The Moral Argument (revamped)

[createdtoworship]

Well, I'd stop if I saw you learning from your mistakes or showing some intellectual humility at least once in a while, but I don't expect that to actually happen. It's actually become a kind of fun exercise untangling the mess of logical fallacies and misapprehensions you routinely present as arguments here, so if you're still getting something out of this too we're still in a win-win.


A conclusion is a statement that follows from premises, so by calling the statement a conclusion you're implying that there was at least one premise. The fallacious part of begging the question isn't in having no evidence, it's in presenting the conclusion as the evidence and then proceeding to the conclusion as a conclusion. It's called question-begging because it begs the question as to where the actual support for the conclusion is. You can make a statement that has no evidence to support it without committing a logical fallacy.


I would like to know where you got this idea, because it is incorrect as I have demonstrated.

a simple google scholar search for fallacious statements proves you wrong. Many peer review articles quote fallacious statements, according to your view only arguments can be fallacious. So I assume you will move the goal posts now and say that only statements that are arguments can be fallacious. But then I could also state that every statement is an argument, so there is that.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=fallacious+statements&btnG=

and by the way I am getting a lot from our debates. When you are nice, I actually like debating with you. But when I start winning you are a sore loser.

 

[gaara4158]

a simple google scholar search for fallacious statements proves you wrong. Many peer review articles quote fallacious statements, according to your view only arguments can be fallacious. So I assume you will move the goal posts now and say that only statements that are arguments can be fallacious. But then I could also state that every statement is an argument, so there is that.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=fallacious+statements&btnG=

and by the way I am getting a lot from our debates. When you are nice, I actually like debating with you. But when I start winning you are a sore loser.

Which part of that proves me wrong? An argument can be condensed into a single statement, but not all statements are arguments. Some statements are premises, some statements are conclusions, and some statements contain both and thus constitute arguments.

So, you can make a fallacious statement as long as it contains some kind of logical fallacy, which is only possible when there are premises and conclusions. So we’re still waiting to hear how you think it’s at all possible to commit a fallacy without stating any premises.

You need to do more than a google search for key words. You need to make an effort to actually understand the material you’re referencing, especially if you expect your interlocutors to.

 

[createdtoworship]

Which part of that proves me wrong? An argument can be condensed into a single statement, but not all statements are arguments. Some statements are premises, some statements are conclusions, and some statements contain both and thus constitute arguments.

So, you can make a fallacious statement as long as it contains some kind of logical fallacy, which is only possible when there are premises and conclusions. So we’re still waiting to hear how you think it’s at all possible to commit a fallacy without stating any premises.

You need to do more than a google search for key words. You need to make an effort to actually understand the material you’re referencing, especially if you expect your interlocutors to.

as I said, moving the goal posts. Nice. And predictable. You implied that statements cannot be fallacious, as was your whole gist with my said fallacy detecting skills, now you say they can.

so that sir is moving the goal posts.

if it was not moving the goal posts, you would have said....most of the time only arguments can be fallacious, and some statments can be as well. That would pain the full picture. But originally saying "only" arguments can, and no"some statements can" is moving the goal posts.

 

[gaara4158]

as I said, moving the goal posts. Nice. And predictable.

Oh, come on, you need to at least try here. You’re the one who moved the goal posts from “you can commit a logical fallacy without stating any premises” to “fallacious statements exist.” We have all been patiently explaining to you that fallacies only apply to arguments, no matter what you call the argument. Instead of taking the time to recognize your error, you’ve been kicking and screaming the whole way. What’s the issue?

 

[createdtoworship]

Oh, come on, you need to at least try here. You’re the one who moved the goal posts from “you can commit a logical fallacy without stating any premises” to “fallacious statements exist.” We have all been patiently explaining to you that fallacies only apply to arguments, no matter what you call the argument. Instead of taking the time to recognize your error, you’ve been kicking and screaming the whole way. What’s the issue?

sir I believe we are both correct. Not all fallacies require premises. Only those that require premises are the ones that cannot be fallacious as statements of a conclusion. So I will still point out fallacy, and I believe the point is made that the statement is innacurate, as I prove a fallacy. So even if someone doesn't think it's an arguement, they can still commit fallacy. Begging the question is circular reasoning. But you can assume things without stating premises at all, and this is logically fallacious because you beg the question as to the truth of the statement. You don't merely have to use a premise that assumes a conclusion, you can have a conclusion without a premise, and the statement is wrong for the same reason. So I am not sure I agree with your statement regarding begging the question. So I think I will keep doing what I am doing. But thanks for trying. It was honorable of you. Atheists worldwide applaud you.

