusation of your committing a Straw Man in your claim against me already serves as my denial against your claim, by rendering your claim invalid in the first place.

What da ya mean?

Figure it out yourself; I don't have time to spoonfeed you.

You don't fully understand either "argumentum ad hominem circumstantial," or my point.

Why do you refute me? If you are rational (which you are), it must have a reason:
1. What I claimed your sentences claim is wrong. Your points were different, and your sentences really does fully convey your points. Thus, you refute.
2. What I claimed your sentences claim is correct, but your sentences points differ from what you expected (unknowingly or unintentionally). Thus, you refute.
3. What I claimed your sentences claim is correct, but you don't want to admit it (lying). Thus you refute.
4. What I claimed your sentences claim is correct, but you just don't even remember what you wanted to say back then. And you thought what it's saying according to me now is wrong. So you refute.

The premise is: Is my interpretation of your sentences correct or wrong? What goes after absolutely does not add weight to the truth of the premise. Therefore, it's not argumentum ad hominem circumstantial.

On the other hand, you claimed that "your points were different," (A) but what your points were does not concern what meaning your sentences have, therefore, it does not concern if "your sentences really does fully convey your points" (B). But you have been claiming (A) to refute (B), which is not right.

By definition, a logical fallacy such as the argumentum ad hominem circumstantial you committed against me here does not hold weight. I fail to see what kind of point you're trying to make here.

And for the second part, attempting to draw a meaning which is different from what I originally meant from any statement I made already constitutes a Straw Man, therefore it is already logically fallacious in its own right. Therefore, I am within my rights to refute your claims in this manner.

You have yet to try focusing your attack on the linguistics part.

But neither do I.

I argue, because I didn't do it, but you still accuse me something out of it.

I don't see any point in taking the argument onto a linguistics level when I have already pointed out how it's based on fallacious reasoning to being with.

Why is it a fallacy? I think "if logic turns out to be wrong, then the nature of the scientific method also turns out to be wrong" is a fully developed statement.

I asked you for concrete proof that a shift in paradigm in philosophy can effect a fundamental change in science, and all you did was to posit a hypothetical scenario which does not exist in reality. Since it does not exist, it cannot be agreed or disagreed with; thus meaningless statement, thus logical fallacy.

Before Godel, people think mathematics is exhaustible. After Godel, people think not.

So the foundation of mathematics turned out to be wrong.

Hence, the statement: "philosophy does not have the capability to prove that the foundations of modern science are fundamentally wrong" is false. Then the result is that the statement: "philosophy has the capability to prove that the foundations of modern science are fundamentally wrong."

You can say I commit a black-or-white fallacy here, only if you can derive a third situation differ from both "have the capability" and "not have the capability."

Petitio principii. How does Godel's incompleteness theorem proving that a complete and consistent set of axioms for mathematics proceed to prove that the foundations of modern science are fundamentally wrong? Please make the link.

I supppose you don't read any of John Dewey's or William James's books, then.

Heck, use the wiki link you gave me. Read carefully, you can see most of the name mentioned were philosophers. Then scroll down to the part: "Model of scientific inquiry." Pragmatism right there. Then go on to the "Philosophy and sociology of science" part. Next, go to the "history of scientific method" page, and see how philosphers over centuries have defended built that system.

I must be getting tired. Fair enough.

Now, coming back to the claim that the scientific method belongs to philosophy. You claimed that:

Um, the so-called "scientific method" is directly "invented" in philosophy (coined by philosophers, supported by them, and become schools in philosophy (pragmatism, behaviorism and such), and based on philosophical grounding (if you read how modern philosophers defend and support scientific method). So saying that it belongs to philosophy kinda makes sense to, doesn't it?

In short, you are claiming that "if philosophy invented scientific method, then philosophy would support the scientific method". According to your reasoning, since "philosophy supports the scientific method", therefore it means that "philosophy invented the scientific method".

I'm sorry, that is just affirming the consequent, thus logically fallacious, thus invalid. Try again.

@Ahn_Minh

No, I don't have a macro, I created all my links by hand. It's hard work, especially for one like me who's afflicted with Latine loqui coactus sum like I am.

[Liddo-kun]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

But the heated discussion of religion doesn't just have to do with religion. I think it more has to do with the fact that people don't like to be told that their way of thinking is wrong, which is often the case in topics regarding religion.

Religious beliefs are often backed by strong emotion, most people (not saying all) give extra effort when debating on religious issues.
Based on my experience debating at the other religion thread, a calm discussion can evolve to a brutal one in no time at all.

[Cinocard]

Lol, seems like my work doubled. Here goes nothing.

Spoiler for Ascaloth:

Now, we come to the root of the flaw in your logical reasoning. The original claim I made was something that was relevant to the main discussion; by attempting to place undue emphasis on some obscure implications of my statement which apparently only you can see, and which in itself has no relevance to the main topic in question, you have already committed a Straw Man-cum-argumentum ad hominem circumstantial-cum-ignoratio elenchi from the get-go. In short, you were the one who was dragging the discussion off-topic, and I was striking directly at your credibility as per my usual protocol for discouraging you from pursuing a course of action which was pointless to begin with.

It being obscure or not, and only I can see or not, and I see it correctly or not, was not clear at that time (and perhaps still not now), only after I have tried to do so, can we say for definite my interpretation is wrong or right (but matter not, I don't intend to do it right away).

But as I said to Anh Minh, I've never attempted to argue on that linguistic part, because I would gain nothing. I've only attempted to say that If I hadn't even started doing so, you cannot accused me of being a straw man.

What we have been arguing is that: "Had Cinocard made a straw man when he said that in his opinion, Ascaloth sentences can be viewed as a claim about philosophy being unintelligible."

I defend for myself that I didn't. Since all I did was merely stating my opinion, and didn't even start to explain why I had that opinion. It's just not in definition that a straw man occurs without any firm claim or argument (it was just an opinion).

And that opinion has something to do with the topic. It was about philosophy being unintelligible or not (which we never work on, since both side agree its not).

What the fuck? How the hell am I supposed to deny anything you claim when it didn't even exist before you claimed it?

That's exactly the problem. Since you had yet to say or deny anything exclusively direct at me, at the time, I had no idea if your point is the same with what I got from your sentences. So I asked you: "hey, all I can get is you saying philosophy is stupid. But something so ridiculous, I'm not even sure If I'm getting it right. . If you really agree that you meant so, muahahah here I come. But if you didn't mean it like that, fine, may be we just have a miscommunication somewhere. I won't try force you to admit you meant it that way."

