Svt4Him, the cock is crowing

[iampunha]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
You’re in the big leagues, now, friend. And they’ve got some trick pitches that are nigh onto impossible to hit. Don’t expect slow-pitch softball that you’re used to.

There’s a fuller version of this, and one I think Svt4Him needs to understand.

In JV baseball, pretty much all you need to do to win most of your games as a pitcher is to get the ball in the strike zone and not pitch it the same place every time. Velocity isn’t much of an issue except with those who are naturally given to hitting the ball well.

When you get into varsity, though, you have to be able to throw in the … 60s, at least, and that’s only if you’ve got a bunch of junk pitches you can throw for strikes. Realistically you’d better be able to hit 75-85 mph, and even then you’ve got to have command of a variety of pitches or people are going to sit on the pitch you throw 3-0 with the bases loaded. And we all know what can happen there.

In MLB (for example), you’ve got to theoretically (there are some poor pitchers out there) be able to throw strikes on a regular basis and also throw changing velocity, throw different pitches from the same arm angle, vary your delivery if there are runners on base, adjust for what you think the hitter is looking for, etc.

Greg Maddux, to cite one example, got absolutely shellacked his first few starts this year. This is a man who won 4 consecutive Cy Young awards and he started t he year 0-3 with an ERA higher than I’d like to think about right now. He just had a few bad games.

Just because you get shellacked once or twice, or someone fouls off your best pitching efforts for five minutes, doesn’t mean you’re a bad pitcher. It means you had a bad outing or a bad few hitters. And if a screaming line drive comes thisclose || to hitting your square in the face, remember that batters are trying to make contact. It’s nigh on impossible to purposefully hit a pitch RIGHT AT THE PITCHER.

It is a lot easier, conversely, to avoid hitting a batter. True, sometimes you need to throw one or two ear-high to remind the batter to stop crowding the plate, but you can aim a pitched ball. It’s a lot harder to hit a ball to a specific spot in the park. So when you throw that 70 mph ball at, say, me or gobear, and you throw it at our heads, the next hittable pitch is going to get throttled. That doesn’t mean we think you’re vile scum, it means we know what’s coming.

If your stuff isn’t fast, then trying to blow it past a fastball hitter is going to result in, best case (for you) a lot of long foul balls. Worse case for you, it’s going to involve a lot of solo home runs. Worst case you’re either going to get injured or give up a grand slam. If you know you don’t have a lot of stuff, your best bet as a pitcher is either to work on your stuff in the minors, try another position or nibble at the corners and try to induce grounders and fly balls. And walking someone is okay too.

Not everyone is given to being a pitcher. I played right field because I had an absolute cannon but I couldn’t field ground balls if my life depended on it. My control wasn’t good enough to pitch (for every pitch I threw that went where I intended, one went feet above the catcher’s head and hit the backstop with a loud CLANG), and I didn’t have good-enough depth perception for center field. The danger for the other team came when I was at bat, because I’m … well, really fucking fast. Back then I was running home to first in about 4 seconds. I’d get a walk, or get hit by a pitch, or whatever, and then I’d steal second and third and score on whatever the guy up to bat (it was usually the number 2 hitter still up after I’d stolen both bases) managed. Or the number 3 hitter. Or a passed ball. Whatever. I figured out what I could do and used that to beat opposing teams. Stole five bases in a game once.

But I couldn’t hit any sort of trick pitch or fast ball to save my life. I wouldn’t have been good as anything but a pinch runner in varsity because I relied on poor pitcher-catcher combos in JV to wreak havoc.

[NaSultainne]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
If not, by its own testimony, it is not “the Word of God.”

Wrong. This passage says the WORD became flesh. Does not dispute the quite legitimate contention that scripture is the word of God.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…
John 16:12
I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth.
Matthew 28:19-20
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Jesus declared further truths would be made clear to his disciples after He left, gave them authority to spread the Gospel, and affirmed that the scriptures were directly from God. I suggest you review all scriptural support for the inspiration received by God.

Typical fundy. porn.

Enough Polycarp. I rebuke you as a brother in Christ Jesus.
Examine yourself.

