Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

Oh, and to add, the logical fallacy also used here is Argumentum Ad Neuseum, where you just keep repeating the same argument that's already been addressed. In fact, I did account for why I use logic (basically, "I want to" and "I like the results"). Meanwhile, your account "GodWillsIt" does nothing to explain why you use logic, for reasons discussed ad neuseum.

[Statler Waldorf]

And this logical fallacy is called the argument from ignorance (mingled in with shifting the burden of proof.

Nope, no argument from ignorance here, I made a claim, I backed it up and you helped me back it up. Not sure why you are still appealing to logic though, you have not given account for it.

Another example: I can account for the laws of logic because prancing invisible unicorns tell me to use logic. You can't prove invisible prancing unicorns don't exist and so I must be right.

Are these unicorns you believe in supernatural or natural?

Oh, and to add, the logical fallacy also used here is Argumentum Ad Neuseum, where you just keep repeating the same argument that's already been addressed. In fact, I did account for why I use logic (basically, "I want to" and "I like the results"). Meanwhile, your account "GodWillsIt" does nothing to explain why you use logic, for reasons discussed ad neuseum.

Nope, the argumentum ad nauseum is when a person repeats an argument that has been refuted or shown to be invalid over and over hoping it sticks. My argument has not been shown to be invalid or unsound (in fact you have helped demonstrate its merit), so I will keep repeating it until someone can refute it. Again, why are you appealing to something you have not given account for (logic)?

[DeistPaladin]

Nope, no argument from ignorance here,

Yes, you did appeal to ignorance.

I made a claim,

That much is true.

I backed it up

No, you didn't.

and you helped me back it up.

No, I didn't.

Not sure why you are still appealing to logic though,

Because it works for me.

you have not given account for it.

I don't need to.

Are these unicorns you believe in supernatural or natural?

Sorry, I forgot. You can't use parody with Christians. They don't understand it.

Nope, the argumentum ad nauseum is when a person repeats an argument that has been refuted or shown to be invalid over and over hoping it sticks.

Yes.

My argument has not been shown to be invalid or unsound

Yes, it has.

Again, why are you appealing to something you have not given account for (logic)?

Because I don't have to. I use logic because I like the results it brings.

[Statler Waldorf]

Yes, you did appeal to ignorance.

Demonstrate how.

No, you didn't.

Assertion, back it up. I backed mine up.

No, I didn't.

By doing the very thing I claimed you would, you did indeed help back it up.

Because it works for me.

That’s not enough, just because it works for you does not justify your apparent belief that others should also adhere to it.

I don't need to.

Then I don’t have to give account for knowing God exists, fair is fair.

Sorry, I forgot. You can't use parody with Christians. They don't understand it.

Nice try, calling an attempt at a bad analogy parody only after you realized the analogy would fail horribly is pretty lame.

Yes, it has.

Please point to the exact post and passage where this was done rather than making a baseless assertion it was done. Thanks.

Because I don't have to. I use logic because I like the results it brings.

Oh ok, well then I don’t have to either. I know God exists because I like the results it gets. Fair is fair.

[DeistPaladin]

[quote='DeistPaladin' pid='198885' dateline='1319753624']
Yes, you did appeal to ignorance.

Demonstrate how.

Assertion, back it up.

You said, "you couldn't disprove my assertion so it must be true by principle of negation". That's appeal to ignorance.

That’s not enough, just because it works for you does not justify your apparent belief that others should also adhere to it.

As I've said before (speaking of argumentum ad neuseum) I never said or implied that you should adhere to reason. In fact, you don't anyway so there you go. Go join an Amish community if you seriously want to live in a society that eschews reason and science.

Then I don’t have to give account for knowing God exists, fair is fair.

You're right.

You can go believing pink faeries sing to you at night for all I care. Just keep it the hell out of my life, science class in school, the laws of the land, public parks and in all other ways respect the separation of Church and State and we'll get along fine.

Please point to the exact post and passage where this was done rather than making a baseless assertion it was done. Thanks.

I don't have the energy right now to repost every single post where I tore your lame arguments apart. Re-read the thread for yourself.

Oh ok, well then I don’t have to either. I know [Yahweh] exists because I like the results it gets. Fair is fair.

Fine. Just keep it the hell out of my life and we'll get along just fine.

You notice I never criticize Buddhist, Wicca or Hindu beliefs despite the fact they all believe things I don't.

Islamo-Christianity is a problem not because they believe things they can't prove. Islamo-Christianity is a problem because they can't respect boundaries.

---

Assertion, back it up.

You said, "you couldn't disprove my assertion so it must be true by principle of negation". That's appeal to ignorance.

That’s not enough, just because it works for you does not justify your apparent belief that others should also adhere to it.

As I've said before (speaking of argumentum ad neuseum) I never said or implied that you should adhere to reason. In fact, you don't anyway so there you go. Go join an Amish community if you seriously want to live in a society that eschews reason and science.