I never attempted to wind you up with such an underhand tactics like: "hm, his post is like this, but I can bash him if I linguistically bent his post's idea to something incredibly stupid like this. Let's corrupt his post meaning and beat him up," which I suspect you thought I was going to, so you replied with me being a straw man

Figure it out yourself; I don't have time to spoonfeed you.

I will claim that I use "explicitly" correctly, then

I fail to see what kind of point you're trying to make here.

No time to spoonfeed you, either

And for the second part, attempting to draw a meaning which is different from what I originally meant

You can only prove what you claim that you meant is truly what you meant by analyzing your own sentences. But all you did is said: "no, I meant it differently, you straw man." As if just because you said you meant it differently, the sentences categorically mean differently.

You never back up that claim, really. I never intended to force you to do so either (because it's boring, stupid, nothing for me to gain from it, and there's a high chance you win anyway). But instead of saying only: "no, I meant it differently," you have to add in the "straw man." All I did was ask a question (okay, rude question. Why was I rude, read the reply for Anh Minh). That ticks me off

I don't see any point in taking the argument onto a linguistics level when I have already pointed out how it's based on fallacious reasoning to being with.

I think your post says that philosophy is unintelligible because of A,B,C,etc.

The A,B,C part is the reasoning part (which might turn out to be linguistic). But I never said them out. So how can you know it's fallacious? Because you can predict what I will say, and what you predict I will say are fallacious.

But how can you claim that what your prediction is 100% right? Lol. You are the fallacious one, using the logic: "That sentence is MY sentence. I meant to say B, not A. So that sentence cannot by any mean understood as A. Any way to understand it as A is automatically corruption "

I reinstate: Your sentences do not mean that philosophy is unintelligible just because I say I understand them as so. But your sentences cannot be proved to not mean so, just because you said they do not mean so either. It needs analytical proofs. But we never showed any. Because you deem yourself as categorically right (which is outright ), thus no further proof is needed.

How does Godel's incompleteness theorem proving that a complete and consistent set of axioms for mathematics proceed to prove that the foundations of modern science are fundamentally wrong? Please make the link

Sure, here's the link: Godel's theory
The idea is that before, mathematics was seen as exhaustible, or say, was believed that it has no limit. (I hope you agree that this view is fundamental). Godel said that it absolutely has a limit (imply that there are problems that absolutely can never be solved, which mean the view before is wrong. Which means a part of the foundation of science before Godel, was wrong.

This example serves as saying: philosophy is capable of affecting (even if just a little) science foundation (not necessarily refute something prior, may be adding something, may be making it better, etc). It does not say that every change or achievement in philosophy is capable of doing so. However, it a least refutes the idea that changes in philosophy has NOTHING TO DO AT ALL with modern science.

I asked you for concrete proof that a shift in paradigm in philosophy can effect a fundamental change in science.

Several real examples of mine (like the Godel one) proves that philosophy at least has something to do with science. It redirected the future course for physics.

In short, you are claiming that "if philosophy invented scientific method, then philosophy would support the scientific method". According to your reasoning, since "philosophy supports the scientific method", therefore it means that "philosophy invented the scientific method".

You misunderstood. I made both claims, but I use none of them to back up others.

Invention of scientific method is made by philosophers, after a long process of philosophizing (read the wiki page about history of scientific method).

Scientific method's validity is indeed MADE, supported (and attacked) by philosophers, also through philosophical thinking and debate.

The philosophers (empiricism, pragmatism, logical positivism, etc) thought was that: hm, no one will ever be able to climb outside of his own perspective and see what the real world outside is like. So anything not testable or verifiable, like God, or like Plato's form; such things are nonsenses and cannot be defined as true knowledge. Therefore, we should just focus on what we can test using our sensory experience. And we will derive a system specifically designed for gaining knowledge empirically, namely, scientific method (again, just skim through the page about scientific method and history of scientific method, if you don't want to read books about it).

Spoiler for Anh Minh:

If you base your arguments on a false interpretation of his words, then you're using a Straw Man. You can't dismiss the latter one without dismissing the former.

True. If the interpretation is false, I may committed a straw man. The thing is: before it is written down, he already claimed that it is false. With rolleyes. As if I'm obviously just going to spout out a bunch of crap, and as if his prediction about that inferior small fry is gonna be 100% correct

You defended yourself with sophistry, thus wasting everyone's time.

I have been trying to prove it's not sophistry. Ascaloth has been trying to force me to admit it's sophistry. But true enough, it still may waste everyone's time.

However, you tell me it's sophistry without any proof. Which ultimately wastes everyone time. Well, you may say Ascaloth is doing the job for you, and you can't bother to waste your time with a clown like me. Then just don't say anything in the first place.

Attacking you like this is not nice. But given the nature of the last several pages, I cannot give up any chance to bash my opponents.

Thus begging the question of why you'd use the word "explicit".

The first several post about this argument (not include the role of philosophy part) just contains 2-3 short sentences.

When no matter how "explicit" Ascaloth's posts were, it would sure take more time than that.

You put word in someone's mouth and didn't expect to get called out on it?
You expected him to be dumb enough to let you put words in his mouth and based your entire game plan on it? How often does that work out for you?

He put words in my mouth. Then I did the same. The he did it again. Then it kinda happened. Well, I admit that I'm still part to blame. I already did, though.

Truthfully, I also expected him to retaliate back with my provoking sentence (yeah, was not very good of me to do so). But the nature of the retaliation was not so expected, nevertheless I was prepared to engage in a battle with him. So when he did not want to stop there by himself but continue on, I accepted his invitation (how about we now ask Ascaloth if he expected me to retaliate or not? )

For using a straw man. Do you know what it means? If not, I suggest you go consult the relevant link.

You really look down on me, don't you Again, like with sophistry, we have been arguing if its really straw man. If you just jump in and throw out statements (that you don't even really try to back them up), you are the one who wastes time.

Again, the proper defense against such an accusation was to prove your case. Sophistry only wastes everyone's time.

Can't you see that Ascaloth won't even look at it even if I successed in doing so? He even stated clearly that he wouldn't. And even if I success in dong so, he might very well just turn back to his root: "because I meant it otherwise, anything attempt of you to prove my sentences had those meaning would just be fallacious and worthless." Why you keep insisting on all the fault is on me?

