The Chewbacca Defense

[Edwardo Piet]

[fr0d0]

You model yourself on that right EV?

[Edwardo Piet]

You're wrong.

Chewbacca is a wookie, an eight foot tall wookie.

That does not make sense. That does not make sense.

So I don't, no.

EvF

[fr0d0]

'The Chewbacca defense', an argument that has absolutely nothing to do with the case and is repeated ad nauseum...kind of similar to the fallacy of 'proof by intimidation' or 'proof by verbosity'

Reminds me of someone..........

[Edwardo Piet]

I have a sneaking suspicion your implying me...

So to go with that....

I tend to repeat requests for evidence...the thing is that's got everything to do with the matter at hand, because I'm requesting evidence for a belief...to see if the belief has evidence...which is what evidnece is for.

That does make sense.

However,

You going on about your 'reasoning' is just an evasion of the evidential matter at hand...because if your reasoning is valid then it's evidence, if it's not then it's not evidence. Because valid reasoning for a belief=a valid reason to believe= evidence.....how many times have I said this? Haha.

Oh...and if it doesn't remind you of me...who? Or is it a secret?

Just a guess.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Well to me nothing to do with the case. so you form the target well. "Proof by verbosity" has to describe you to the tee EV

[Edwardo Piet]

To you nothing to do with the case. That doesn't mean it's not to do with the case.
If we were talking about Chewbacca, then talking of Chewbacca would obviously be on topic...
If you think something is not do with the case that does not make it so.

If you have a belief and it lacks evidence, for me to ask for it, that's not exactly me giving a Chewbacca Defense red-herring, lol........
You are cherry-picking, making it a special case. In any other matter evidence is required, but religion is apparently 'special'...why? Well that can't be defended can it?...It's just cherry-picked out.
You contradict yourself because you say you have reasoning. But you claim this reasoning is valid. If you have a valid reason to believe then that=evidence. Because that is what evidence is, something that gives credence to a belief.

You always dodge this point...but you're completely stuck because if you have a valid reason then that's evidence. So either you have evidence, or you by definition have no reason to believe at all.

And if you indeed believe without reason, if indeed you believe irrationally - on faith....then that's just that, irrational...without reason, and illogical...your belief is a delusion unless you have evidence.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Nice demonstration of verbose EV. I didn't bother to read it BTW. My loss I know

"If you think something is not do with the case that does not make it so."

It precisely does to ME, therefore it warrants a chewbacca rating. Who said they had to be democratic??

[Edwardo Piet]

I didn't say it had to be democratic. I'm saying that just because you think it, it doesn't make it so - this is true.

It may make sense to you...but you're just cherry-picking 'faith' out as something special. In any other case evidence would be reasonable...

And I've already showed in that post how you contradict yourself....

And how every time I make that point you dodge/ignore it! Like you have here...by mentioning my verbosity despite the fact I'm providing an argument here and not just talking bullshit.

As I said, you say you have rational reasons to believe in God, this would= evidence...by definition...yet you say evidence is out of bounds on the God matter...so this is a contradiction unless you admit to actually believing with no valid reason at all. Because that's what believing without evidence is. Evidence=something that gives credence to a belief...

Now are you gonna give another dodge/digression/ignore..?

You haven't dealt with this yet. You're caught in a net because it's either evidence or no credence for your belief whatsoever - by definition.

Gonna revert back to believing in 'non empirical' evidence perhaps? Or completely contradict the views you've expressed as you've done before - jumping back to saying that God can be logically proved perhaps? Which completely contradicts your whole 'there can be no evidnece for God' thing...because proof is the strongest fucking form of evidence there is! That would be a massive contradiciton.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Well you know exactly what constitutes hard rational evidence from JP's thread. What I always assume you're meaning is verifiable evidence, as we can never seem to get past that one in our discussions. Possibly because you insist on spamming a discussion so badly with posts impossible to read because of the crazy repetition. I make progressive points, and so do others, to be countered by a copy posting almost of your previous post. That isn't discussion. That's bland child play.

After JP's succinct rational presentation I feel there's nothing more to say on the reasoning front. It's all been said, and not refuted. So we await your champion, or someone who can at least present one grain of reasoning against.