My claim is that you watched a youtube video, and thought you could come debate us. Many of the things you say don’t make sense like the claim that we use naturalism to prove naturalism.
This isn’t an ad hominem because I wasn’t using your ignorance in a subject to prove your points wrong, or even insult you. I want to know so I can tailor my responses and teach, of course, only if you are willing to learn.
An attack would simply be:
Bob is dumb.
An ad hominem, like any logical fallacy, can be put in a syllogism:
Major Premise: Bob says the flying spaghetti monster is real.
Minor Premise: Bob is dumb.
Conclusion: Therefore, the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist.
This is the opposite of an appeal to authority fallacy which tries to compliment instead of insult the target to try to prove the major premise true or false.
I ask again, what is your educational background? If you read my original post, I never said your views are wrong because of your education level.
I have a number of times in the other thread, and you didn’t respond:
I can list more if you would like. But let’s stick with this one for now. How is this not a fallacy? I would hope you would agree with the statement that you can’t use logical fallacies to know something.
We use epistemologies to know if something is evidence or not. This is another one of these statements that doesn’t make sense. What does being a “man” have to do with providing an epistemology? I “manned” up and said the scientific method is the epistemology. I asked for you to provide another one that works for god, but I don’t think you can. Lennox said faith and the scientific method. Faith is a terrible epistemology.
Do you care about truth? If you have to invent a whole new epistemology to prove one thing true, there is no way to know if that process is actually any good and not just self serving. This is also circular reasoning. How can you come up with a method to distinguish evidence if you are not sure if it is evidence considering we have no way of running tests?
Scientologist claim that these beings called thetan exists. Why don’t you man up and just tell us how you would distinguish evidence from non-evidence for thetans? Any epistemology that scientologists could come up with would only be used to prove their religion true. This is why the 4000 religions each have their own mini-epistemology. In doing so, they would commit logical fallacies and frequently practice cognitive dissonance.
By actually either providing evidence that fits within the scientific method or providing evidence with a different epistemology.
Why are you here? You’re like the my pillow guy. “I have evidence that the election was stolen, but we won’t show you.” You don’t have any evidence; you just think you do. If all of these apologists I have read and listened to don’t have the answer, why would I expect it from you?