And, you know how those slot machines earn money? I kept hoping and hoping: instead of writing a huge post about linguistics, may be just several sentences more in this direction, and we will be able to resolve things. And now it's kinda too late for me to turn over the post days ago, really.

And the "sophistry" again..

Your emotional state isn't relevant.

How so? If I had been in a better mood, maybe I wouldn't have pursue this exhausting argument.

My emotional state is a reason to explain why I did what I did, not to justify what I did. I already admitted several times that what I did was not the best course of action (Ascaloth hasn't). What else do you want? Well, okay, maybe I can just stop. But not when Ascaloth still mantains his ground, though.

As it stands, you've still not attempted to prove your interpretation of his words was justified.

I told you (or someone else) several days ago that I wouldn't do that anymore. I never intended to in the first place. Doing that seems even more ridiculous to me, really. And it seems like I'm running away from what's going on now or sth (childish, really. But who wastes so much time on an anime forums to brawl about religion is not? )

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

True. If the interpretation is false, I may committed a straw man. The thing is: before it is written down, he already claimed that it is false. With rolleyes. As if I'm obviously just going to spout out a bunch of crap, and as if his prediction about that inferior small fry is gonna be 100% correct

Because he's pretty sure he said what he meant, and that it's different from what you claimed. He may be wrong, but if so... prove it.

I have been trying to prove it's not sophistry.

Doing a poor job of it. You barely seem to understand what you're accused of. You certainly never address it directly.

Ascaloth has been trying to force me to admit it's sophistry. But true enough, it still may waste everyone's time.

However, you tell me it's sophistry without any proof. Which ultimately wastes everyone time. Well, you may say Ascaloth is doing the job for you,

That's exactly right. I can't hope to point out your fallacies as well as he does.

and you can't bother to waste your time with a clown for me. Then just don't say anything in the first place.

I do, however, try a different angle instead of merely telling you what fallacies you've committed.

Attacking you like this is not nice. But given the nature of the last several pages, I cannot give up any chance to bash my opponents.

... That was you bashing me?

The first several post about this argument (not include the role of philosophy part) just contains 2-3 short sentences.

When no matter how "explicit" Ascaloth's posts were, it would sure take more time than that.

And as I said... If you need a lengthy essay to explain it, it's not explicit.

He put words in my mouth. Then I did the same. The he did it again. Then it kinda happened. Well, I admit that I'm still part to blame. I already did, though.

Two points:
- the proper answer to having words put in your mouth is to call your opponent out on it, not to retaliate in kind, which only further muddies the debate.
- Are you denying you claimed he said philosophy was unintelligible, now?

Truthfully, I also expected him to retaliate back with my provoking sentence (yeah, was not very good of me to do so). But the nature of the retaliation was not so expected, nevertheless I was prepared to engage in a battle with him. So when he did not want to stop there by himself but continue on, I accepted his invitation (how about we now ask Ascaloth if he expected me to retaliate or not? )

Doesn't matter. This is a discussion, not a mudslinging contest. Try to use reasoned arguments, not to provoke an emotional response.

You really look down on me, don't you

I'm starting to, yeah.

Again, like with sophistry, we have been arguing if its really straw man. If you just jump in and throw out statements (that you don't even really try to back them up), you are the one who wastes time.

As long as you don't even attempt to prove your point, no, we don't need to "back up" claims that you're using a Straw Man.

Can't you see that Ascaloth won't even look at it even if I successed in doing so? He even stated clearly that he wouldn't. And even if I success in dong so, he might very well just turn back to his root: "because I meant it otherwise, anything attempt of you to prove my sentences had those meaning would just be fallacious and worthless."

That's his problem, not yours. Yours is to support your case. Which you still haven't done, and by your own admission, don't plan to do.

Why you keep insisting on all the fault is on me?

Because you've put words in his mouth and then refused to even try to support your case when your bluff was called. That's the long and short of it.

And, you know how those slot machines earn money? I kept hoping and hoping: instead of writing a huge post about linguistics, may be just several sentences more in this direction, and we will be able to resolve things. And now it's kinda too late for me to turn over the post days ago, really.

What, you're hoping Ascaloth and I will get tired and admit you're right just to shut you up? I can't speak for Ascaloth, but if I get tired, I'll stop arguing. If you want me convinced, try using actual arguments, instead of whining. In good English, if you can. I'd also take French, but, well, that'd be against forum rules.

And the "sophistry" again..

How so? If I had been in a better mood, maybe I wouldn't have pursue this exhausting argument.

Your emotional state isn't relevant to the quality of your arguments. They stand on their own... or they don't.

My emotional state is a reason to explain why I did what I did, not to justify what I did. I already admitted several times that what I did was not the best course of action (Ascaloth hasn't). What else do you want?

I want you to attempt to prove your case. Unlike Ascaloth, I don't think it's futile - if you succeed. He will then have to either clarify or retract.

That said, I share with him a certain skepticism on your chances. Like him, I think your conclusion is wrong. How, then, could your demonstration be right?

Well, okay, maybe I can just stop. But not when Ascaloth still mantains his ground, though.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Why should he be forced to admit to any wrongdoing to get you to do the same?

I told you (or someone else) several days ago that I wouldn't do that anymore. I never intended to in the first place. Doing that seems even more ridiculous to me, really. And it seems like I'm running away from what's going on now or sth (childish, really. But who wastes so much time on an anime forums to brawl about religion is not? )

If you're not going to try to support your point, then retract it. Or at least shut up instead of trying to paint yourself as a victim.

Personally, I'd like to see you try. It pisses me off to see you claim you have arguments, but refuse to expose them. But hey, it's up to you.

[Proto]

I even thought for a moment siding with Cinocard so that the discussion can be a little more balanced and looks less like intellectual bullying, but I'm not even sure what you guys are discussing about anymore.

[Cinocard]

If you're not going to try to support your point, then retract it.

NO, Anh Minh, the thing is that my main purpose (after the second post) has always been proving that Ascaloth made a straw man when he said I made a straw man. I'm supporting it.

That's his problem, not yours.

A debate purpose, most of the time, is to make the opponent admit his mistake. I cannot do that If I don't do what I'm doing now.

As long as you don't even attempt to prove your point, no, we don't need to "back up" claims that you're using a Straw Man.

Of course. I make a straw man when I make a statement, then refuse to back it up. I just made an opinion, though. That's what protected me from being a straw man. If I had made a claim back there, you saying I made a straw man is spot on.

