Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Statler Waldorf]

Internal or external, you're claiming that if someone can't disprove your argument (which I have, but let that go) that the argument is true. This is an argument from ignorance.

Again, if laws of logic are merely something you choose arbitrarily, then why would you even bother saying you have refuted anything? You couldn’t refute a thing because I can just choose my own laws of logic to play by and they would be just as valid as yours.

No, actually the logical fallacies I'm identifying are not ones I made up. These are neither mine nor are they arbitrary.

So now you are contradicting yourself. First the laws of logic were conventional, something you don’t have to justify and use only because you like the results. Now they are no longer conventional? If they are not conventional then where do they come from and how do you account for them?

Also, I never said "you should" do anything. If you wish to be irrational, just say so and be honest enough to admit it. Then I'll stop pointing out how fallacious your reasoning is since we'll all know you're not using reason. Not that we don't already know that anyway but we can make it official.

According to your own definition of logic you could never say I was being irrational. I have just adopted different laws of logic than you. I don’t have to account for them because I like the results, so I am being just as “rational” as you are because I am playing by your own rules.

So are you saying you wish to use logic or not?

I wish to use the universal transcendent and immaterial laws of logic that you can’t account for but I can. You seem to be the only one wanting to play by the “choose your own unjustified laws of logic because you like the results” rules.

If you do wish to use logic, then use it. These rules of logic are not arbitrary. They're used because they're shown to work. Just like I keep telling you, I like going with what's shown to work.

How have they been shown to work? That would require you to use the laws of logic to demonstrate that the laws of logic work which of course would be committing a logical fallacy. Seems like you are in a bit of sticky wicket here.

But hey, feel free to invent you own system if you wish.

I am only playing by your rules here, you believe in laws of logic that you can’t account for, but you still use them because you like the results. Sounds to me like I can just believe in a different set of laws of logic that I can’t account for either, but I use because I like the results. Fair is fair.

Go around saying "2+2=5". People will think you're a deluded idiot and you'll come to all the wrong conclusions but if that's you bag, knock yourself out.

Red herring, 2+2=4 is a law of mathematics, not a law of logic. If people would think I was an idiot for acting exactly like you are acting, then what does that say about your position on the laws of logic? You seem to keep forgetting that I can account for the laws of logic; I have a reason for using them, so I am completely justified in using them. You can’t account for them, so you are not justified in using them even though you try to.

So are we moving from "we use logic because GodWillsIt" to "we are moral because GodWillsIt"? Fine.

No, we are moving from, “Why would you appeal to the laws of logic when you can’t justify them?” to “Why would you appeal to laws of morality and behavior when you can’t justify them?”

Because it violates the social contract.

I never opted into any such contract, so are you forcing your moral beliefs on me by telling me I can’t force my moral beliefs on others? That position crushes under its own weight.

You don't want sharia laws forced on you or Wiccan school teachers having your children pray to "the goddess". By the nature of the social contract, you agree not to inflict on others what you wouldn't want inflicted on you.

Again, I never opted into any such contract. So you are in fact inflicting on me what you wouldn’t want inflicted on you by forcing me to adhere to such a contract. You are committing self refutation.

We as humans are empathic and community oriented animals.

Is that why humans kill one another in wars, commit murder, steal, rape, and lie and cheat in order to get ahead in life?

Morality is an evaluation of how we treat one another and how our behavior impacts the larger community, on which we depend for survival. We do not need an invisible sky law giver nor does one help us elucidate our understanding of what morality is.

So if killing a child could be shown to benefit the rest of his classmates you would be all for it?

I'm getting a sense of deja-vu here. It's like I've told you all this stuff numerous times before and you keep saying "Duh, me have better answer, MeGodWillsIt".

That’s funny, I was getting the same feeling but your answer always seems to be, “I will make appeals to universal laws that I can only justify by arbitrary means.”