Conversion

[Kyuuketsuki]

[Wikipedia points out that the TAG] "is the argument that attempts to prove God's existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately ... presuppose the Christian worldview, and that God's absolute nature is the source of logic and morals." So backatcha!

Seriously? Although I fear it might sail right over your head, the highlighted parts underscore that your attempted rebuttal in fact upheld my point. "The TAG does not even deal with morality," as I had said and this Wikipedia article confirms (as far as it can confirm anything), in the sense that it does not dictate what is moral and what is not, in precisely the same way that it does not set out what is science nor what is logic. The TAG addresses the ground or "the source of" these things, the "ultimate" presuppositions which provide the necessary preconditions for their intelligible coherence. Or, as I had said, "the ground of moral order" (a priori; metaethics) as opposed to values and morals (a posteriori; ethics).

I didn't say it dictated morality I said it (your cartoon caricature god) is the source of morality ... if you're going to criticise my argument then at least try and criticise what I said and not what you'd like to think I said!

Your criticism failed, as did your rebuttal here. Nicely done. It is rather entertaining to watch people criticize something they are ignorant about. As Kirk Cameron is to evolution, so you are to the TAG (a comparison my previous post made which did sail right over your head).

No it didn't and PLEASE stop likening me to Kirk Cameron ... he's a fundamentalist! How would you like it if I insisted you were like Ayatollah Khomeini (and have done in this instance)? It's disingenuous!

First of all, do you really think I give a toss whether I impress a wingnut like you?

Unless you can describe the epistemic virtues of "convincing the already convinced," the point was that it doesn't impress anyone—which happens to include me, yes. Perhaps you don't care that some effort of yours fails to impress anyone, but your apathy is every bit as irrelevant as your estimation of my character. Your commitment to fallacies of irrelevance, on the other hand, is a marvel to behold.

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

Firstly, evolution DOES NOT teach that humans evolved from apes ...

Yeahhhh... that was sort of my whole point, Kyuuketsuki. Way to miss the reference. As Kirk Cameron is to evolution, so you are to the TAG. But as blissfully ignorant about evolution as he is, perhaps you are likewise as blissful in your ignorance about the TAG.

If you were being facetious then you should have made it clear ... that's what emoticons are for (only idiots don't know that!).

As Esther Adney once said, "Stupidity should hurt."

Fuck you Khomeini!

You theists ... start from the claim/assumption that your God exists and massage all the evidence and logic so that you end up concluding that that God does indeed exist ...

With all the demonstrations of logical fallacies Kyuuketsuki provides, the members of these forums should be very familiar with them. It is a self-sacrificing service he provides. (Note: neither evidentialist nor presuppositionalist arguments take that form. No theistic argument whatsoever takes the form of "God, therefore God." Having said that, it is very probable that Kyuuketsuki will respond to it with additional self-sacrificing demonstrations of logical fallacies.)

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!

Kyu