Nevertheless, even if I had made a claim, Ascaloth attacked on the wrong place anyway. He said that my explanation would 100% turn out to be straw man, so I'm a straw man (when you are saying: give out your explanation, the only way to not become a straw man is if you success in doing so).

See the log below. You can see that if I had argued with you, I might have had given the explanation of my interpretation.

Spoiler for log:

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Straw Man; I never said that philosophy was "stupid". Neither did I ever say that philosophy was "unintelligible";

Originally Posted by Cinocard

Seriously, you are the one who made straw men. I never said you said philosophy was stupid or unintelligible. 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

Any such deduction of the points I have made would nevertheless be a corruption of the original meaning of said points, and thus you would still be committing a Straw Man. 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.

Because you've put words in his mouth and then refused to even try to support your case when your bluff was called. That's the long and short of it.

Who called my "bluff?" Him? No. Never. At least if it's you, I may consider it as so. But I don't want to go ahead and do something when someone beside me is "cheering" me on: "you are going to fail, you are going to fail, clown."

But, yeah, you are not so wrong to call it a "bluff." At least, I intended for it to be a bluff in another manner (never hide that intention of mine). But then, he committed a mistake after reacting to my bluff. I try to coin him into admitting that mistake, and that "bluff" isn't so important any more.

I repeat: the fault is on me, but not ALL.

What, you're hoping Ascaloth and I will get tired and admit you're right just to shut you up?

How can you get that out of my post...See, I was doing the short way for the argument, right? And you are suggesting me to do the long way, right? I kept doing the "short" way because I hope "this time it will work," "this time it will work," like when you play the slot machine. Until...I invested too much time into it to switch to any other way.

Because he's pretty sure he said what he meant, and that it's different from what you claimed.

Yes, I was pretty sure what he meant was otherwise, like how I always said. So I, again, just ASK, never claimed.

But if he had said he was "pretty sure:" "Lol, I'm 99,99% sure I never meant it like that. Go home and check your comprehending skill," He would have made no mistake. Even if it sounded provoking, I would still have to shut (which I planned to after my second post), because the only way to be out of it is to give out the interpretation of my explanation and show the 0.01%. A hard battle, off-topic, making me look bad no matter I won or lost, and has low chance of winning in the first place.

Instead, he said: "I'm 100% sure. You make a straw man." He made a mistake that I could exploit against him. So I did it. And till today, unexpectedly, he still affirms that his mistake is correct.

Your emotional state isn't relevant to the quality of your arguments. They stand on their own... or they don't.

Nah, I didn't talk about the quality of my argument. I talk about the justification behind making such an argument here in the first place and chase everyone else out of the topic. I'm saying if I had been in a better mood, perhaps I could have avoid that mistake of mine and passed Ascaloth's provocation. It's just hard to do so now.

I want you to attempt to prove your case. Unlike Ascaloth, I don't think it's futile - if you succeed. He will then have to either clarify or retract.
That said, I share with him a certain skepticism on your chances. Like him, I think your conclusion is wrong. How, then, could your demonstration be right?

Even I am very skeptic about the chance I can actually do it. I was very sure about my chance of proving his straw man, though. I thought it would end fast, but seriously...

I already said, I was never sure of that in the first place. Because I do not expect anyone here to make such a funny claim. But I still ASK if he really did or not, awaiting to bash him. But hey, he didn't. Anyway, I never claimed he did so.

Because once I claim that, I engage a very difficult battle. So I took on another battle (that I thought would be quick to be resolved, like how I say above.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Why should he be forced to admit to any wrongdoing to get you to do the same?

We have been derailing the topic, obviously. That's what I admit I'm wrong at. But you don't expect me to stop if I do not success in what I intended to, right?

I'm starting to, yeah.

Too bad.

Or at least shut up instead of trying to paint yourself as a victim.

It's my weakness. I'm saying posting like this is not..practical to my life, so it's childish of me to even be here. Heck, it's obvious that these posts are childish, and heck, it's obvious that you two who get piss off over the forums are in a way being similar to that childishness of me. How am I painting myself as a victim

If you say that: No, I am an adult who just gets piss off when a child is being problematic. Lol, well, you can tell I won't be satisfied with that, but I still will let you go.

[Quzor]

@ Ascaloth/Cinocard/Anh_Minh:

/popcorn
/pizza
/candy

...just sayin'...

Truthfully, I got a bit lost a page or so ago, when the discussion seemed to shift ad nauseam for about 6 posts. Are you still discussing the idea of the scientific method being rooted in philosophy (or perhaps, NOT rooted in philosophy)? And, in such a case, where would the idea of a religious belief structure fall into this dilemma? Couldn't one argue (don't look at me, I'm not gonna start up with Ascaloth ) that religious beliefs may skew any person's view on the situation, and thereby make it impossible for another to understand, assuming said other individual does not subscribe to that particular belief set?

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

It being obscure or not, and only I can see or not, and I see it correctly or not, was not clear at that time (and perhaps still not now), only after I have tried to do so, can we say for definite my interpretation is wrong or right (but matter not, I don't intend to do it right away).

But as I said to Anh Minh, I've never attempted to argue on that linguistic part, because I would gain nothing. I've only attempted to say that If I hadn't even started doing so, you cannot accused me of being a straw man.

What we have been arguing is that: "Had Cinocard made a straw man when he said that in his opinion, Ascaloth sentences can be viewed as a claim about philosophy being unintelligible."

I defend for myself that I didn't. Since all I did was merely stating my opinion, and didn't even start to explain why I had that opinion. It's just not in definition that a straw man occurs without any firm claim or argument (it was just an opinion).

And that opinion has something to do with the topic. It was about philosophy being unintelligible or not (which we never work on, since both side agree its not).

Oh, how nice, you are resorting to argumentum verbosium now. Keep your points short and succinct, please.

Moreover, you have already committed a Straw Man the very moment you misrepresented my viewpoint to make it what it isn't. Honestly, it doesn't really matter what kind of "proofs" you can dredge up to try and support that claim; the accusation of your fallacy lies in the false claim you made about my statements, not in any proofs you might have used to support that false claim.

But hey, now you're claiming that it was just your opinion, and that you haven't even started defending it. Fair enough, then congratulations, you have just added a bare assertion fallacy to your repertoire of logical shortcomings. Thank you for shooting yourself in the foot for me.