[andros]

Here’s a trick, NaSultainne. Try distinguishing between the Word in John 1 and the paper word you talk about.

[RoundGuy]

Enough Polycarp. I rebuke you as a brother in Christ Jesus.
Examine yourself.

Man, you’ve got some balls, I’ll give you that. But something tells me Poly is going to be none to pleased … or he’ll just laugh at you.

You are actually rebuking a brother in public, in the midst of unbelievers!

Examine yourself…

[Ben]

Funny, no one complains when Tris rebukes a brother in public, in the midst of unbelievers.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Well, Gobear said what I was going to say, already…

I do note that Lib seems to be going Lekatt on us, now. Complete with the argumentum and numerum/populum, and “testimony is allowed in practically every court in the world.”

Just for an example, while testimony is allowed in “practically every court in the world,” when the testimony of multiple witnesses is contradictory (As is the case here), it’s customary to throw out such testimony unless there is physical evidence to prove it, in “practically every court in the world.” In fact, if there were some god, you would expect those people giving testimony to have a bit more consistant picture. Unless, of course, you’re leaving open LOTS of room for error, which doesn’t exactly help the stance, any. Lib, you seem to be quite a smart guy, even if your argument rests on fallacies and other poor logic, so I hope you can see this.

I also note the same modal-logic “proof.” Does the fact that it can “prove” the existance of anything and everything we want it to not raise any questions about it’s accuracy or utility?

[NaSultainne]

*Originally posted by andros *
Here’s a trick, NaSultainne. Try distinguishing between the Word in John 1 and the paper word you talk about.

A legitimate point; bear in mind that the concept involved in the wide usage of this particular Greek word logos as the essence of Jesus Christ also applies to his spoken word. He is the word, and His word lives.

One day as Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret, with the people crowding around him and listening to the word of God… Luke 5:1

After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldy. Acts 4:31

In Strong’s the usage is the everyday meaning of word 218x v. Christ 7x. It incorporates Christ as One who brings the word and is the very essence of that word.

Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Ephesians 6:17

This term, rhema, refers to the individual scripture as inspired directly by the Holy Spirit, but implicit in this sentence is the understanding that scripture is the basis for Christian apologetics. I should note it is also used as the overall word of God as well, so again, variation in the usage.

It’s late, I’m doing verbal shorthand here, but if you want a more thorough discussion of the deeper meanings Jesus is conveying, I’ll surely be back later tomorrow.

[Liberal]

*Originally posted by Lilairen *
**The sun congealed out of a large gob of gas and various other material in a process that can be observed in essentially all of its stages all over the galaxy at this very moment. Any one of them might, in several billion years, be host to life that offers the same laughably specious argument.

Stars form all the time. Stars die all the time. This star is only special from a human perspective because it’s the one that’s here. It’s not particularly remarkable for a second-generation or later star; there are thousands essentially just like it. (And yeah, second-generation at least; the element distribution indicates that there has to have been a previous round of stellar fusion, so this particular star grew out of the remnants of already dead ones.) **

Entropy in the universe is observed to increase over time. Were the universe infinitely old (i.e., there was no creation), then entropy would be one-hundred percent. No sun. No hot stars. No stars forming. Just coldness.

Your observation that there are stars forming, and that the universe is only a few billion years old merely helps to make my point.

[Liberal]

Phoenix Dragon

Well, Gobear said what I was going to say, already…

Nevertheless, you press on.

I do note that Lib seems to be going Lekatt on us, now. Complete with the argumentum and numerum/populum, and “testimony is allowed in practically every court in the world.”

Actually, just 'cause you say it don’t make it so. In order that you will understand the nature of argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad numerum in the future, ad populum is what you are doing here — appealing to the gallery. “Going Lekatt on us” is the clue. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy whereby you seek to win acceptance of an assertion by making appeals to the crowd to join your side.

Argumentum ad numerum is what you (and the one who speaks for you) were really going for, but you got that wrong as well. An ad numerum fallacy is an assertion that there exists a truth relation between the beliefs of a number of people and a doxastic assertion. In other words, it is to say that X number of people support this assertion, and so therefore it is true.

