The Moral Argument (revamped)

[gaara4158]

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.

Of course I can. Here, I call your characterization of my position a strawman, meaning it's not my position:

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

And here, I directly tell you I never said any of those things:

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'd say I await your apology, but you and I both know you're too proud to admit a mistake, even when it's right in front of you in black and white.

You, on the other hand, cannot produce a single post of mine where I take the positions you described. And you have the NERVE to lecture ME about being honest and not flaming? If you sincerely believe the things you're saying, you're not paying the least bit of attention. Then again, I always did suspect you don't actually read my posts. lol

 

[createdtoworship]

Of course I can. Here, I call your characterization of my position a strawman, meaning it's not my position:


And here, I directly tell you I never said any of those things:


I'd say I await your apology, but you and I both know you're too proud to admit a mistake, even when it's right in front of you in black and white.

You, on the other hand, cannot produce a single post of mine where I take the positions you described. And you have the NERVE to lecture ME about being honest and not flaming? If you sincerely believe the things you're saying, you're not paying the least bit of attention. Then again, I always did suspect you don't actually read my posts. lol

again can you post a link to a post where you denied it? Saying you never said those specific words is not what I asked, nor posting a place where you say it is a strawman. See, you never denied that actual premises stated (not a literal denial). Nor did you use logic, and or additional comments of factual data to refute it.

So that to me reveals that it was an accurate depiction of your viewpoint.

 

[gaara4158]

again can you post a link to a post where you denied it? Saying you never said those specific words is not what I asked, nor posting a place where you say it is a strawman. See, you never denied that actual premises stated (not a literal denial). Nor did you use logic, and or additional comments of factual data to refute it.

So that to me reveals that it was an accurate depiction of your viewpoint.

Then I don’t know what you’re accusing me of never denying. What are you saying I never denied?

 

[createdtoworship]

Then I don’t know what you’re accusing me of never denying. What are you saying I never denied?

You never specifically denied what I said about your athiesm. all you said was you did not use those words.

 

[gaara4158]

You never specifically denied what I said about your athiesm.

What did you say about my atheism? By the way, I only identify as an atheist in the broadest sense of the word — I do not believe in the existence of any particular god. In formal discussion, it’s more accurate to label me as an agnostic non-theist. I think certain aspects of the god of classical theism are inherently indemonstrable and thus we cannot know of its existence or non-existence for sure. As of now, I do not see any reason to believe a god exists, so I don’t.

But ignoring all that, what exactly did you say about my position that you’re waiting for me to deny?

 

[createdtoworship]

What did you say about my atheism? By the way, I only identify as an atheist in the broadest sense of the word — I do not believe in the existence of any particular god. In formal discussion, it’s more accurate to label me as an agnostic non-theist. I think certain aspects of the god of classical theism are inherently indemonstrable and thus we cannot know of its existence or non-existence for sure. As of now, I do not see any reason to believe a god exists, so I don’t.

But ignoring all that, what exactly did you say about my position that you’re waiting for me to deny?

universe from nothing, evolution from a mud puddle.

in which you responded as it was a strawman, but that is literally what is believed.

 

[gaara4158]

universe from nothing, evolution from a mud puddle.

in which you responded as it was a strawman, but that is literally what is believed.

Nope, you're wrong. I deny that, and thank you for finally admitting that I denied it before when I called it a strawman. But now you're accusing me of lying. Let's straighten that out. I do not believe that the universe necessarily came from nothing, nor that evolution necessarily began in a "mud puddle." These may or may not be live options for me, depending on how some of those things are defined, but I don't know where the universe or life itself came from.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope, you're wrong. I deny that, and thank you for finally admitting that I denied it before when I called it a strawman. But now you're accusing me of lying. Let's straighten that out. I do not believe that the universe necessarily came from nothing, nor that evolution necessarily began in a "mud puddle." These may or may not be live options for me, depending on how some of those things are defined, but I don't know where the universe or life itself came from.

You said " I do not necessarily" believe the universe came from nothing. That is not denying it sir. You are confirming every post I made regarding this.

 

[gaara4158]

You said " I do not necessarily" believe the universe came from nothing. That is not denying it sir. You are confirming every post I made regarding this.

That’s not what “not necessarily” means, but I understand that you need to grasp at straws to maintain your position.

