Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Eternalism, God ,circular garbage and self

skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 9:09:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Deception,
The following piece of circular reasoning has been offered on this site by an educated man, I wonder at what point in life he decided circular logic should even be offered in a format where people supposedly have a discerning intellect as to what good arguments should be.
1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist

The problem with this ridiculous piece of garbage is it achieves no goal other than personal gratification within the mind that offered it. I told him he was delusional and convinced himself that he traffics profundity when in reality this is self deception in regards to it being worthy to be put on public display. Let's expose the circular reasoning because its laughable.
The part of the first premise states, then the universe was not created. Well, within this statement there are implied subsets. If the uni wasn't created, it had no creator, life wasn't created by a creator, etc.. If it had no creator, then a creator didn't or wouldn't exist. If a creator wouldn't exist then God wouldn't exist. The problem is the argument concludes with one of these implied ideas....it's conclusion, therefore God does not exist. We can remove all irrelevant blathering between premise 1 to conclusion because it serves no purpose other than prolonging the inevitable, intelligent people who cachinnate at such basic, elementary, stock fallacious reasoning.
I'm not sure about you people but circular logic, in my opinion, isn't even something I would consider offering for examination. Its serves no purpose in adding anything of consequence to the overall topic. Circular logic is equivalent to someone talking to themselves, more like, actually debating themselves. How useless is it in a group of people to talk to yourself or debate yourself? Its the height of arrogance coupled with ignorance.

It's circular logic, argument defeated. Do you agree or do you support circular reasoning?
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 3:58:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 9:09:52 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Deception,
The following piece of circular reasoning has been offered on this site by an educated man, I wonder at what point in life he decided circular logic should even be offered in a format where people supposedly have a discerning intellect as to what good arguments should be.
1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist

The problem with this ridiculous piece of garbage is it achieves no goal other than personal gratification within the mind that offered it. I told him he was delusional and convinced himself that he traffics profundity when in reality this is self deception in regards to it being worthy to be put on public display. Let's expose the circular reasoning because its laughable.
The part of the first premise states, then the universe was not created. Well, within this statement there are implied subsets. If the uni wasn't created, it had no creator, life wasn't created by a creator, etc.. If it had no creator, then a creator didn't or wouldn't exist. If a creator wouldn't exist then God wouldn't exist. The problem is the argument concludes with one of these implied ideas....it's conclusion, therefore God does not exist. We can remove all irrelevant blathering between premise 1 to conclusion because it serves no purpose other than prolonging the inevitable, intelligent people who cachinnate at such basic, elementary, stock fallacious reasoning.
I'm not sure about you people but circular logic, in my opinion, isn't even something I would consider offering for examination. Its serves no purpose in adding anything of consequence to the overall topic. Circular logic is equivalent to someone talking to themselves, more like, actually debating themselves. How useless is it in a group of people to talk to yourself or debate yourself? Its the height of arrogance coupled with ignorance.

It's circular logic, argument defeated. Do you agree or do you support circular reasoning?

It's not circular. Having a statement be the consequent in a conditional statement is NOT the same as having that statement be true. The first premise does NOT assume either Eternalism or that the universe was not created.

The argument is just a formalization of the following idea:

Eternalism, by definition, implies that there is no God. Since Eternalism is true, there is no God.

Obviously the issue of contention would then shift from God to Eternalism. But it's important to remember that just because a premise of an argument is not necessarily true, that does NOT make the argument circular. An argument is circular IFF the conclusion shares a truth condition with one or more of the premises.

In this argument it does not.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are at least three threads solely about this one argument. I have no idea why that's necessary.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
There are at least three threads solely about this one argument. I have no idea why that's necessary.

Two of them are started by skipsaweirdo here.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 8:29:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 9:09:52 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Deception,
The following piece of circular reasoning has been offered on this site by an educated man, I wonder at what point in life he decided circular logic should even be offered in a format where people supposedly have a discerning intellect as to what good arguments should be.
1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist

The problem with this ridiculous piece of garbage is it achieves no goal other than personal gratification within the mind that offered it. I told him he was delusional and convinced himself that he traffics profundity when in reality this is self deception in regards to it being worthy to be put on public display. Let's expose the circular reasoning because its laughable.
The part of the first premise states, then the universe was not created. Well, within this statement there are implied subsets. If the uni wasn't created, it had no creator, life wasn't created by a creator, etc.. If it had no creator, then a creator didn't or wouldn't exist. If a creator wouldn't exist then God wouldn't exist. The problem is the argument concludes with one of these implied ideas....it's conclusion, therefore God does not exist. We can remove all irrelevant blathering between premise 1 to conclusion because it serves no purpose other than prolonging the inevitable, intelligent people who cachinnate at such basic, elementary, stock fallacious reasoning.
I'm not sure about you people but circular logic, in my opinion, isn't even something I would consider offering for examination. Its serves no purpose in adding anything of consequence to the overall topic. Circular logic is equivalent to someone talking to themselves, more like, actually debating themselves. How useless is it in a group of people to talk to yourself or debate yourself? Its the height of arrogance coupled with ignorance.