That isn’t what I said, your pretense otherwise notwithstanding.

Just for an example, while testimony is allowed in “practically every court in the world,” when the testimony of multiple witnesses is contradictory (As is the case here), it’s customary to throw out such testimony unless there is physical evidence to prove it, in “practically every court in the world.” In fact, if there were some god, you would expect those people giving testimony to have a bit more consistant picture. Unless, of course, you’re leaving open LOTS of room for error, which doesn’t exactly help the stance, any. Lib, you seem to be quite a smart guy, even if your argument rests on fallacies and other poor logic, so I hope you can see this.

What I wish I would see is precisely what the alleged fallacies are, and precisely why the logic is allegedly poor. So far, this is precisely what you (and the one who speaks for you) have not shown me. I’ve seen a link to a fallacy that did not apply, as well as much stomping and protest with ad hominem comparisons to people you don’t like, but that’s about it.

I also note the same modal-logic “proof.” Does the fact that it can “prove” the existance of anything and everything we want it to not raise any questions about it’s accuracy or utility?

Actually, you should have noted a different one, not the same one. Many versions exist, and the one I provided above was one you have not seen here. As to what it proves, it proves that a Supreme Being exists in actuality — nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
Entropy in the universe is observed to increase over time. Were the universe infinitely old (i.e., there was no creation), then entropy would be one-hundred percent.

This is skipping over a few of the principles behind the begining of the universe, as I understand them. In the basic sense, the universe has existed for all time, as time is simply a property inside of this universe, and does not exist independant of it. So while the universe has existed for all time, “all time” is only a few billion years (60 or so, IIRC, though I’m quite likely wrong on that). There was no “before” the universe, and therefor, no “creation” of the universe. Oddly, time seems to be one of the few things that is easier to conceive of in infinite rather than finite terms. The concept that there is no “before” a certain point in time is one that seems very alien.

[Liberal]

Sure, and I understand that. There was no time before time, neither before your guess of 60 billion years nor before the more generally accepted 13-14 billion years. But if you wish to discard the modern Brane theories, then the universe is a unilateral entity, and therefore is preceeded by nothing. Unfortunately, nothingness implies the lack of any mechanism (including a quantum flux) by which a universe may have arisen.

[gobear]

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy whereby you seek to win acceptance of an assertion by making appeals to the crowd to join your side.

Argumentum ad numerum is what you (and the one who speaks for you) were really going for, but you got that wrong as well. An ad numerum fallacy is an assertion that there exists a truth relation between the beliefs of a number of people and a doxastic assertion

Nizkor.org calls it the argument from popularity, as does every other source I’ve read, but that’s irrelevant to the issue at hand. You have used the argument that “since a lot of people believe it, it must be true” in three different instances, although you claim they are different. I am also pleased that you finally admit that you are pleading a case for a doxastic state (although you could have used the synonym “subjective belief” and been more easily understood by the casual reader. Hiding behind esoterica only weakens your case.)

What I wish I would see is precisely what the alleged fallacies are, and precisely why the logic is allegedly poor. So far, this is precisely what you (and the one who speaks for you) have not shown me. I’ve seen a link to a fallacy that did not apply, as well as much stomping and protest with ad hominem comparisons to people you don’t like, but that’s about it.

Ahem, I speak for nobody but myself, thank you very much. I have shown you a fallacy that does apply and where you employed it. I have used no ad hominems in my posts to you either, so I’d appreciate a retraction. Your quibbling over the names of fallacies does not refute the fact that you are using them.

Now if you are admitting that your beliefs are merely subjective states of mind not binding on anyone else, then we have no disagreement. If the Lord God Almighty revealed Himself to you in all His glory last week, that’s super, but you can’t expect that to convince anyone who has not seen the same vision. Even if we knew you to be the soberest, sanest man in town, the most you could expect is for people to accept that you were totally sincere in your belief, not that your experience was necessarily real.

Svt4Him, you really need to read some books on basic science. As has already been pointed out, there is ample evidence for the age of the earth, and there is no instance of a living monkey being carbon dated. Reading talkorigins.org is an excellent starting point.