That's exactly the problem. Since you had yet to say or deny anything exclusively direct at me, at the time, I had no idea if your point is the same with what I got from your sentences. So I asked you: "hey, all I can get is you saying philosophy is stupid. But something so ridiculous, I'm not even sure If I'm getting it right. . If you really agree that you meant so, muahahah here I come. But if you didn't mean it like that, fine, may be we just have a miscommunication somewhere. I won't try force you to admit you meant it that way."

I never attempted to wind you up with such an underhand tactics like: "hm, his post is like this, but I can bash him if I linguistically bent his post's idea to something incredibly stupid like this. Let's corrupt his post meaning and beat him up," which I suspect you thought I was going to, so you replied with me being a straw man

In that case, you could have desisted from the very start when I only threw one singular accusation at you. You could have apologized, ended it there, and that would have been the end of that. But noooooooo, you chose to take it as a personal affront, tried to attack me on it, and promptly provoked me to shred whatever was left of your credibility under a hailstorm of accusations about the logical fallacies you have committed. Frankly, you brought all of this upon yourselves.

I will claim that I use "explicitly" correctly, then

No, see, "explicitly" means it's clear and obvious to everyone. If it's clear and obvious only to you, it doesn't count as "explicit"

But hey, if you want to continue on this course, don't blame me if it comes to bite you in the ass.

No time to spoonfeed you, either

I see. Then I conclude by legitimate argumentum ex silentio that you were indeed attempting to use an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial on me, which therefore makes your arguments invalid all in itself.

You can only prove what you claim that you meant is truly what you meant by analyzing your own sentences. But all you did is said: "no, I meant it differently, you straw man." As if just because you said you meant it differently, the sentences categorically mean differently.

You never back up that claim, really. I never intended to force you to do so either (because it's boring, stupid, nothing for me to gain from it, and there's a high chance you win anyway). But instead of saying only: "no, I meant it differently," you have to add in the "straw man." All I did was ask a question (okay, rude question. Why was I rude, read the reply for Anh Minh). That ticks me off

Again, you say that last sentence like I give a damn about your feelings.

Additionally, you were the one who first made the claim that there was a meaning different to which I intended in my statements. Therefore, the onus probandi rests on you to prove your statements, and your attempt to shift the burden onto me constitutes an argumentum ad ignorantium.

Finally, your incessant complaining about the methods I utilized to refute your arguments merely constitutes a style over substance fallacy, as it erroneously emphasises the way in which I am presenting my accusations rather than the content of said accusations themselves.

See, this is one reason (among many) why you should not attempt argumentum verbosium, especially not against me. You merely open yourself to more attacks on your logical processes.

I think your post says that philosophy is unintelligible because of A,B,C,etc.

The A,B,C part is the reasoning part (which might turn out to be linguistic). But I never said them out. So how can you know it's fallacious? Because you can predict what I will say, and what you predict I will say are fallacious.

But how can you claim that what your prediction is 100% right? Lol. You are the fallacious one, using the logic: "That sentence is MY sentence. I meant to say B, not A. So that sentence cannot by any mean understood as A. Any way to understand it as A is automatically corruption "

I reinstate: Your sentences do not mean that philosophy is unintelligible just because I say I understand them as so. But your sentences cannot be proved to not mean so, just because you said they do not mean so either. It needs analytical proofs. But we never showed any. Because you deem yourself as categorically right (which is outright ), thus no further proof is needed.

I believe I have already demonstrated above why I do not need to prove that my statements do mean what I intended; because the onus probandi rests on you to prove otherwise since you made the counterassertion, and your attempt to argue otherwise merely constitutes an argumentum ad ignorantium.

Sure, here's the link: Godel's theory
The idea is that before, mathematics was seen as exhaustible, or say, was believed that it has no limit. (I hope you agree that this view is fundamental). Godel said that it absolutely has a limit (imply that there are problems that absolutely can never be solved, which mean the view before is wrong. Which means a part of the foundation of science before Godel, was wrong.

This example serves as saying: philosophy is capable of affecting (even if just a little) science foundation (not necessarily refute something prior, may be adding something, may be making it better, etc). It does not say that every change or achievement in philosophy is capable of doing so. However, it a least refutes the idea that changes in philosophy has NOTHING TO DO AT ALL with modern science.

Fair enough. However, I note that Godel's incompleteness theorems is not itself without its limitations; it applies only for the formal theories which satisfy the necessary hypotheses, which means certain branches of science such as first-order axiomizations of Euclidean geometry and real closed fields are not affected by the theorems.

Seconly, and perhaps more pertinently, I note that Godel himself had to mathematically prove his theorems were correct. Therefore, it simply goes to show that mathematics is capable of influencing science......not philosophy.

Therefore, I salute you for some real effort (for once), but ultimately your attempt to prove your statements using Godel's incompleteness theorems is still an ignoratio elenchi. Try some other way to prove your statements.

Several real examples of mine (like the Godel one) proves that philosophy at least has something to do with science. It redirected the future course for physics.

Erm, yeah, I already showed above why Godel's incompleteness theorem doesn't prove your statement.

You misunderstood. I made both claims, but I use none of them to back up others.

Invention of scientific method is made by philosophers, after a long process of philosophizing (read the wiki page about history of scientific method).

Scientific method's validity is indeed MADE, supported (and attacked) by philosophers, also through philosophical thinking and debate.

The philosophers (empiricism, pragmatism, logical positivism, etc) thought was that: hm, no one will ever be able to climb outside of his own perspective and see what the real world outside is like. So anything not testable or verifiable, like God, or like Plato's form; such things are nonsenses and cannot be defined as true knowledge. Therefore, we should just focus on what we can test using our sensory experience. And we will derive a system specifically designed for gaining knowledge empirically, namely, scientific method (again, just skim through the page about scientific method and history of scientific method, if you don't want to read books about it).

Fair enough. Point conceded.

That said, I note:

There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions from methodological naturalism form the basis on which science is grounded.

Therefore, yes, assumptions derived from philosophy do form the base of the scientific method as we know it today.....but the main point is, how is it possible any shift in philosophical paradigm in the current day able to undermine the basis of the scientific method?

[Cinocard]

@ Ascaloth/Cinocard/Anh_Minh:

/popcorn
/pizza
/candy

...just sayin'...

