- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,778
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Empty rhetoric.This is just deflection and another logical fallacy too (red herring). The statement I quoted (which you have repeated it over and over and over and over) has been the foundation for much of what follows and it is complete, utter garbage. You "proofs"... er opinions... are irrelevant if the arguments they are built upon are completely invalid.
Sorry you don't understand the difference between logic and opinion, premise and argument, valid and true.
Ditto.Appeal to Ridicule
(Yawn). And still no rebuttal of the proofs.Incomplete Comparison Fallacy
Yeah, just a complete demonstration that they are not even valid arguments let alone proofs without any rebuttal, just name calling and ridicule.(Yawn). And still no rebuttal of the proofs.
Um...er....eh..Uh...A demonstration would actually involve addressing the specifics of the proofs. You haven't done that. Anyone could peruse your posts on this thread and see that you haven't done it. What they will find is a bunch of places where you merely insulted me, like you are doing now.Yeah, just a complete demonstration that they are not even valid arguments let alone proofs without any rebuttal, just name calling and ridicule.
I'm sorry you find logical reasoning insulting, but that does make sense. I pointed out how your very first argument was invalid, using tools of logic. After all your claims that no one can disprove your "proofs" you disregard what I wrote because apparently I addressed the incorrect "proof" in your eyes. That is poor form on your part. You have yet to rebut even the one small example I gave, so why would I move on to another? Either you own all of what you said or none of it, you can't pick and choose. Regardless I could do the exact same with literally every single argument you have put forth. None of them are valid arguments, hence the conclusions are immaterial.Um...er....eh..Uh...A demonstration would actually involve addressing the specifics of the proofs. You haven't done that. Anyone could peruse your posts on this thread and see that you haven't done it. What they will find is a bunch of places where you merely insulted me, like you are doing now.
Again, that was not one of my proofs. And I rebutted your comments anyway by showing that you don't know the difference between an ordinary claim and an extraordinary one. Let me spell it out for you.I'm sorry you find logical reasoning insulting, but that does make sense. I pointed out how your very first argument was invalid, using tools of logic. After all your claims that no one can disprove your "proofs" you disregard what I wrote because apparently I addressed the incorrect "proof" in your eyes. That is poor form on your part. You have yet to rebut even the one small example I gave, so why would I move on to another? Either you own all of what you said or none of it, you can't pick and choose. Regardless I could do the exact same with literally every single argument you have put forth. None of them are valid arguments, hence the conclusions are immaterial.
That is nothing but your opinion. And, it is entirely false. This is entirely contrary to the textbook definition of claims and proof.Again, that was not one of my proofs. And I rebutted your comments anyway by showing that you don't know the difference between an ordinary claim and an extraordinary one. Let me spell it out for you.
(1) An ordinary claim is one so consistent with our daily human experience that virtually no one - probably not even atheists - would feel a need for further proof.
(2) An extraordinary claim is one so far removed from daily human experience that belief in it requires an extraordinary degree of proof, or requires faith, or requires indoctrination/brainwashing.
"Use the force Luke!" This is an ordinary claim, that should be accepted without proof? Or is it an extraordinary claim?That is nothing but your opinion. And, it is entirely false. This is entirely contrary to the textbook definition of claims and proof.
This just further illustrates my point. You are MAKING THINGS UP then claiming you have proven them when your entire process itself is totally flawed.
Um...er...uh..Textbooks? I assume you're referring to reputable non-fiction textbooks? Aside from religious books rife with faith-claims, reputable non-fiction books don't make extraordinary claims.This is entirely contrary to the textbook definition of claims and proof.
I am referring to non-fiction textbooks such like, "Discrete Structures, Logic, and Computability" that one reads and studies to learn about the actual science of logic.Um...er...uh..Textbooks? I assume you're referring to reputable non-fiction textbooks? Aside from religious books rife with faith-claims, reputable non-fiction books don't make extraordinary claims.
Right. As I said, books that have nothing to do with extraordinary claims such as fairytales about magical immaterial substances.I am referring to non-fiction textbooks such like, "Discrete Structures, Logic, and Computability" that one reads and studies to learn about the actual science of logic.
Wow you just don't get it do you. These books show that your entire argument is flawed. They don't care about if your arguments are about fairytales or fish... that is entirely immaterial to logic. What they do care about and teach is how you formulate your arguments. And yours are invalid.Right. As I said, books that have nothing to do with extraordinary claims such as fairytales about magical immaterial substances.
That is my error? Funny you haven't shown one specific example in my proofs.Wow you just don't get it do you. These books show that your entire argument is flawed. They don't care about if your arguments are about fairytales or fish... that is entirely immaterial to logic. What they do care about and teach is how you formulate your arguments. And yours are invalid.
I'll try to give you an example:
All cats have four legs. Spot is a cat. Therefore Spot has four legs.
This is a valid well formed logical argument
All unicorns have one horn. Frank is a unicorn. Therefore Frank has one horn.
This is ALSO a valid well formed logical argument. Logic does not care if unicorns are real or mythical.
You're arguments are closer to this:
Dogs are afraid of heights. Therefore pigs can't fly.
It doesn't really matter if pigs can't fly or not... the entire argument is invalid and nonsensical. This is what you are doing. Over and over and over and over and over.............
Oh that's right - you don't HAVE any arguments. You haven't provided any arguments on this thread - only insults.You're arguments are closer to this...
Again I'm sorry that you find logic insulting. My point is that you have not provided any valid arguments yourself. Which you have not been able to refute.Oh that's right - you don't HAVE any arguments. You haven't provided any arguments on this thread - only insults.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?