Can gobear say with 100% accuracy that my son exists? What about my daughter? Can he say 100% that he doesn’t nor does she? Well, no he can’t. He doesn’t know. I can say with 100% accuracy that my son does exist, and I’m 100% sure my daughter doesn’t. The difference is he could say maybe I do have a son or daughter, but that’s it. So lack of meeting God doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. Since I have met both God and my son, I can say that they both exists, and not be applying any different standard. Hope that helps

Your analogy isn’t very good. Your children’s existences can be verified by checking birth certificates, taking photos, independent interviews, and so on. I can drive to your place and meet your kids. Where is God? Does He have an address or phone number? What does He look like?
And claiming you have met God is simply dishonest. You may think a yummy feeling in your tummy to be the presence of God, you may feel assured of His existence through reading the Bible/viewing nature/the smile of a child yada yada yada, but you have never met God face to face as a physical being.

Well, maybe if you’re William Blake.

But if you wish to discard the modern Brane theories, then the universe is a unilateral entity, and therefore is preceeded by nothing. Unfortunately, nothingness implies the lack of any mechanism (including a quantum flux) by which a universe may have arisen.

Hey, if it pleases you to imagine the Big Bang to have been generated by the Breath of God, go for it; teleology does not fall within science’s domain. But–and here’s the tricky bit–you have no case to persuade anyone else that that is so. All you have is mere assertion, not binding evidence. (and no, the Bible is not evidence, because I can drag in a plethora of other creation stories that are equally as valid)

[Phoenix_Dragon]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**Argumentum ad numerum is what you (and the one who speaks for you) were really going for, but you got that wrong as well. An ad numerum fallacy is an assertion that there exists a truth relation between the beliefs of a number of people and a doxastic assertion. In other words, it is to say that X number of people support this assertion, and so therefore it is true.

That isn’t what I said, your pretense otherwise notwithstanding.**

Your exact quote was:

Testimonies of billions of people who, though differing in details of subjective perception, believe in the existence of an objective God

I can see this as saying one of two things:

1. You’re saying that billions of people, though differing in the details, believe in a god. This is an argumentum ad numerum.

2. You’re going off their testimony to the nature of god, which is contradictory and wildly inconsistant. The testimony of one individual contradicts anothers to the point where both can not be true (You know, the classic “Short, fat, tall, skinny, bald, with short black long blond red hair” kind of testimony). No better.

There’s also this one, that reaks of ad numerum:

Like many other things in life (e.g., there exists seafood that tastes good), God’s existence has been subjectively proved to the satisfaction of a statistically significant portion of the population, whereas atheism is statistically insignificant

One could just as easily say that the existance of a natural universe with no supernatural being involved whatsoever has been subjectively proven to the satisfaction of many people. The amount of people believing this or disbelieving this is irrelevant, and calling on those numbers to support your possition is an argumentum ad numerum. Not to mention your example being subjective to the individual, instead of objective as any “supreme being” would have to be. How about we switch “seafood that tastes good” with “the lock ness monster?” Even if every single person on the planet believed in nessie, that wouldn’t be reason for you to believe it, if there was absolutely no physical evidence of it.

**Actually, you should have noted a different one, not the same one. Many versions exist, and the one I provided above was one you have not seen here. As to what it proves, it proves that a Supreme Being exists in actuality — nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else. **

And ignoring that the whole chain can also be used to prove that a Supreme Being can not exist, if by starting with “it is possible the ‘supreme being’ does not exist” instead of “it is possible the ‘supreme being’ does exist.” Or that by defining any fictional object as a Supreme Being (Be it the IPU, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Planet X, the second gunman on the grassy knoll, a 3-ton parasite currently sucking on your face, or a flock of dragons), one can define into existance anything one can think of. Many things which would be contradictory or exclusive of eachother (And if one defines any of them as being “greater than god”, then we get into some real twists).

[Liberal]

Gobear

Nizkor.org calls it the argument from popularity, as does every other source I’ve read, but that’s irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Irrelevant indeed, and yet you raised it anyway. Here’s one source you haven’t read. It’s from some of your fellow materialists.

