First order logic, set theory and God

[dr0n3]

God damn it, there goes another full bucket of puerile verbal diarrhoea, you seem to get the thrill out of it... but sadly, time is of the essence and I just can't be arsed to thwart each and every one of your piss-poor scattershot ad hominem attacks.

However, I must admit that GIF caught my attention and quite honestly - I'd love for you to name me your price.

Feel free to name the fallacy that you think I've committed by pointing out the problem with your argument and naming the species of fallacy it is.  I expect that you won't, and instead we'll hear more moronic bluster about how a fallacy is not fatal to a logical argument.

Expectation met!  


So, you're not going to name the fallacy you accused me of committing?  I thought so.  Loser.

The sheer level of immaturity that's on display is appalling, I'll put you anywhere between 12 to 16 years old.

As for the fallacy you've committed, you're more than welcome to visit this link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

I can assure you that you're anything but that. Your reasoning, in general, leaves much to be desired.



I'm not entirely sure why you're presupposing that logic is an all-encompassing science meant to explain everything and anything. That assumption you made is completely unwarranted and speaks volumes on your lack of knowledge. So much for the scientific literacy you've proudly proclaimed. Logic does not tell us how we ought to reason or infer in all particular cases, since it lacks the ability to deal with specifics. Its purpose, generally speaking, is to study reality's nature and the general relations it has to other things. The methodology is akin to abductive reasoning, wherein one makes observations, recognizes a pattern, presents a generalization, and infer the likeliest possible scenario. On that note, it is evident that your example is completely irrelevant and thus, not worth discussing.



That's a matter of semantics. Heck, call it a cup of blood if you wish so. The fact remains that causality is established as soon as the transition from cause to effect is complete, and that the properties of said cause and effect are qualitatively distinctive. That is, one could perceptually distinguish the different state of water that arose from the process of crystallization.



It doesn't. That is why we teach chemistry. Again, what is your point?


What is laughable is that you've completely dismissed the substance on my argument by shifting the goalposts and putting words in my mouth. The appeal to creation ex nihilo is completely unwarranted, nowhere in my reasoning have I hinted that causality hinged upon the creation of energy through external interference. That interpretation is of your own doing, and I suspect your intellectual dishonesty is being at play here.

What you, and countless of other posters, have failed to grasp is that causality, in the case of water transitioning to ice, appeals to a concrete and distinct occurence of the interconnectedness of both events. In this light, causality can only be established if and only if, one can properly define and distinguish the qualitative properties that makes water what water is supposed to be, and ice what ice is supposed to be. Water ceases to be, qualitatively speaking, when the substance and qualities of ice appears to be discernible for it's previous liquid state at a point of time, and this, while concurring with the Law of Conservation of Energy. Furthermore, nitpicking over terms such as "created" "formed" or "existed" is a futile endeavor, since whatever choice of the term may be, the effect (ice) will always be distinctive from its cause (water), qualitatively speaking.


In a nutshell, it can be said that A is the cause of B, given that A can be qualitatively distinctive from B at a point of time. If A and B, can both be individuated  by their associated {substance, property, time} triple, the causal relatedness of A and B is said to have been established. Now, this is by no means a black and white represatation of how causality operates, there are alot more factors that needs to be taken into conisderation if one is to capture the complete dynamics and the intricate complexity of its nature.

I ask this with all sincerity....Are you high ?

I take this as a subtle way of letting the audience know that you've got nothing left to contribute. You may proceed to the nearest exit.