Truthfully, I got a bit lost a page or so ago, when the discussion seemed to shift ad nauseam for about 6 posts. Are you still discussing the idea of the scientific method being rooted in philosophy (or perhaps, NOT rooted in philosophy)?

I got a pizza

I think we already conceded that scientific method is rooted in philosophy. Now we come to the point: even though scientific is (or was) rooted in philosophy, does philosophy still has any importance over scientific method, anymore?

Back to the topic. Your hypothesis:

And, in such a case, where would the idea of a religious belief structure fall into this dilemma? Couldn't one argue (don't look at me, I'm not gonna start up with Ascaloth ) that religious beliefs may skew any person's view on the situation, and thereby make it impossible for another to understand, assuming said other individual does not subscribe to that particular belief set?

It's undeniable that beliefs skew our view on situations, religious or not. Who can deny that?

But even though affected by religious standpoints, those views can be difficult to understand, but not impossible. Scholars who try to defend their religious view all have very soundly logical arguments. In fact, their thinking is incredible. You may read any of Lao Tzu, Saint Augustine, Saint Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, Nietzsche...works about religions, and see that they are very good read, construct of carefully logical devised arguments (well, actually Lao Tzu is not so much).

I wonder how many here have read about "The problem of Evil," or "The problem of God and Evil" invented by Saint Aquinas. It's a classic (and very interesting) example of efforts to rationalize religious view.

Spoiler for Ascaloth:

But hey, now you're claiming that it was just your opinion, and that you haven't even started defending it. Fair enough, then congratulations, you have just added a bare assertion fallacy to your repertoire of logical shortcomings. Thank you for shooting yourself in the foot for me

This fallacy has nothing to do with me at all

Rather:
* 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.

That pretty much summed it up

Thank you for shooting yourself in the foot for me

You beat me at it, man

No, see, "explicitly" means it's clear and obvious to everyone. If it's clear and obvious only to you, it doesn't count as "explicit"

No, see, strictly speaking, it means it's clear and obvious to MOST, not to EVERYONE.

Turn back to last weekend. How do you prove it was clear and obvious ONLY to me? If I see something that is obvious TO ME, I will say it's explicit. Do you do a survey to see how everyone thinks before saying something is explicit?

In that case, you could have desisted from the very start when I only threw one singular accusation at you. You could have apologized, ended it there, and that would have been the end of that.

Because your accusation was logically false. So we have this discussion.

I MAY indeed misunderstood your question. But I didn't commit straw man.

I see. Then I conclude by legitimate argumentum ex silentio that you were indeed attempting to use an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial on me, which therefore makes your arguments invalid all in itself.

Hm. No backup. Therefore, no merit at all

Finally, your incessant complaining about the methods I utilized to refute your arguments merely constitutes a style over substance fallacy, as it erroneously emphasises the way in which I am presenting my accusations rather than the content of said accusations themselves.

Oh, you say I was wrong in something. Then give me a definition for my mistake. "Find out why you are wrong yourself."

Like how now I say you are an idiot. Then I give you a definition for "idiot." "Find out why you are an idiot yourself."

Sound very, very persuasive, huh?

Again, you say that last sentence like I give a damn about your feelings.

Again, like I give a damn if you give a damn or not

which means certain branches of science such as first-order axiomizations of Euclidean geometry and real closed fields are not affected by the theorems.

True.
But as long as it affects something, no matter how tiny, the notion it has nothing to do at all with science is incorrect.

Seconly, and perhaps more pertinently, I note that Godel himself had to mathematically prove his theorems were correct.

Actually I didn't really understand how the proof works when I read it before. It is not something of bachelor level. But according to my professor, the second and third part of the proof was very philosophical. And I can see why he said so, when those two part do not use any advance mathematical theorem at all. They mainly consist of work that use philosophy of logic.

So it was a philosophy of mathematics problem, and it utilized philosophy of logic (which is a main branch of philosophy).

Therefore, yes, assumptions derived from philosophy do form the base of the scientific method as we know it today.....but the main point is, how is it possible any shift in philosophical paradigm in the current day able to undermine the basis of the scientific method?

To my knowledge, so far, no such shift has undermine scientific method foundation. Rather, those shift refine it.

But undermine or refine or whatever. My point is that: philosophy is still important and some philosophy advances may have an direct impact on science. Therefore, it's not outdated. At least not yet.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

This fallacy has nothing to do with me at all

Rather:
* 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.

That pretty much summed it up

I find it very telling that you conveniently skipped out the part where I demonstrated how the onus probandi rests on you, since you were the one who made the first claim i.e. that my statements had the meaning you interpreted them to have. Since you carry the onus probandi, it therefore follows that you cannot claim a bare assertion fallacy on me until you show valid proofs of your accusation.

Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. Nice try at a argumentum ad ignorantium against me, but you might want to consider arguing logically instead of trying to attack me personally.

You beat me at it, man

As a matter of fact, I've demonstrated that I haven't done anything of the sort. On the other hand, it's hilarious how you just proceeded to shoot yourself in the other foot.

No, see, strictly speaking, it means it's clear and obvious to MOST, not to EVERYONE.

Turn back to last weekend. How do you prove it was clear and obvious ONLY to me? If I see something that is obvious TO ME, I will say it's explicit. Do you do a survey to see how everyone thinks before saying something is explicit?

Referring to the definition that you yourself gave, "explicitly" means "fully and clearly expressed". However, since even you have admitted that I have not "fully and clearly expressed" anything of the sort, then it's clear that I have not explicitly claimed whatever you have accused me of claiming, intentionally or otherwise.

Proof that it was clear and obvious only to you? Here's one; I immediately disagreed with your interpretation, thus it wasn't the case for me. Here's another; thus far, nobody else has supported you or claimed something similar. Therefore, at this point in time, it seems that you are the only one who interpreted my words the way you interpreted it. By definition, it can't be "fully and clearly expressed"; therefore, it was not "explicit". Piss off.

Because your accusation was logically false. So we have this discussion.

I MAY indeed misunderstood your question. But I didn't commit straw man.

You have yet to demonstrate to me how my accusation is logically false. On the other hand, I have already demonstrated how your interpretation was a Straw Man of my statements. Therefore, once again, the onus probandi rests on you to prove how your claim about my statements is not a Straw Man.

On another note, it should be noted that it is possible to commit a Straw Man unintentionally. Therefore, if you think you may have misunderstood my points, you can always admit so.