You have used the argument that “since a lot of people believe it, it must be true” in three different instances, although you claim they are different.

That is not the case. Offering testimony as evidence and offering numbers as proof are two different things. To remind you (yet again), what you asked for was evidence.

I am also pleased that you finally admit that you are pleading a case for a doxastic state (although you could have used the synonym “subjective belief” and been more easily understood by the casual reader. Hiding behind esoterica only weakens your case.)

Your pleasure is misplaced. But since you have already declared that a denial of the antecedant is a great lab tool for science, I’m not suprised that you interpreted my description of what an argumentum ad numerum is to be an admission that I had used one. Hiding behind red herrings only weakens your case.

I have shown you a fallacy that does apply and where you employed it.

That is incorrect. You showed me this:

Appeal to popularity is no way to win an argument. Lots of people believe things that are demonstrably not so. Billions of people believe in astrology, but that doesn’t make it true.

And I responded with this:

I’m not appealing to popularity; I’m appealing to testimony. Just to remind you, what you asked for was evidence. And testimony is accepted as evidence in practically every court in the world.

You meant to cite argumentum ad numerum, and here is a reference from the Atheism Web for what you intended. While you’re there, check out argumentum ad nauseum. No matter how many times you repeat your inaccurate assertions, they will still be inaccurate.

I have used no ad hominems in my posts to you either, so I’d appreciate a retraction.

I didn’t say you did, so you won’t get a retraction. That remark was addressed to Phoenix Dragon who said, “I do note that Lib seems to be going Lekatt on us, now.” That should have been clear when I said, “I’ve seen a link to a fallacy that did not apply, as well as much stomping and protest with ad hominem comparisons to people you don’t like, but that’s about it.” How did you mix that up?

Whether your misinterpretations are the result of careful deliberation or careless reading — either way, they are making your argument go 'round in circles.

Your quibbling over the names of fallacies does not refute the fact that you are using them.

I haven’t quibbled over their names. It is you who are quibbling over their names while in the same breath calling them irrelevant. What I did was to explain what they meant.

If you intend to accuse people of weak logic and use of fallacies, then you should be more than willing to back up what you say. You should not jump out from behind the bushes, hurl accusations, and then jump back in to hide. Stay out in the light and debate the points you raise.

Now if you are admitting that your beliefs are merely subjective states of mind not binding on anyone else, then we have no disagreement. If the Lord God Almighty revealed Himself to you in all His glory last week, that’s super, but you can’t expect that to convince anyone who has not seen the same vision. Even if we knew you to be the soberest, sanest man in town, the most you could expect is for people to accept that you were totally sincere in your belief, not that your experience was necessarily real.

I gave you a wide-ranging list of evidence that included, but was not limited to, the personal experience of not only myself but others as well. You seem unable to grasp the difference between evidence (which is what you demanded) and proof. When you asked, I provided proof in the form of a modal tableau which you ignored. And if for whatever reason you have decided that our experiences are not real, I would appreciate hearing what evidence you have (if any) that they are fantasy.

Hey, if it pleases you to imagine the Big Bang to have been generated by the Breath of God, go for it; teleology does not fall within science’s domain. But–and here’s the tricky bit–you have no case to persuade anyone else that that is so. All you have is mere assertion, not binding evidence. (and no, the Bible is not evidence, because I can drag in a plethora of other creation stories that are equally as valid)

You apparently do not intend to stop your condescension despite my previous request. I do not need you to lecture me on what is tricky and what is not. I believe that I am holding my own here and have demonstrated that I have a firm grasp of the subject matter.

I said nothing about the Big Bang being generated by the Breath of God, and so your newest red herring is pointless. But if you are admitting here that there is no way to account for the universe’s origin by natural means, then you and I agree because that is exactly one of the points that I made.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too: either the universe is eternal or it is not. If it is not, then it had a non-natural origin; and if it is, then it is dead (entropy).

[Liberal]

Phoenix Dragon

I can see this as saying one of two things:

1. You’re saying that billions of people, though differing in the details, believe in a god. This is an argumentum ad numerum.

