(November 2, 2011 at 7:00 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I find it more likely that you heard about presuppositionalism and found it a handy rationalization to believe the things that you already believed. If I'm wrong, you can feel free to go into greater detail.

What you arbitrarily find more or less likely is irrelevant. What I said happened is what happened.

Quote:I still can't find Jesus' copyright notice on reason or morality.

Your inability to justify such thing has helped me find it.

Quote:Hello.

Haha, don’t flatter yourself. All you have done is either say you don’t have to account for such things, or your only justification has been because you arbitrarily like the results. That’s hardly accounting for anything.

Quote:Moral justice can't allow for the innocent to take the place of the guilty in punishment, even if the innocent were willing.

According to whom?

Quote: For a religion that claims the copyright on morality, it sure is morally bankrupt on even the simplest issues.

According to whom?

Quote:The fact that a brilliant person is a Christian lends no credibility to the Christian case, especially in ancient times when we didn't know much about how the universe really works and people were burned at the stake for openly rejecting Jesus. That is appeal to authority.

You are not paying attention; I never said that simply because great logicians have been Christians therefore Christianity is necessarily true. You implied that a person could not believe the teachings of Christianity and be rational, so I was merely pointing out that some of the greatest rationalists in human history have indeed believed in such teachings. You can’t confuse rationalism with naturalism; there are both irrational naturalists and rational non-naturalists.

(November 2, 2011 at 7:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: What you arbitrarily find more or less likely is irrelevant. What I said happened is what happened.

Well, I say "bullshit". I'll let others judge for themselves.

Quote:Your inability to justify such thing has helped me find it.

I've disproved TAG already. It's not hard.

TAG
1. Without Yahweh, there is no absolute standard for morality (bare assertion fallacy).
2. Absolute standards for morality exist. (bare assertion)
3. Therefore Yahweh exists. (conclusion based on bare assertions)

Quote:

Quote:Moral justice can't allow for the innocent to take the place of the guilty in punishment, even if the innocent were willing.

According to whom?

So you think moral justice can involve someone innocent volunteering to take the place of the guilty in punishment?

Quote:

Quote: For a religion that claims the copyright on morality, it sure is morally bankrupt on even the simplest issues.

According to whom?

See above for an example.

(November 2, 2011 at 8:05 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Well, I say "bullshit". I'll let others judge for themselves.

So you are calling me a liar because you don’t like what I said happened? That’s pretty convenient.

Quote:TAG
1. Without Yahweh, there is no absolute standard for morality (bare assertion fallacy).

This is not TAG but the Moral Argument for God’s existence, which is one I have not used.

Quote: 2. Absolute standards for morality exist. (bare assertion)
3. Therefore Yahweh exists. (conclusion based on bare assertions)

Still not TAG, Void already pointed this out to you in another thread, I am surprised you’d make the same mistake twice in such a short period of time. You are fallaciously equating the premises of valid syllogisms with bare assertions though just on a side note.

Quote:So you think moral justice can involve someone innocent volunteering to take the place of the guilty in punishment?

Yes.

Quote:See above for an example.

I only see a question above, no example given.

Ok, just for the sake of discussion, since you seem to have an interesting concept of what constitutes demonstration and proof. Can you prove to me that humans cannot naturally fly?

(November 3, 2011 at 3:14 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(November 2, 2011 at 8:05 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: So you think moral justice can involve someone innocent volunteering to take the place of the guilty in punishment?

Yes.

Then you are a very disturbed individual. I feel sorry for you.

(November 3, 2011 at 3:14 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So you are calling me a liar because you don’t like what I said happened? That’s pretty convenient.

No, I'm calling you a liar because I don't believe what you said happened.

Quote:This is not TAG but the Moral Argument for God’s existence, which is one I have not used.

Variation on the same theme. Same counter argument applies. These are bare assertions on one topic used to prove something in a completely unrelated topic.

Quote:

Quote:So you think moral justice can involve someone innocent volunteering to take the place of the guilty in punishment?

Yes.

Really?

So if the government announced today that there would be a new policy of allowing friends or relatives to take the place of convicted criminals in their punishment, allowing said convicted criminals to go free, you'd support that?

Quote:Can you prove to me that humans cannot naturally fly?

You can't prove a negative.

(November 3, 2011 at 4:01 pm)frankiej Wrote: Then you are a very disturbed individual. I feel sorry for you.

Nothing disturbed going on here; care to demonstrate why the innocent can’t atone for the guilty or am I supposed to just accept your bare assertions?

(November 3, 2011 at 6:19 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: No, I'm calling you a liar because I don't believe what you said happened.