 

[gaara4158]

sir I believe we are both correct. Not all fallacies require premises. Only those that require premises are the ones that cannot be fallacious as statements of a conclusion. So I will still point out fallacy, and I believe the point is made that the statement is innacurate, as I prove a fallacy. So even if someone doesn't think it's an arguement, they can still commit fallacy. Begging the question is circular reasoning. But you can assume things without stating premises at all, and this is logically fallacious because you beg the question as to the truth of the statement. You don't merely have to use a premise that assumes a conclusion, you can have a conclusion without a premise, and the statement is wrong for the same reason. So I am not sure I agree with your statement regarding begging the question. So I think I will keep doing what I am doing. But thanks for trying. It was honorable of you. Atheists worldwide applaud you.

You’re disagreeing with standard philosophical principles. You’re misidentifying naked assertions as premises and conclusions. It baffles me how determined you are to remain wrong.

 

[createdtoworship]

You’re disagreeing with standard philosophical principles. You’re misidentifying naked assertions as premises and conclusions. It baffles me how determined you are to remain wrong.

sir I can redefine whatever I want. Those dictionaries redefined themselves at the brink of naturalism, and evolutionary principles without warrant, so what is the problem, why can't I arbitrarily change it back? I define fallacy as an error in logic. Be it in a statement without premise, or in an argument that has a premise. If they are assuming the conclusion, then they are wrong. it's a fallacy, even if dictionaries say it's not.

 

[gaara4158]

sir I can redefine whatever I want. Those dictionaries redefined themselves at the brink of naturalism, and evolutionary principles without warrant, so what is the problem, why can't I arbitrarily change it back? I define fallacy as an error in logic. Be it in a statement without premise, or in an argument that has a premise. If they are assuming the conclusion, then they are wrong. it's a fallacy, even if dictionaries say it's not.

You can use words however you want, but don’t expect to be understood by the rest of the world when you use your idiosyncratic definitions.

I, for one, interpret your response to mean, “You know what, Gaara, I was wrong and I see that now. Wow, that’s embarrassing, but I appreciate your patience in helping me to see my mistake! Now I know better.”

Because I take words to mean whatever is convenient to me, despite the dictionary.

Your definition of fallacy is fine, you just need to realize that not every statement falls subject to the rules of logical argumentation. Assertions that do not come with explanations or evidence aren’t circular arguments, they’re not arguments at all.

You don’t have to accept such statements just by virtue of them not being fallacious. There are many, many other ways to be wrong, but you have to wait for them to make an argument before you can run to your logical fallacy list to see what’s wrong.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You’re disagreeing with standard philosophical principles. You’re misidentifying naked assertions as premises and conclusions. It baffles me how determined you are to remain wrong.

I explained what a logical fallacy was as simply as I could. I showed my 12 year old my post and he got it immediately.

I suppose I could try and find one of my Philosophy professors and try to persuade them to make an account and post... basically what we’ve already posted. But I have no confidence it would do any good.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I, for one, interpret your response to mean, “You know what, Gaara, I was wrong and I see that now. Wow, that’s embarrassing, but I appreciate your patience in helping me to see my mistake! Now I know better.”

Finally, we’re getting somewhere...

 

[createdtoworship]

You can use words however you want, but don’t expect to be understood by the rest of the world when you use your idiosyncratic definitions.

I, for one, interpret your response to mean, “You know what, Gaara, I was wrong and I see that now. Wow, that’s embarrassing, but I appreciate your patience in helping me to see my mistake! Now I know better.”

Because I take words to mean whatever is convenient to me, despite the dictionary.

Your definition of fallacy is fine, you just need to realize that not every statement falls subject to the rules of logical argumentation. Assertions that do not come with explanations or evidence aren’t circular arguments, they’re not arguments at all.

You don’t have to accept such statements just by virtue of them not being fallacious. There are many, many other ways to be wrong, but you have to wait for them to make an argument before you can run to your logical fallacy list to see what’s wrong.

This coming from someone who believes the universe created itself out of thin air, and we evolved from a rock. That person to me, holds little intellectual value in my mind. I really try to respect the atheist position, but seeing people are so arrogant and rude, it is virtually impossible to respect it to be honest. I now know why God calls the atheist position foolish, at first I thought it was a bit harsh, but it's the vain arrogance that is foolish. So again, believe what you wish regarding my viewpoint. It does not phase me one bit.