2. You’re going off their testimony to the nature of god, which is contradictory and wildly inconsistant. The testimony of one individual contradicts anothers to the point where both can not be true (You know, the classic “Short, fat, tall, skinny, bald, with short black long blond red hair” kind of testimony). No better.

But you didn’t ask whether God was tall, short, skinny, or bald. You asked for evidence or proof (Gobear wanted evidence, but you wanted proof) of His existence. What you quoted was in response to Gobear’s request for evidence.

The question was not about God’s attributes, but about His existence. Even if a roomful of people differ in particulars about what kind of shirt a burglar was wearing, the fact remains that there was a burglar.

What you seem to be trying to get at in your own inimitable way is that there is the possibility that different people will identify a different being as God. But as I explained originally, Gobear was not asking about perceptions.

One could just as easily say that the existance of a natural universe with no supernatural being involved whatsoever has been subjectively proven to the satisfaction of many people. The amount of people believing this or disbelieving this is irrelevant, and calling on those numbers to support your possition is an argumentum ad numerum.

It would be were I offering it as proof. But you might need two hands to count the number of times on this page alone where I’ve described the difference between evidence and proof.

Additionally, the particular evidence you’re criticising was offered as a statistical sample (you will see variants of “statistic” used twice in the original). The point was that the testimony of atheists is statistically insignificant. Materialism is an extreme minority worldview.

Not to mention your example being subjective to the individual, instead of objective as any “supreme being” would have to be. How about we switch “seafood that tastes good” with “the lock ness monster?” Even if every single person on the planet believed in nessie, that wouldn’t be reason for you to believe it, if there was absolutely no physical evidence of it.

It would be nice if you would decide on what you’re asking for. A Supreme Being’s objectivity and the perceptions of we lesser beings are not the same. Objectively, the existence of a Supreme Being is easily proved (see above). But it should surprise no one that perceptions of Him differ among every person. Objectively, seafood exists, and a compelling proof that it does can be given. But why would it surprise you that no two people have identical perceptions of it? After all, no two people have ever shared the same experience at the same time and in the same place.

And ignoring that the whole chain can also be used to prove that a Supreme Being can not exist, if by starting with “it is possible the ‘supreme being’ does not exist” instead of “it is possible the ‘supreme being’ does exist.” Or that by defining any fictional object as a Supreme Being (Be it the IPU, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Planet X, the second gunman on the grassy knoll, a 3-ton parasite currently sucking on your face, or a flock of dragons), one can define into existance anything one can think of. Many things which would be contradictory or exclusive of eachother (And if one defines any of them as being “greater than god”, then we get into some real twists).

You’ve mixed up two different things (again). First, if you wish to posit that it is not possible that a Supreme Being exists, then you must first show the flaw in this longstanding proof. Second, the mere assignment of a label to the notion of necessary existence does not change the nature of the necessary existence any more than saying “car” instead of “automobile” changes the nature of a Chevrolet. No one has redefined anything — the notion of God (or Dieu, or Dios, or whatever word you choose) as Supreme Being is not anything new.

[gobear]

Irrelevant indeed, and yet you raised it anyway.

. . .

I haven’t quibbled over their names. It is you who are quibbling over their names while in the same breath calling them irrelevant. What I did was to explain what they meant.

No, you are the one who quibbled over “ad populum” and “ad numerum”

Argumentum ad numerum is what you (and the one who speaks for you) were really going for, but you got that wrong as well. An ad numerum fallacy is an assertion that there exists a truth relation between the beliefs of a number of people and a doxastic assertion. In other words, it is to say that X number of people support this assertion, and so therefore it is true.

See that? It’s quibbling, you did it, I responded. I didn’t check infidels.org, but the names don;t matter. You continue to offer the “lots of people believe it, therefore it is true” fallacy.

That is not the case. Offering testimony as evidence and offering numbers as proof are two different things. To remind you (yet again), what you asked for was evidence.

Hearsay, testimony from a witness who was not the observer, is inadmissible as evidence.

Your pleasure is misplaced. But since you have already declared that a denial of the antecedant is a great lab tool for science, I’m not suprised that you interpreted my description of what an argumentum ad numerum is to be an admission that I had used one.