Hm. No backup. Therefore, no merit at all

Nuh uh, I don't need any backup. I have already demonstrated how you were attempting to foist an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial on me, and all you did in response was to claim that "it isn't important", which hardly constitutes sufficient refuation in itself. Therefore, once again, the onus probandi is on you to either prove you weren't making a personal attack on me, or to admit it and let it drop.

Oh, you say I was wrong in something. Then give me a definition for my mistake. "Find out why you are wrong yourself."

Like how now I say you are an idiot. Then I give you a definition for "idiot." "Find out why you are an idiot yourself."

Sound very, very persuasive, huh?

Unfortunately, I am not about to waste my time laying out your mistakes to the most minute detail just to attempt to spoonfeed you on where your logic has gone awry. I have already done my part in pointing you to the relevant links which describe your logical flaws; the onus is on you to familiarize yourself with the content of the links, and then deduce for yourself how you went wrong. That I have proceeded to describe the way your logic has failed each time after I posted a link is already me doing you a favour each time.

True.
But as long as it affects something, no matter how tiny, the notion it has nothing to do at all with science is incorrect.

Sure. Who argued that it had nothing to do at all with science in the first place?

Actually I didn't really understand how the proof works when I read it before. It is not something of bachelor level. But according to my professor, the second and third part of the proof was very philosophical. And I can see why he said so, when those two part do not use any advance mathematical theorem at all. They mainly consist of work that use philosophy of logic.

So it was a philosophy of mathematics problem, and it utilized philosophy of logic (which is a main branch of philosophy).

Fair enough. Nevertheless, just because Godel's incompleteness theorem has been proven, and it has been done so by philosophy, does not mean that it has completely stymied any effort towards a Theory of Everything.

To my knowledge, so far, no such shift has undermine scientific method foundation. Rather, those shift refine it.

But undermine or refine or whatever. My point is that: philosophy is still important and some philosophy advances may have an direct impact on science. Therefore, it's not outdated. At least not yet.

Fair enough. I have never said that philosophy is outdated.

[Cinocard]

I find it very telling that you conveniently skipped out the part where I demonstrated how the onus probandi rests on you, since you were the one who made the first claim i.e. that my statements had the meaning you interpreted them to have. Since you carry the onus probandi, it therefore follows that you cannot claim a bare assertion fallacy on me until you show valid proofs of your accusation.

Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. Nice try at a argumentum ad ignorantium against me, but you might want to consider arguing logically instead of trying to attack me personally.

Horribly layers of straw man under straw man

There's this little "claim" (question, in fact) of mine about you saying philosophy is unintelligible. If this claim is wrong, I'm a straw man. If it's right, well, I'm not. Essentially, the argument went like this:

A: First you asserted that I'm categorically a straw man. Which means the "claim" (again, question) of mine is categorically wrong. Therefore I need not say my proof.

B: Went on, you asserted that I made another straw man. Because I never show my proof (lol).

C: Still not stop, you asserted that I made yet another straw man. Because I "defend" myself by pushing the burden of proof to you, saying that you cannot prove that my "claim" above was wrong.

D: And finally, you asserted that I attacked you personally.

Spoiler for Lulz:

B: Running away huh? So now I HAVE TO PROVE your sentences meant what I said it meant. Man, I suck. Oh..but wait! So Did I even refuse to do that at the beginning at all?

Spoiler for Log:

Originally Posted by Cinocard

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

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.

You have already claimed that I am making arguments which I have never made,

C: Burden of proof does not matter with who claims what first. It concerns with the reason, if one wants to be able to say that claim is true or false, FOR DEFINITE.

If I want to prove I'm right, I have an onus probandi. But If I'm not possible to prove? It's unsure whether I'm right or wrong.

Just like you. If you assert that I'm wrong, you have an onus probandi in doing so. If you are not possible to do so, we still can't say if I'm right or not, yet.

And we all know you outright said that I was wrong and committed a straw man. So you have a burden to prove that, just like me


A+C: Did you really not try to prove that I'm wrong? Oh yes, You did try it before, try to explain how I would definitely be wrong. You tried like this:

Spoiler for Log:

2. Style over substance fallacy (ad hominem variant). Emphasising whatever failings you might have perceived in my debating style does not hide the fact that you are still marginalizing the content of my argument, and is thus logically fallacious.
3. You have already claimed that I am making arguments which I have never made, and which even you have admitted that I have never explicitly made. That, by all accounts, constitutes a Straw Man. Therefore, any attempt to bolster such a claim merely amounts to supporting a Straw Man, and thus shaky and fallacious.

By interpreting my points in a different way from which I intended, even if you claim that I did it "unconsciously", you are still creating a corruption of my arguments, thus the Straw Man.

Which is versions 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.

"Oops, but that kind of proof does not work. Hey, wait a minute! I have no burden of proof. He's the one who has that "onus probandi." Let forget what I said before and wind him up for being 'fallacious."

Hahaha.

Yeah, right.

D: How come I attacked you personally?

As a matter of fact, I've demonstrated that I haven't done anything of the sort. On the other hand, it's hilarious how you just proceeded to shoot yourself in the other foot

As a matter of fact, the table is turned again, and now you shot your thigh. Being able to turn it one more or not...Good luck, pal

since even you have admitted that I have not "fully and clearly expressed" anything of the sort, then it's clear that I have not explicitly claimed whatever you have accused me of claiming, intentionally or otherwise....

Proof that it was clear and obvious only to you? Here's one; I immediately disagreed with your interpretation,

Still not get what the core of the problem is?

1: When I first voiced out my interpretation (#180), your replies and my "admittance" were non-existence at the time. All the info I had were your previous posts.

Again, I ASKED you a question. Because you answered no, I BELIEVE you said no. So I "admitted" that it was a no. But this happened after I asked you.

2: you disagree or not have nothing to do with your sentences (again) explicitly imply something or not. It only concern with YOU explicitly admit or deny something or not (claiming outright in public that you did, or did not have an idea so).

Now I type: "I'm God." The sentence can be explicitly understood as what it linguistically means in English: I'm an omniscience being.

Then I disagree: I did not mean my sentence that way. I mean that my character's name in this MMORPG is god.

IF now you ask me: "lmao, you really think you are omniscience or something?" And I answer: "Straw man. I never said so." What do you think?

Now, of course, none of the post made can be at this level of "explicit." But not until we actually work on its details, can we really say for 100% that it is, or it isn't

You have yet to demonstrate to me how my accusation is logically false. On the other hand, I have already demonstrated how your interpretation was a Straw Man of my statements

We are doing that. I'm trying to demonstrate it to you. You just don't accept it.

