God Is a Physical Being

[JAL]

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.

Empty rhetoric.

 

[topher694]

Empty rhetoric.

Appeal to Ridicule

 

[JAL]

Appeal to Ridicule

Ditto.

 

[topher694]

Ditto.

Incomplete Comparison Fallacy

 

[JAL]

Incomplete Comparison Fallacy

(Yawn). And still no rebuttal of the proofs.

 

[JAL]

Use the force Luke!

 

[topher694]

(Yawn). And still no rebuttal of the proofs.

Yeah, just a complete demonstration that they are not even valid arguments let alone proofs without any rebuttal, just name calling and ridicule.

 

[JAL]

Yeah, just a complete demonstration that they are not even valid arguments let alone proofs without any rebuttal, just name calling and ridicule.

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.

 

[topher694]

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.

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.

 

[JAL]

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.

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.

 

[topher694]

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.

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.

Oh, and it is also a textbook example of the False Attribution Fallacy

 

[JAL]

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.

"Use the force Luke!" This is an ordinary claim, that should be accepted without proof? Or is it an extraordinary claim?

The difference is merely a matter of common sense. You just don't like the facts.

 

[JAL]

This is entirely contrary to the textbook definition of claims and proof.

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.

 

[topher694]

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.

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.

 

[JAL]

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.

Right. As I said, books that have nothing to do with extraordinary claims such as fairytales about magical immaterial substances.

 

[topher694]

Right. As I said, books that have nothing to do with extraordinary claims such as fairytales about magical immaterial substances.

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.............

 

[JAL]

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.............

That is my error? Funny you haven't shown one specific example in my proofs.

 

[JAL]

@topher694,

Suppose you met a yoga instructor who said to you two statements.
(1) "Make use of The Force that pervades all things".
(2) "If you're thirsty, you can drink from the water fountain in my office."

Are those two statements equally on a par? Isn't one of them an extraordinary claim? And the other one an ordinary claim?

 

[JAL]

You're arguments are closer to this...

Oh that's right - you don't HAVE any arguments. You haven't provided any arguments on this thread - only insults.

 

[topher694]

Oh that's right - you don't HAVE any arguments. You haven't provided any arguments on this thread - only insults.

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.