As I said, denial of the antecdent if invaldi for folam argument, but it is a useful too in the lab. If I hand you a beaker marked SULPHURIC ACID and you drink the contents and continue to live, we may safely say that you the contents of the beaker were not in fact sulphuric acid. If the predicted results of a hypothesis do not materialize, the hypothesis is flawed.

I didn’t say you did, so you won’t get a retraction. That remark was addressed to Phoenix Dragon who said, “I do note that Lib seems to be going Lekatt on us, now.” That should have been clear when I said, “I’ve seen a link to a fallacy that did not apply, as well as much stomping and protest with ad hominem comparisons to people you don’t like, but that’s about it.” How did you mix that up?

Because you posted that in a sentence addressed to both me and Phoenix Dragon, but thank you for the clarification.

If you intend to accuse people of weak logic and use of fallacies, then you should be more than willing to back up what you say. You should not jump out from behind the bushes, hurl accusations, and then jump back in to hide. Stay out in the light and debate the points you raise

Sexcuse me? How am I not debating the points I raise?

I gave you a wide-ranging list of evidence that included, but was not limited to, the personal experience of not only myself but others as well.

Ad as I pointed out, it’s worthless.

You seem unable to grasp the difference between evidence (which is what you demanded) and proof. When you asked, I provided proof in the form of a modal tableau which you ignored.

Because your formal tableau does not prove God’s existence any nore than Diderot’s use of algebra did. Would you care to spell it out in English for folks like me who are weak in formal logic?

And if for whatever reason you have decided that our experiences are not real, I would appreciate hearing what evidence you have (if any) that they are fantasy.

because the experiences of god you claim to be universal vary wildly from Re to Vishnu to Yahweh to the Unmoved Mover to Quetzalcoatl to Thor and so on.

I said nothing about the Big Bang being generated by the Breath of God, and so your newest red herring is pointless.

I thought you bleeived the universe to be a creation of God. Was I wrong? If not, then why quibble over the wording?

But if you are admitting here that there is no way to account for the universe’s origin by natural means, then you and I agree because that is exactly one of the points that I made.

Of course, the universe originated by natural means. We can trace theit back to abnout 12 billion years ago. The how we know; it’s the why we dont know because that’'s not in the purview of science, but theology.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too: either the universe is eternal or it is not. If it is not, then it had a non-natural origin; and if it is, then it is dead (entropy).

And that’s a false dichotomy.

[Liberal]

Gobear

No, you are the one who quibbled over “ad populum” and “ad numerum”

Again, all I did was explain what they meant. That was because you used them incorrectly. It seemed that correcting the error was an appropriate thing to do at Straight Dope.

See that? It’s quibbling, you did it, I responded. I didn’t check infidels.org, but the names don;t matter. You continue to offer the “lots of people believe it, therefore it is true” fallacy.

No, I don’t care about the names. It is you and Phoenix Dragon who have the name fetishes. All I care about is the substance. Whether you call a fallacy argumentum ad populum or the Dairy Queen Fallacy makes no difference to me, just as whether you call the Supreme Being God or the IPU makes no difference to me. But I’ve explained this before (and before and before). Call them what you will, but use them correctly.

Hearsay, testimony from a witness who was not the observer, is inadmissible as evidence.

Not necessarily. Here is Title 28 Appendix, Article III of the U.S. Code. There are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule.

As I said, denial of the antecdent if invaldi for folam argument, but it is a useful too in the lab. If I hand you a beaker marked SULPHURIC ACID and you drink the contents and continue to live, we may safely say that you the contents of the beaker were not in fact sulphuric acid. If the predicted results of a hypothesis do not materialize, the hypothesis is flawed.

Fascinating on so many levels.

On the one hand, you are willing to divorce the rules of formal argument from the gathering of evidence when it suits you, but when it doesn’t you enjoy citing rules of formal argument like argumentum ad numerum and so forth. On the other hand, the example you cited about sulphuric acid bears no resemblance that I can discern to the nature of a denial of the antecedant. The D of A fallacy is not about a predicted result, but is about the precedence of negation in an implication. In other words, it is a bastardized version of a valid modus tollens.