Like how I don't accept yours. At least, not yet.

Nuh uh, I don't need any backup. I have already demonstrated how you were attempting to foist an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial on me,

Nuh uh, all you did was threw another definition at me. You demonstrated nothing.

Only 1 out of every 4 times or so you do that, I think.

Unfortunately, I am not about to waste my time laying out your mistakes to the most minute detail just to attempt to spoonfeed you on where your logic has gone awry.

Remember what you said to me? Like I give a damn about you having time or not. As long as there's no valid backup, your statements are just pure fallacious (sound annoying, huh? )

Fair enough. Nevertheless, just because Godel's incompleteness theorem has been proven, and it has been done so by philosophy, does not mean that it has completely stymied any effort towards a Theory of Everything.

Oh, not it's not. I believe I myself said so the first time I mentioned TOE. Nevertheless, the influence is still great, and not like Godel theory influences only TOE either.

Sure. Who argued that it had nothing to do at all with science in the first place?

Fair enough. I have never said that philosophy is outdated.

does not necessarily mean that philosophy in general is of great importance to science.

important in itself, that is true, but not necessarily relevant to the scientific method.

I'm trying to establish the great relevance of philosophy to science here. I'm building my way up. But...meh, I think we can get this out of the way now.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

B: Running away huh? So now I HAVE TO PROVE your sentences meant what I said it meant. Man, I suck. Oh..but wait! So Did I even refuse to do that at the beginning at all?

Oooooh, right. But hey, where's your so-called proof? Nope, I don't see it. See, sure I accused you of a Straw Man, because at the start when I was engaged in a debate about religious debate, you somehow got the idea that I was "screaming that philosophy was stupid". Therefore, you are arguing that I claimed something which I never claimed in the first place, as far as I could tell.

And like Anh_Minh said, the right way to refute an accusation of a Straw Man, but did you do that? Nooooooooooooo......you kept on attempting bare assertions ad nauseam that you are correct in your interpretation; without once referring to the so-called "proofs" you claim to have.

So really, it's your call. I cannot imagine how you can possibly get this from this without stumbling over some other logical flaws along the way, thus I'm quite certain that my accusation of you committing a Straw Man holds, especially since I'm very sure I was talking about religion, not philosophy. But hey, the Straw Man charge against you will hold anyway until you can prove otherwise, so despite what I think about your odds of doing so, if you wanna try anyway.....bring it, grasshopper.

C: Burden of proof does not matter with who claims what first. It concerns with the reason, if one wants to be able to say that claim is true or false, FOR DEFINITE.

If I want to prove I'm right, I have an onus probandi. But If I'm not possible to prove? It's unsure whether I'm right or wrong.

Just like you. If you assert that I'm wrong, you have an onus probandi in doing so. If you are not possible to do so, we still can't say if I'm right or not, yet.

And we all know you outright said that I was wrong and committed a straw man. So you have a burden to prove that, just like me

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.

A+C: Did you really not try to prove that I'm wrong? Oh yes, You did try it before, try to explain how I would definitely be wrong. You tried like this:

Spoiler for Log:

Which is versions 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.

"Oops, but that kind of proof does not work. Hey, wait a minute! I have no burden of proof. He's the one who has that "onus probandi." Let forget what I said before and wind him up for being 'fallacious."

Hahaha.

Yeah, right.

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.

D: How come I attacked you personally?

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. And you wonder why I'm getting aggressive towards you.

As a matter of fact, the table is turned again, and now you shot your thigh. Being able to turn it one more or not...Good luck, pal

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

Honestly, I commend you on attempting to debate me on my own terms; that takes some guts. However, it's just too bad that your understanding of the logical fallacies isn't up to scratch. You have promise; study the fallacies a bit more, and you might just make one hell of a debater.

Still not get what the core of the problem is?

1: When I first voiced out my interpretation (#180), your replies and my "admittance" were non-existence at the time. All the info I had were your previous posts.

Again, I ASKED you a question. Because you answered no, I BELIEVE you said no. So I "admitted" that it was a no. But this happened after I asked you.

2: you disagree or not have nothing to do with your sentences (again) explicitly imply something or not. It only concern with YOU explicitly admit or deny something or not (claiming outright in public that you did, or did not have an idea so).

Now I type: "I'm God." The sentence can be explicitly understood as what it linguistically means in English: I'm an omniscience being.

Then I disagree: I did not mean my sentence that way. I mean that my character's name in this MMORPG is god.

IF now you ask me: "lmao, you really think you are omniscience or something?" And I answer: "Straw man. I never said so." What do you think?

Now, of course, none of the post made can be at this level of "explicit." But not until we actually work on its details, can we really say for 100% that it is, or it isn't

False analogy. You know, I'm pretty sure I sicced this same fallacy on you on a previous separate occasion.

We are doing that. I'm trying to demonstrate it to you. You just don't accept it.

Like how I don't accept yours. At least, not yet.

You made an argument against me without any proofs. How am I supposed to accept that? Like I said, bring it on if you want, grasshopper.

Nuh uh, all you did was threw another definition at me. You demonstrated nothing.

Only 1 out of every 4 times or so you do that, I think.

Again, style over substance fallacy. I have posted the relevant link each time I've found that you made a particular fallacy; if you refuse to read the links and attempt to claim that I demonstrated nothing each time, I can only conclude by legitimate argumentum ex silentio that you don't have a counter for my arguments.

Remember what you said to me? Like I give a damn about you having time or not. As long as there's no valid backup, your statements are just pure fallacious (sound annoying, huh? )

Like I said, I already gave valid backups through the links each time and explained how the links are relevant to describe the logical fallacies you have committed. I could have just dropped the links there and claim that it's self-evident, leaving you to figure it out for yourself (oh, wait, isn't that similar to what you're trying to accuse me of? ). If you still refuse to accept what I demonstrated, hey, it's your style over substance fallacy. No big loss to me.

I'm trying to establish the great relevance of philosophy to science here. I'm building my way up. But...meh, I think we can get this out of the way now.

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

[Let'sFightingLove]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Simple enough....

I don't categorically rule out the possibility (that wouldn't be scientific ) so I'll answer.

I agree.

So it'd look something like this...

Spoiler for :

99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999% (contending the odds of religion's validity.)