I deny that what I believe is a universe from nothing and evolution from mud. I’ve very clearly said that I don’t know where the universe came from or how exactly evolution began, and I’ll thank you to take note of that.

I anticipate that you will have trouble understanding that one can take a position that neither confirms nor denies assertions like the one you provided, so I’ll work within your peculiar vocabulary for the sake of easy communication. I am what you would call an agnostic.

And don’t think I haven’t noticed that you’ve switched the attention away from the fact that you were proven wrong about logical fallacies only applying to arguments, and onto your strawman of my position. It’s really disappointing.

 

[Moral Orel]

That’s not what “not necessarily” means, but I understand that you need to grasp at straws to maintain your position.

I deny that what I believe is a universe from nothing and evolution from mud. I’ve very clearly said that I don’t know where the universe came from or how exactly evolution began, and I’ll thank you to take note of that.

I anticipate that you will have trouble understanding that one can take a position that neither confirms nor denies assertions like the one you provided, so I’ll work within your peculiar vocabulary for the sake of easy communication. I am what you would call an agnostic.

And don’t think I haven’t noticed that you’ve switched the attention away from the fact that you were proven wrong about logical fallacies only applying to arguments, and onto your strawman of my position. It’s really disappointing.

Once you realize that he's redefining the phrase, "I don't know" to mean "You believe what I tell you you believe!" it'll all make sense.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

This isn't exactly a logical fallacy, this is what's known as a "Gish Gallup". Instead of presenting one authoritative source on a subject, you present a whole slew of resources, many of which have nothing to do with your claim. It's a debate tactic that tries to create the illusion of a consensus amongst experts (you call that the Bandwagon Fallacy) while making it impossible to refute every single item on the list. If I point out one, you'll simply say, "Okay, not that one, but I gave you a hundred more!". It's more of a parlor trick than it is an offering of evidence.

Here's what you're failing to understand by even citing a Google Search. The word fallacious can apply to statements that are simply, factually, false. "My shirt is red" is a fallacious statement. That isn't a "Logical Fallacy" though. The term "Logical Fallacy" has a specific meaning that only applies to arguments. I already demonstrated that with your claim that "Begging the Question" can be done without a premise, which it can't, so... next.

 

[gaara4158]

Once you realize that he's redefining the phrase, "I don't know" to mean "You believe what I tell you you believe!" it'll all make sense.

It’s hardly surprising, seeing as his apologetic guru Ray Comfort operates in the exact same way. Strawmen, Gish gallops and equivocations galore!

 

[createdtoworship]

That’s not what “not necessarily” means, but I understand that you need to grasp at straws to maintain your position.

I deny that what I believe is a universe from nothing and evolution from mud. I’ve very clearly said that I don’t know where the universe came from or how exactly evolution began, and I’ll thank you to take note of that.

I anticipate that you will have trouble understanding that one can take a position that neither confirms nor denies assertions like the one you provided, so I’ll work within your peculiar vocabulary for the sake of easy communication. I am what you would call an agnostic.

And don’t think I haven’t noticed that you’ve switched the attention away from the fact that you were proven wrong about logical fallacies only applying to arguments, and onto your strawman of my position. It’s really disappointing.

Prove it sir. Prove that you do not believe a universe spontaniously combused itself without cause, even though everything in the universe has causation. That is on part with saying unicorns can pop out of no where, then disappear. If that is irrational, then so to your view of the universe is irrational, please by all means prove that you do not believe in chemical evolution from a mud puddle. I thought I was being very generous.

 

[gaara4158]

Prove it sir. Prove that you do not believe a universe spontaniously combused itself without cause, even though everything in the universe has causation. That is on part with saying unicorns can pop out of no where, then disappear. If that is irrational, then so to your view of the universe is irrational, please by all means prove that you do not believe in chemical evolution from a mud puddle. I thought I was being very generous.

Prove it? Gradyll, I have gone to very great lengths to make it very clear to you that I DON’T KNOW where the universe or life came from. I don’t know enough about science or philosophy to take any strong position on the subject, including the one you’re continually trying to saddle me with.

