I’d like to thank studentfinalpaper and all the other proselytizers who come here under the pretext of research for papers and essays, etc., and all the theists who attempt to startle us with novel concepts like Kalam and intelligent design. Those old chestnuts are as funny today as they were then they were first dreamed up centuries ago.
People like studentfinalpaper force us to think and argue about their cracked and circular logic, their tangled non sequiturs, and all the other logical fallacies that they churn out.
In the process, they make us better atheists while unwittingly planting seeds of doubt in their own minds. So thank you.
Well yes. I started to ignore the fool at least 20 post ago. As my nan would say “he’s not worth the candle” I pretty much had his number from the art. So far, every theist who has come here saying they want to learn has been shown to be lying. They want conformation of their beliefs. The conversion of some poor ignorant atheists would also be nice, as this would prove their piety and general superiority over non believers. These people are ignorant and arrogant hypocrites. Fuck 'em
Haven’t yet come across a believer willing to concede the possibility of error. I think that’s generally a hint about the person’s agenda and intellectual honesty.
The law is something many would consider to be a a moral thing so using that term is fair in common speech. But I would actually agree with you. The law isn’t always a matter what what is/isn’t moral. I’ll have to ponder this more. Thanks for your thoughts!
Regardless of whatever we call it guilty of “breaking the law” or “being immoral”, it’s distracting and irrelevant from the main point of the statement. Guilty of breaking the law as you put it, is still making a truth claim. We are stating that something did/didn’t happen. Therefore, my rebuttal of your position from earlier still stands as you haven’t provided an adequate argument against it. Please provide actual arguments against my rebuttal of your position: Q1 "You hold to the position, No: CCA cannot establish weight in TRUTH CLAIMS. But then you said that it CAN establish claims of innocence/guilt (your variation in “law breaking”) which are still truth claims. Therefore it’s contradicting and untenable. Please explain and then I can respond."
You’ve just agreed with me! Perhaps were misunderstanding each other. Essentially, your “physical evidence” is used in an argument - multiple usually - to establish the weight in a truth claim (i.e. in this case that someone is guilty of breaking the law). I think we might be saying the same thing sir/ma’am. Please clarify if not.
I believe that we commonly use a form of CCA to make sense of reality in the world; be it spoken or not. And that it is wise to do so and compare that with reality in order to discover what is true to the best of our ability. I’m not saying/arguing RIGHT NOW with my CMaj-118 (Current Main Question from Post 118 on CCA) that this establishes that God exists. Rather I’m simply questioning if CCA is a good way of establishing weight in truth claims no matter the subject (legal, religious, scientific, normal life, etc)
And until we establish this we SHOULDN’T focus on other things. It’s like wanting to talk Calculus before we’ve established 1+1 = 2. It’s not a best practice in my opinion. Ergo I’m focusing on CMaj-118 until we can move on.
As far as the Nigerian Prince question. I’ll make a list of questions which I’ll attempt to answer right after we clear up CCA. Though if it relates enough to the question and wont cause a massive distraction from the CMaj-118 I’ll engage (trying to make sure we can finish one thing and move on to the next). For now though, I might have missed your explanation; what is the Nigerian Prince Letter so when I can answer it I will? I was trying to find your explanation of it.
Lastly, please engage with the overall rebuttal in post 165 since you’ve already given your position (but needs clarification)
" FOR ALL OF THOSE ARGUING NO (we shouldn’t use CCA to establish weight in truth claims)… YOU ARE USING MULTIPLE ARGUMENTS TO ESTABLISH THE WEIGHT OF YOUR CLAIM THAT CCA SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR TRUTH CLAIMS. ESSENTIALLY YOUR USING CCA (OR A VARIATION OF IT) TO ARGUE AGAINST CCA. THIS IS SELF REFUTATION. If CCA is untenable then why did you just use it? IF YOU DISAGREE PLEASE PROVE WHY YOUR CLAIM THAT CCA IS WRONG IS CORRECT.
@David_Killens. Thanks for your post! However, I don’t see an new format proposal as requested in my prior post in this comment, this doesn’t seem like a productive post so I wont respond.
I don’t believe you’ve agreed that there is a God. Rather, I think you only agree that CCA is inductive logic and that inductive logic is a valid form of logic. Which by implication means that you believe that CCA (inductive logic) is a good way to establish weight in truth claims. Q1: Am I understanding you correctly?
Secondly, you stated:
This is a self refuting claim. I’ll put it in prose to clarify. Your argument is as follows (added clarifying nuance so we can see where the self refutation is):
a. (it is truth that) Logic is not a reliable tool for arriving at truth.
b. Therefore (it should be truth that) Logic should not be used for arriving at truth.
c. (it is truth that) CCA is a form of logic
d. Therefore (it is true that) CCA should not be used for arriving at truth.
There are many “truth claims” in your argumentation; however, the last bolded one is the one I’m focusing on. This whole argument which is your argument is using logic to say that logic shouldn’t be used in truth claim… but that in it self is a truth claim which you used logic for. Ergo it’s self refuting and untenable.
