Conversion

[Kyuuketsuki]

I didn't say [the TAG] dictated morality. I said it (your cartoon caricature god) is the source of morality.

What you said is that the TAG fails "because it cannot prove a consistent morality (morality can be seen to vary across time and by culture)" [source]. You could have meant one of two things, and neither one of them succeed as a rebuttal. On the one hand, you could have meant that what people consider 'moral' varies across cultures; that refers to ethics, which the TAG does not even address (q.v. it addresses the ground of moral order, not what is or isn't moral). Fallacy? "Straw Man," attacking a position different from the one actually held.

The claimed existence of a deity that created morality necessitates that that morality be consistent so actually I think my argument works very well.

The TAG argument uses the existence of morality as a justification for the existence of a god and the existence of that god to explain morality ... circular reasoning. Others here, Eilonnwy for instance, had no problem understanding what I said ... why do you? I can only assume you're in some way brain damaged ... oh, I forgot, you're a theist ... of course you're fucking brain damaged!

I was directly attacking the TAG argument, quite possibly badly, but it was nevertheless direct so no strawman.

On the other hand, you could have meant that what people consider "the ground of moral order" varies across cultures (belief Y); that is a completely irrelevant when it comes to criticism of the TAG (belief X). Fallacy? "Red Herring," attempting to divert the argument (e.g., pointing to the fact that some people believe Y has absolutely no bearing on the merits of belief X).

Restated above.

PLEASE stop likening me to Kirk Cameron ...

As long as you continue to do what he does, I'll compare the similarity. (And if you think the similarity was "fundamentalism" then it still went over your head.)

So? No holds barred then? Well at least I know where I stand!

Is any of that in any way relevant, beyond being a highly codified insult?

Does pointing out (i) the utter irrelevance of your apathy with respect to the merits of my argument (ii) and the persistence of your fallacies have bearing on the matter at hand? Yes, certainly. Pointing out bankrupt responses is always relevant. And if having someone point out every irrelevancy you make is insulting to you, then stop making them.

When was I apathetic you idiot ... that I am here, that I continue to argue against you demonstrates my lack of apathy extremely well! And that last paragraph was nothing more than a codified insult as far as I can tell.

If you were being facetious then you should have made it clear.

When I am being facetious, I usually attempt to make it clear. However, in this case I was not being facetious. I was quite serious.

Sometimes I feel like I'm just talking to a series of very stupid brick walls!

Look ... you said, "Rrrright. Just like evolution teaches that humans evolved from apes. Good job, Kirk Cameron—err, I mean Kyuuketsuki."

To which I, assuming you were genuinely stating that evolution teaches that humans evolved from apes, responded, "Firstly evolution DOES NOT teach that humans evolved from apes, it teaches that humans ARE apes and that all 5 species of great ape (of which humans are one) had a common ancestor euphemistically called a manape. "

You said that was your whole point so if you weren't being serious you were being facetious or cynical or sarcastic ...

Now you say you weren't?

Make your fucking mind up

Come on then brainache ... which f***ing logical fallacies have I used? Be precise, link to it, explain it. And retract it if you are wrong!

I always identify them and explain them. But with you I will address them by their name rather than by their nature. (I will not link to them, however, as I have to assume you know how to look things up on the internet on your own.)

And it seems to me you're little more than a disingenuous narcissistic creep!

Kyu

[Ryft]

The claimed existence of a deity that created morality necessitates that that morality be consistent, so actually I think my argument works very well.

The TAG does not argue that God created morality. Ergo, to rebut an argument which has God creating morality is to rebut an argument that isn't the TAG. To press it as a rebuttal of the TAG is to commit the Straw Man fallacy. Q.E.D. That you think such an argument "works very well" is quite frankly embarrassing to hear.

The TAG argument uses the existence of morality as a justification for the existence of a God, and the existence of that God to explain morality ...

No, it certainly does not. I have been studying transcendental arguments and presuppositionalist apologetics for over two and a half years from such scholars as Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, Gordon H. Clark, John M. Frame, Alvin Plantinga, Michael R. Butler and others. And not once have I ever observed the transcendental argument being supposed to argue any such a thing. Michael Martin, the only notable atheist to attempt rebutting the TAG, had his criticism gutted for making the same mistake—a mistake he made for probably the same reason as yours. From what sources have you studied these issues, and for how long? I have a strong suspicion that your answer will go a long way toward explaining the butchered nature of your argument.

I was directly attacking the TAG argument, quite possibly badly, but it was nevertheless direct. So, no straw man.

No, you were not directly attacking the TAG argument. What you were attacking is not found anywhere in the TAG argument, and by pressing that attack as some kind of rebuttal of the TAG you committed the Straw Man fallacy. Quod erat demonstrandum; i.e., checkmate.

Others here (Eilonnwy, for instance) had no problem understanding what I said. Why do you? I can only assume you're in some way brain damaged. Oh, I forgot you're a theist—of course you're fucking brain damaged!