A -> B. Not A :: Not B — fallacy (D of A)

A -> B. Not B :: Not A — correct (Modus Tollens)

Because you posted that in a sentence addressed to both me and Phoenix Dragon, but thank you for the clarification.

No, I didn’t. The period that preceded the sentence you reference indicated that the prior sentence was finished.

Sexcuse me? How am I not debating the points I raise?

That’s an argumentum ad populum! […my response…] You’re just quibbling over words! […my response…] I didn’t check that source! […my response…] Sexcuse me? Etc.

Ad as I pointed out, it’s worthless.

That’s quite an authority you carry — I have said it, so mote it be.

Because your formal tableau does not prove God’s existence any nore than Diderot’s use of algebra did. Would you care to spell it out in English for folks like me who are weak in formal logic?

(Emphasis mine.) But you’ve already decided that it proves nothing despite whether or not you understand what it means. What reassurance can you give me that if I type out an expository translation of it, you will keep an open mind?

because the experiences of god you claim to be universal vary wildly from Re to Vishnu to Yahweh to the Unmoved Mover to Quetzalcoatl to Thor and so on.

Let me be sure I understand. You have rejected the evidence that I offered you, and yet the evidence you offer me that our experiences are fantasy is because our perceptions vary? Do you also believe that my wife and I fantacized that we visited the Mint Museum of Art? We came away with wildly different perceptions of what we saw.

I thought you bleeived the universe to be a creation of God. Was I wrong? If not, then why quibble over the wording?

Whatever I might or might not believe, the topic of discussion ought to be whatever I have presented here in response to your demand for evidence. Pointing out that someone has assigned to you something you didn’t say is not quibbling over wording. Suppose I said, “Well, if you believe in Nogod, just say so.” Would you be quibbling over words if you pointed out that you said no such thing?

Of course, the universe originated by natural means. We can trace theit back to abnout 12 billion years ago. The how we know; it’s the why we dont know because that’'s not in the purview of science, but theology.

Actually, if you know how, then you should publish it and collect your Nobel Prize. If the universe is not eternal, as you maintain here, then what preceeded it? If you say “nothing”, then give evidence that a mechanism, circumstance, law, or principle — something that produced the Big Bang — can exist and still be nothing.

And that’s a false dichotomy.

No, it’s a tautology. Not every bifurcation is a fallacy. For example, A or Not A is true.

[robertliguori]

Unfortunately, nothingness implies the lack of any mechanism (including a quantum flux) by which a universe may have arisen.

IANAQM, but aren’t vacuum fluctuations the clarion example of uncaused phenomona? Don’t they provide a mechanism for a universe to spring into being from nothingness with a non-zero amount of energy? And isn’t it really stupid to talk about what must happen for a universe to be created until we actually see some universes created?

[Aries28]

Wow. I was hoping this thread would have died over the weekend because it makes me very sad to read such hatred and incorrect information.

A few pages back, Svt4Him mentioned the fruit and what it was after someone quoted a passage about it.

Now I am not as educated in history, the Bible, creation, science, debating, etc. that tha majority of you guys posting here are but I’ll toss my 2 cents in nonetheless.

The Fruit of the Spirit is ** love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self control**.

How in heaven some of the postings here can be construed as to show these fruits is beyond me…especially by those who call themselves a Christian. Sad.Sad.Sad.

I can’t prove to you that God exists…no more than someone can prove to me that He doesn’t. That is where my faith comes in. I believe it to be true based on my life experiences. It is a simple thing to me. But I respect those who say that they do not or cannot believe.

One thing I am sure of…Christians who “witness” in this manner lose more souls than they ever help to save and the whole thing sickens me.

Yuck…

[gobear]

You cannot have your cake and eat it too: either the universe is eternal or it is not. If it is not, then it had a non-natural origin; and if it is, then it is dead (entropy).

Or let it me put it this way. I am the product of an act of sexual intercourse between my parents. My life is finite. Does that exclude God’s role in my birth? As you put it , either I am eternal or I am not. I am not, then I had a non-natural origin; and if I am, then I am dead.