Then I don’t have to give account for knowing God exists, fair is fair.

You're right.

You can go believing pink faeries sing to you at night for all I care. Just keep it the hell out of my life, science class in school, the laws of the land, public parks and in all other ways respect the separation of Church and State and we'll get along fine.

Please point to the exact post and passage where this was done rather than making a baseless assertion it was done. Thanks.

I don't have the energy right now to repost every single post where I tore your lame arguments apart. Re-read the thread for yourself.

Oh ok, well then I don’t have to either. I know [Yahweh] exists because I like the results it gets. Fair is fair.

Fine. Just keep it the hell out of my life and we'll get along just fine.

You notice I never criticize Buddhist, Wicca or Hindu beliefs despite the fact they all believe things I don't.

Islamo-Christianity is a problem not because they believe things they can't prove. Islamo-Christianity is a problem because they can't respect boundaries.

[DeistPaladin]

OK, that was weird. My last post ended up blank with all the content deleted. Let's see if this one goes through.

---

Demonstrate how.

You claimed that because I couldn't disprove your assertion that the assertion must be true. That's appeal to ignorance.

Assertion, back it up.

You didn't back up your claim. I've already explained how you failed ad neuseum.

That’s not enough, just because it works for you does not justify your apparent belief that others should also adhere to it.

I never said others should. You certainly don't.

Then I don’t have to give account for knowing God exists, fair is fair.

Never said you did. Keep your beliefs the hell out of my life and out of the government and we'll get along just fine.

Nice try, calling an attempt at a bad analogy parody only after you realized the analogy would fail horribly is pretty lame.

What are you talking about?

Please point to the exact post and passage where this was done rather than making a baseless assertion it was done. Thanks.

Re read this thread for yourself.

[DeistPaladin]

Video clip to share that reminds me of Waldork claiming over and over again that he won:

[Statler Waldorf]

You claimed that because I couldn't disprove your assertion that the assertion must be true. That's appeal to ignorance.

Not quite, if I provide a valid syllogism for my argument, which I have, then the onus is on you to demonstrate how the premises are not true or else my argument stands un-refuted. If I had simply said “God exists because you can’t prove he doesn’t”, then that would be an appeal to ignorance. Rather, I said that God exists because only His existence can justify the preconditions of intelligibility. Since you have been completely unable to justify the preconditions given your worldview my argument still stands. This is an internal critique of worldviews, not an external one.

You didn't back up your claim. I've already explained how you failed ad neuseum.

See above.

I never said others should. You certainly don't.

Yes you did, by pointing out supposed logical fallacies in other arguments and attempting to have a discussion indicates you believe others should adhere to your own arbitrary views on logic which is completely irrational in itself. If the laws of logic are merely conventional, I could just as easily adopt my own and they would be just as logically valid as yours. So you say one thing but behave in a manner that indicates you really don’t believe what you claim you do.

Never said you did. Keep your beliefs the hell out of my life and out of the government and we'll get along just fine.

Why do I have to do that? Are you implying there are some laws of behavior that are not merely conventional and would actually apply to everyone? I have not seen you give account for such things, you seem to believe everyone gets to just pick their own truths.

Re read this thread for yourself.

Again you are being inconsistent. How could you possibly refute any argument if the laws of logic are merely conventional? I could just say I have adopted a law of logic that permits me to use an appeal to ignorance and you would be in no position to even say my argument was invalid.

---

Video clip to share that reminds me of Waldork claiming over and over again that he won:

I am just playing by your own rules, I adopted laws of logic that state that I am always the winner by definition. I like the results I get with these laws, so they are therefore valid. You are in no position to tell me otherwise since I am only playing by your own rules. I can see why you invented these rules, it makes debating way easier than actually having to adhere to universal immaterial transcendent laws of logic that apply to everyone equally.

[DeistPaladin]

If I had simply said “God exists because you can’t prove he doesn’t”, then that would be an appeal to ignorance. Rather, I said that God exists because only His existence can justify the preconditions of intelligibility. Since you have been completely unable to justify the preconditions given your worldview my argument still stands. This is an internal critique of worldviews, not an external one.

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.

Yes you did, by pointing out supposed logical fallacies in other arguments and attempting to have a discussion indicates you believe others should adhere to your own arbitrary views on logic which is completely irrational in itself.

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

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.

If the laws of logic are merely conventional, I could just as easily adopt my own and they would be just as logically valid as yours. So you say one thing but behave in a manner that indicates you really don’t believe what you claim you do.

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

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.

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

Why do I have to do that? Are you implying there are some laws of behavior that are not merely conventional and would actually apply to everyone? I have not seen you give account for such things, you seem to believe everyone gets to just pick their own truths.

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

Because it violates the social contract. 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.

We as humans are empathic and community oriented animals. 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.

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".

[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.”