I understood clearly what you said. I also understood how absolutely fallacious it was. And pointing out other people who agree with your argument (assuming that any do), no matter how many it might be, does nothing to remedy the logical fallacies. As G.K. Chesterton put it, "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies just because they become fashions." And insulting or belittling your opponent is likewise fallacious ( abusive).

When was I apathetic, you idiot?

Further instances of the ad hominem abusive fallacy. And declaring that you don't care whether or not something impresses me (Msg #17) is apathetic by definition, "lack of interest or concern; indifference."

You said that was your whole point. So if you weren't being serious, you were being facetious or cynical or sarcastic. Now you say you weren't? Make your fucking mind up.

It was indeed the very point I was making, and rather seriously (i.e., not facetious). Cynical? Yes. Sarcastic? Yes. Facetious? No, quite the contrary. Your criticism of the TAG is horrifically butchered in the same way, or for the same reasons, that Kirk Cameron's criticisms of evolution are horrifically butchered.

[Jon Paul]

As for what would make me believe in God? Testable and reliable evidence, that satisfies the rigourous standards of the scientific method.

The core principle of the scientific method is that the scope of inquiry that it limits itself to is the investigation of the natural and observable world of natural causes.

In other words, that is an a priori exclusion of the investigation or even the testing of any hypothesis that contains propositions that suggest a factor which transcends the natural world.

This is methodological naturalism, and if you then ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.

All you can possible ask without question begging is evidence for Gods existence according to the classical sense of science as "rational and empirical investigation and inquiry", which makes no a priori presumption of naturalism that would exclude the proposition of God to begin with.

The answer to that question would be, for instance, the TAG, an a priori argument, or the a posteriori argument from potentiality/contingency I formulated in my own thread.

[Tiberius]

The TAG does not argue that God created morality.

Well Wikipedia seems to think so:

The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) is the argument that attempts to prove God's existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately (though unwittingly) presuppose the Christian worldview, and that God's absolute nature is the source of logic and morals.

If TAG is arguing that God's absolute nature is the source of morals, and also that it has to presuppose the Christian worldview (which states quite clearly that God created the universe and everything in it), then TAG is equally clearly stating that God created morality.

[LukeMC]

As for what would make me believe in God? Testable and reliable evidence, that satisfies the rigourous standards of the scientific method.

The core principle of the scientific method is that the scope of inquiry that it limits itself to is the investigation of the natural and observable world of natural causes.

In other words, that is an a priori exclusion of the investigation or even the testing of any hypothesis that contains propositions that suggest a factor which transcends the natural world.

This is methodological naturalism, and if you then ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.

All you can possible ask without question begging is evidence for Gods existence according to the classical sense of science as "rational and empirical investigation and inquiry", which makes no a priori presumption of naturalism that would exclude the proposition of God to begin with.

The answer to that question would be, for instance, the TAG, an a priori argument, or the a posteriori argument from potentiality/contingency I formulated in my own thread.

Am I wrong in stating that all of these pathetic arguments for the existence of God are built on a foundation of either;

• a) scientifically verifiable premises or
  
• b) baseless and unverifiable assumptions?
  

Scientific investigation is utterly vital to the search for God, otherwise your premises are just baseless assertions (such as "all things that exist have a beginning").

[Kyuuketsuki]

The TAG does not argue that God created morality.

Well Wikipedia seems to think so:

If TAG is arguing that God's absolute nature is the source of morals, and also that it has to presuppose the Christian worldview (which states quite clearly that God created the universe and everything in it), then TAG is equally clearly stating that God created morality.

Thank you ... why can't these nitwits get simple ideas like this?

Kyu

[Tiberius]

Arcanus also falsely accused you of using the "ad-hominem" fallacy, however this fallacy only ever applies when you are insulting the person and using this as a disproof of their point, not generally as you did.

In other words, saying "you idiot" (like you did) is an insult, whereas saying "You are an idiot therefore TAG is wrong" (or something to that effect) is a fallacy.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Arcanus also falsely accused you of using the "ad-hominem" fallacy, however this fallacy only ever applies when you are insulting the person and using this as a disproof of their point, not generally as you did.

In other words, saying "you idiot" (like you did) is an insult, whereas saying "You are an idiot therefore TAG is wrong" (or something to that effect) is a fallacy.

OK ... I think we need to derive our own fallacy database that explains the various debate fallacies in simple terms.

Kyu

[Rhizomorph13]

Here is a good link that is in simple terms:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resource...acies.aspx

I like this one better but it is not all on the same page:

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

Who knew there were so many fallacies,
Rhizo

[Kyuuketsuki]

Here is a good link that is in simple terms:

My problem with such resources is that they give whacky examples ... I mean I'm sure they're right but they don't make sense to me (my problem I know). I'd like to see one aimed more at our kind of debate.

Kyu