 

[gaara4158]

This coming from someone who believes the universe created itself out of thin air, and we evolved from a rock. That person to me, holds little intellectual value in my mind. I really try to respect the atheist position, but seeing people are so arrogant and rude, it is virtually impossible to respect it to be honest. I now know why God calls the atheist position foolish, at first I thought it was a bit harsh, but it's the vain arrogance that is foolish. So again, believe what you wish regarding my viewpoint. It does not phase me one bit.

Wow, that’s an actual ad hominem fallacy. You cannot refute the content of the post so you turn to insults against the poster. I never said any of those things you accuse me of saying, and even if I had they would have no bearing on the argument I just provided for you on the current subject. You had a chance to look really good by admitting your mistake just then. Why didn’t you?

 

[gaara4158]

Finally, we’re getting somewhere...

I’m tempted to carry on that way for a while lol

 

[createdtoworship]

Wow, that’s an actual ad hominem fallacy. You cannot refute the content of the post so you turn to insults against the poster. I never said any of those things you accuse me of saying, and even if I had they would have no bearing on the argument I just provided for you on the current subject. You had a chance to look really good by admitting your mistake just then. Why didn’t you?

and you believe in a spontaneously generating universe. I have a whole lot to say about the faith of the atheist. I have asked you numerous times about your view of the universe and even if you don't want to admit it. It's a universe from nothing. Yes, I know it sounds ridiculous. But you have no choice, because you reject the logical truth. All that is left for you is absurdity.

 

[createdtoworship]

Wow, that’s an actual ad hominem fallacy. You cannot refute the content of the post so you turn to insults against the poster. I never said any of those things you accuse me of saying, and even if I had they would have no bearing on the argument I just provided for you on the current subject. You had a chance to look really good by admitting your mistake just then. Why didn’t you?

I know already, when Christian's do it, it's fallacy but it's ok for atheists to do it.

 

[gaara4158]

and you believe in a spontaneously generating universe. I have a whole lot to say about the faith of the atheist. I have asked you numerous times about your view of the universe and even if you don't want to admit it. It's a universe from nothing. Yes, I know it sounds ridiculous. But you have no choice, because you reject the logical truth. All that is left for you is absurdity.

And now you double down with your ad hominems by throwing in a strawman. How unbelievably sad.

 

[gaara4158]

I know already, when Christian's do it, it's fallacy but it's ok for atheists to do it.

No, you’re just not good at recognizing logical fallacies. I mean, it had to be explained to you that fallacies only apply to arguments

 

[createdtoworship]

And now you double down with your ad hominems by throwing in a strawman. How unbelievably sad.

No, you’re just not good at recognizing logical fallacies. I mean, it had to be explained to you that fallacies only apply to arguments

sir it's not good tactic to tell someone they are using ad hominems, buy saying they are not good at it, and using an ad hominem yourself. That is what is called a self refuting argument. But I did take note that you didn't deny what was said about your view. And that is very telling. Atheism is intellectually dishonest. They are angry at those who use faith, yet believe we evolved from a mud puddle, they are angry at theists for faith in a creator yet believe the universe came from nothing. It's just sad to me to see the arrogance of someone who holds such a view, and does not hesitate to think that maybe they have it all wrong.

 

[gaara4158]

sir it's not good tactic to tell someone they are using ad hominems, buy saying they are not good at it, and using an ad hominem yourself. That is what is called a self refuting argument. But I did take note that you didn't deny what was said about your view. And that is very telling. Atheism is intellectually dishonest. They are angry at those who use faith, yet believe we evolved from a mud puddle, they are angry at theists for faith in a creator yet believe the universe came from nothing. It's just sad to me to see the arrogance of someone who holds such a view, and does not hesitate to think that maybe they have it all wrong.

Well, if nothing else we have established that you didn’t learn anything from our exchange. I will be referencing my posts here when you erroneously apply logical fallacies in the future, so maybe one day it’ll click.

Of course, I never made a self-refuting argument and I absolutely denied your characterization of my position. Twice. But I understand you’re committed to being wrong at every turn, so you had no choice but to say all that nonsense.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, if nothing else we have established that you didn’t learn anything from our exchange. I will be referencing my posts here when you erroneously apply logical fallacies in the future, so maybe one day it’ll click.

Of course, I never made a self-refuting argument and I absolutely denied your characterization of my position. Twice. But I understand you’re committed to being wrong at every turn, so you had no choice but to say all that nonsense.

can you show the post where you denied it? I didn't think so. So again, we can all see what you post. It's important to be honest and not flame people.