Why don’t you believe it? Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion? Did you know me before I was introduced to the TAG?

Quote: Variation on the same theme. Same counter argument applies. These are bare assertions on one topic used to prove something in a completely unrelated topic.

Haha, what is this? So you can try and refute some other argument and claim it applies as a refutation for TAG? That’s absurd!

“All squares have four sides, figure A is a square, therefore figure A has four sides.”

Along comes you….”I will refute your argument above.”

“Ok, go ahead.”

“Circles have corners…..that’s a bare assertion. There your argument is refuted.”

“Wait a second, my argument never mentioned circles….”

“Oh well they both deal with shapes so it still applies.”

Quote:Really?

Yes, really.

Quote: So if the government announced today that there would be a new policy of allowing friends or relatives to take the place of convicted criminals in their punishment, allowing said convicted criminals to go free, you'd support that?

Nope.

Quote:You can't prove a negative.

So then you believe that humans can naturally fly?

(November 3, 2011 at 6:39 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Why don’t you believe it? Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion? Did you know me before I was introduced to the TAG?

No, it's just that your claim is far-fetched to me. I'll let others be the judge if they find it believable.

Quote:[Statler uses appeal to ridicule by strawmanning my argument]

When you have a non-fallacious defense of your argument, do post it.

Quote:

Quote: So if the government announced today that there would be a new policy of allowing friends or relatives to take the place of convicted criminals in their punishment, allowing said convicted criminals to go free, you'd support that?

Nope.

Why not? You just said you consider it morally acceptable.

Quote:

Quote:You can't prove a negative.

So then you believe that humans can naturally fly?

[/quote]
No.

(November 3, 2011 at 8:40 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: [Statler uses appeal to ridicule by strawmanning my argument]

It was not a straw man, it was an valid analogy. You attempted to refute TAG (Argument A) by refuting the Moral Argument for the Existence of God (Not Argument A), and then to top it off you defended this action rather than admitting it was a major logical misstep. I find it interesting that when VOID points this error out to you your response is something like, “oh yeah my bad”, but when I point it out to you somehow I am the one being logically fallacious. If it were not so sad it’d be funny.

Quote:Why not? You just said you consider it morally acceptable.

If the replacement is innocent I do.

Quote:No.

Why not? You very clearly stated that you cannot prove a negative, and yet you believe the negative statement that “no human can naturally fly” is true?

(November 4, 2011 at 5:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It was not a straw man, it was an valid analogy. You attempted to refute TAG (Argument A) by refuting the Moral Argument for the Existence of God (Not Argument A), and then to top it off you defended this action rather than admitting it was a major logical misstep. I find it interesting that when VOID points this error out to you your response is something like, “oh yeah my bad”, but when I point it out to you somehow I am the one being logically fallacious. If it were not so sad it’d be funny.

Actually, as I explained, the same principles apply. Since Christians make the same argument for morality as for why we use reason ("GodWillsIt"), the same refutation can be offered.

You used appeal to ridicule rather than address the counter argument.

Quote:If the replacement is innocent I do.

But you said that you thought moral justice could allow an innocent person to take the place of the guilty in punishment, thereby letting the guilty one go free.

Do you wish to take that back or say you misunderstood and now reject the idea that moral justice can allow an innocent to take the place of the guilty in punishment?

Quote:Why not? You very clearly stated that you cannot prove a negative, and yet you believe the negative statement that “no human can naturally fly” is true?

*Facepalm*

1. You asked me if I believe that humans can naturally fly and I said "no" (I don't believe that humans can naturally fly).

2. Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy.

(November 4, 2011 at 5:35 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Actually, as I explained, the same principles apply. Since Christians make the same argument for morality as for why we use reason ("GodWillsIt"), the same refutation can be offered.

I am having a little bit of trouble believing you know what you are talking about considering you couldn’t even phrase the TAG correctly….

That being said, calling a premise of a syllogism a bare assertion does nothing to refute it. You have to demonstrate how they are indeed bare assertions.

Quote: You used appeal to ridicule rather than address the counter argument.

Actually I pointed out how your counter argument was not an actual counter argument because it was countering a different argument than the one I made.

Quote:But you said that you thought moral justice could allow an innocent person to take the place of the guilty in punishment, thereby letting the guilty one go free.

Yes I did say that, and I stand by it.

Quote: Do you wish to take that back or say you misunderstood and now reject the idea that moral justice can allow an innocent to take the place of the guilty in punishment?

Nope, I still stand by it.

Quote:1. You asked me if I believe that humans can naturally fly and I said "no" (I don't believe that humans can naturally fly).

Wait, so are you saying that the statement, “humans cannot fly” is not a true statement?