Next, the field of logic is “a science that deals with the rules and processes used in sound thinking and reasoning about things” (i.e. truth claims). So your position undermines the very purpose of logic itself in the field of philosophy and common sense and is therefore untenable.
Q2: Please provide adequate reasons as to why logic shouldn’t be used to establish weight in truth claims.
You are a human, thus that fact moves us closer and adding weight to the masturbation issue. Young people explore their sexuality, thus moving us closer and adding weight to the masturbation proposition. You are capable of typing, indicating function of your hands. Thus also moving us closer and adding weight to the masturbation issue.
@Nyarlathotep, thanks for your post! Please answer all of the questions as they are all related and also all well within relation to the CMaj-118 which is critical for us to move forward. Your current answer is not clear to me. Do you mean that by postulating someone’s guilt you are saying YES courts use formal logic? If so for Q1 and Q2 (in the prior post that you’re responding to) you would agree with me that courts use formal logic and that a person cannot be proven innocent/guilty without formal logic referenced in my arguments. If no then please clarify the following with a YES/NO and why (optional) so I can understand what your position is and respond.
Q1: Please prove how courts do not use formal logic if premise 1. is correct.
Q2: Secondly, prove how a person can prove a person innocent/guilty without formal logic such as this.
Lastly, please respond to this main question mentioned in my prior post: Q3: FOR ALL OF THOSE ARGUING NO… YOU ARE USING MULTIPLE ARGUMENTS TO ESTABLISH THE WEIGHT OF YOUR CLAIM THAT CCA SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR TRUTH CLAIMS. ESSENTIALLY YOUR USING CCA (OR A VARIATION OF IT) TO ARGUE AGAINST CCA. THIS IS SELF REFUTATION. If CCA is untenable then why did you just use it? IF YOU DISAGREE PLEASE PROVE WHY YOUR CLAIM THAT CCA IS WRONG IS CORRECT. Because as of now the argument stands and I have not seen a argument against it before this post. (If you have please list the argument(s) and post links to them.)
Court of law - sample prosecution “cumulative argument”…
Suppose Johnson has been killed. The accused - let’s call him @studentfinalpaper - stands in the dock, and the prosecution make their case against him. They argue like so:
First, they argue that someone killed Johnson.
Then they argue that this someone was a human.
Then they argue this human had two legs.
Then they argue that the killer spoke English.
Then they argue that the killer wore clothes.
Finally, they argue that this English-speaking, two-legged, clothes-wearing human is indeed @studentfinalpaper.
Any issues now with your question?
Can CCA get you close to “the truth of an event”? WHEN backed by evidence and cross-examined.
Stand by yourself in a room. Preach away to yourself via your preferred form - BECAUSE without discussion and evidence IT is NOT CONVINCING.
HEY!!! I bet “reasonable doubt” and Defense arguments are sounding pretty good now - same with examining the evidence and “strength” of evidence (and expertises).
Either start a new thread and start dealing with a theist topic (use your CCA hahaha - but this is a debate forum)
I already answered you. I do not need a re iteration of your nonsense.
It seems you have made up an argument (which is fundamentally flawed) and you are repeating it despite being corrected.
That does not require a further response from me. I say again your CCA (whatever) is not a thing, a cogent argument or a fresh idea. It has no validity.
You have failed to define your chosen terms such as “truth” and have admitted that legal and well understood terms such as "balance of probabilities" already cover your immature insistence on the term CCA. Which again, for clarity: HAS NO STANDING.
I cannot help your lack of comprehension. Maybe going to a real school (after some remedial teaching) would help you communicate on a rational level.
I think all you AR people are dead wrong about Studentfinalpaper.
He couldn’t find his penis without a dictionary, an ephemeris, a copy of Roberts Rules of Order, and a slide rule, so honestly I don’t think it conceivable that he has ever jacked off which might account for his overly hard obsessive focus on rigid and strict adherence to firm rules and upright dictates. Mind you, I think it might do the tosser a world of good and an enormous amount of good for the world if he just dropped his dacks and cut loose with Mrs Palm and her five daughters.
Reading all his shit has convinced me his brain has the consistency of set concrete and it has had the regrettable affect of suppressing all my sexual urges forever. At least now I wont go blind.
I agree as much as I am able. The cosmological argument was blown out of the water in the first 3 posts, by 10 posts it was beating a dead horse. Still this canard, (I stole that word), insists of wallowing in suffocating misery like the fish out of water he is. This fucking shit is so ground into the dirt at this point it’s fucking fertilizer.
Yesterday I went to the effort of going back to the start of this thread. He began with the kalam, but after facing such an overwhelming barrage of debunking, he switched tactics (I wonder who got him to do that? can you spell “teacher”?) and went down the “cumulative” road.
it would be gracious to state there is a mind directing his actions and behaviors, but that mind, the teacher is a complete idiot.
stick to imaginary theology.