 

[createdtoworship]

Prove it? Gradyll, I have gone to very great lengths to make it very clear to you that I DON’T KNOW where the universe or life came from. I don’t know enough about science or philosophy to take any strong position on the subject, including the one you’re continually trying to saddle me with.

no, no no don't move the goal posts again, I was obviously not asking if you had proof of the origins to the universe. I was asking you to prove your assertion "that you don't believe in a universe that spontaneously combusted from nothing." What I mean by that is explain your viewpoint, so that we know for sure you are being honest here, because I don't believe you can reject such a view as an atheist.

 

[gaara4158]

no, no no don't move the goal posts again, I was obviously not asking if you had proof of the origins to the universe. I was asking you to prove your assertion "that you don't believe in a universe that spontaneously combusted from nothing." What I mean by that is explain your viewpoint, so that we know for sure you are being honest here, because I don't believe you can reject such a view as an atheist.

I’m not moving the goalposts, I’m correcting your strawman. The way you use the word “atheist,” I am not one. I am an agnostic, if we’re using your vocabulary. I do not think I am clever enough to have solved a problem that has plagued scientists and philosophers for millennia. So I do not presume to know or profess that there is no god. I just don’t profess that there is, and I am skeptical of those who do, especially when they do so using horrible arguments. Thus here we are.

 

[createdtoworship]

I’m not moving the goalposts, I’m correcting your strawman. The way you use the word “atheist,” I am not one. I am an agnostic, if we’re using your vocabulary. I do not think I am clever enough to have solved a problem that has plagued scientists and philosophers for millennia. So I do not presume to know or profess that there is no god. I just don’t profess that there is, and I am skeptical of those who do, especially when they do so using horrible arguments. Thus here we are.

Yes and I think you recently changed your profile from atheist to humanist, is this correct? I could be wrong. But I don't remember that one on your profile. So this is ok. I want to encourage change from these debates. I won't say that that is moving the goal posts, even though technically it is. But ther e is grace if we are bettering ourselves as a result of that. But agnostic has problems as well. Mainly it does not answer the question "is there a God." And thus it fails at the mission of it's purpose.

 

[gaara4158]

Yes and I think you recently changed your profile from atheist to humanist, is this correct? I could be wrong. But I don't remember that one on your profile. So this is ok. I want to encourage change from these debates. I won't say that that is moving the goal posts, even though technically it is. But ther e is grace if we are bettering ourselves as a result of that. But agnostic has problems as well. Mainly it does not answer the question "is there a God." And thus it fails at the mission of it's purpose.

Wrong again, my profile has been set to humanist for I don’t know how long, but it’s been at least five years. Don’t believe me? I’ll dig up a post from a year or so ago where someone questions me about my humanist label.

I don’t know what you think the purpose of agnosticism is. Maybe you can expound?

 

[createdtoworship]

Wrong again, my profile has been set to humanist for I don’t know how long, but it’s been at least five years. Don’t believe me? I’ll dig up a post from a year or so ago where someone questions me about my humanist label.

I don’t know what you think the purpose of agnosticism is. Maybe you can expound?

ok, well thats ok. The purpose is that you are learning. So anything that allows you to learn is good. As far as agnosticism, I don't think agnostics know their purpose. And that is why you ask. But the purpose of everyone on the outside can clearly see what the purpose of agnosticism is. And it's blatant. It has to do with disproving theism, and countering theism. Similar with atheism (anti-theist). But it fails that quest because it does not even answer the most basic question of that topic "is there a God."

 

[gaara4158]

ok, well thats ok. The purpose is that you are learning. So anything that allows you to learn is good. As far as agnosticism, I don't think agnostics know their purpose. And that is why you ask. But the purpose of everyone on the outside can clearly see what the purpose of agnosticism is. And it's blatant. It has to do with disproving theism, and countering theism. Similar with atheism (anti-theist). But it fails that quest because it does not even answer the most basic question of that topic "is there a God."

Well, I’m working within your personal definitions, so I needed you to explain yourself further. It doesn’t quite match up with the formal definitions used in philosophy, but you were close. The premise of agnosticism isn’t the counterpoint to theism, but the counterpoint to theistic arguments both for and against the existence of God. I do not believe it can be known whether the god of classical theism exists or not, and I do not accept any of the arguments that attempt to definitively prove or disprove its existence. So the hard position of agnosticism fails to be the hard position of atheism, sure, but that’s kind of the point.