It's circular logic, argument defeated. Do you agree or do you support circular reasoning?
Do you understand what a consequent is?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 11:03:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/8/2015 8:29:56 PM, n7 wrote:
At 9/7/2015 9:09:52 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Deception,
The following piece of circular reasoning has been offered on this site by an educated man, I wonder at what point in life he decided circular logic should even be offered in a format where people supposedly have a discerning intellect as to what good arguments should be.
1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist

The problem with this ridiculous piece of garbage is it achieves no goal other than personal gratification within the mind that offered it. I told him he was delusional and convinced himself that he traffics profundity when in reality this is self deception in regards to it being worthy to be put on public display. Let's expose the circular reasoning because its laughable.
The part of the first premise states, then the universe was not created. Well, within this statement there are implied subsets. If the uni wasn't created, it had no creator, life wasn't created by a creator, etc.. If it had no creator, then a creator didn't or wouldn't exist. If a creator wouldn't exist then God wouldn't exist. The problem is the argument concludes with one of these implied ideas....it's conclusion, therefore God does not exist. We can remove all irrelevant blathering between premise 1 to conclusion because it serves no purpose other than prolonging the inevitable, intelligent people who cachinnate at such basic, elementary, stock fallacious reasoning.
I'm not sure about you people but circular logic, in my opinion, isn't even something I would consider offering for examination. Its serves no purpose in adding anything of consequence to the overall topic. Circular logic is equivalent to someone talking to themselves, more like, actually debating themselves. How useless is it in a group of people to talk to yourself or debate yourself? Its the height of arrogance coupled with ignorance.

It's circular logic, argument defeated. Do you agree or do you support circular reasoning?
Do you understand what a consequent is?

Do you know he was answering a question he asked himself ?
The question he posed and then answered himself was...
(Implied subject God) The creator of the universe? You have anything else?
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 3:17:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/8/2015 8:29:56 PM, n7 wrote:
At 9/7/2015 9:09:52 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Deception,
The following piece of circular reasoning has been offered on this site by an educated man, I wonder at what point in life he decided circular logic should even be offered in a format where people supposedly have a discerning intellect as to what good arguments should be.
1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist

The problem with this ridiculous piece of garbage is it achieves no goal other than personal gratification within the mind that offered it. I told him he was delusional and convinced himself that he traffics profundity when in reality this is self deception in regards to it being worthy to be put on public display. Let's expose the circular reasoning because its laughable.
The part of the first premise states, then the universe was not created. Well, within this statement there are implied subsets. If the uni wasn't created, it had no creator, life wasn't created by a creator, etc.. If it had no creator, then a creator didn't or wouldn't exist. If a creator wouldn't exist then God wouldn't exist. The problem is the argument concludes with one of these implied ideas....it's conclusion, therefore God does not exist. We can remove all irrelevant blathering between premise 1 to conclusion because it serves no purpose other than prolonging the inevitable, intelligent people who cachinnate at such basic, elementary, stock fallacious reasoning.
I'm not sure about you people but circular logic, in my opinion, isn't even something I would consider offering for examination. Its serves no purpose in adding anything of consequence to the overall topic. Circular logic is equivalent to someone talking to themselves, more like, actually debating themselves. How useless is it in a group of people to talk to yourself or debate yourself? Its the height of arrogance coupled with ignorance.

It's circular logic, argument defeated. Do you agree or do you support circular reasoning?
Do you understand what a consequent is?
Here's some more for you to go to the city landfill with when you bury this garbage bag of reasoning....first premise is deception by omission

If eternalism is true, then the universe wasn't created.
The word created is a past participle, by definition it is a verb in need of a subject, within grammar the subject is either stated or implied....so what's the implied subject of created? If you claim (non creator God0 contradicts 4th statement.
We can do it another way too, it cannot be an adjective, as in created universe, this would be improper grammar, it also would imply tense.Using tense within an argument where you claim there is no tense is logically inconsistent.
Forget about justifications ......
Try thinking with your intellect. And if you come back with an attempt to revise the argument, you simply are incapable of recognising circular reasoning within problematic subjects. I would suggest not debating them.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 12:46:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
There are at least three threads solely about this one argument. I have no idea why that's necessary.

"...no goal other than personal gratification within the mind that offered..."
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 12:59:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 12:46:18 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
There are at least three threads solely about this one argument. I have no idea why that's necessary.
because reducing the content of an ambiguous proposition is needed to counteract the enormity of discourse which has been offered.........
"...no goal other than personal gratification within the mind that offered..."
Do you even recognize ambiguity fallacy within problematic subject matter? Nice attempt tho,
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 1:04:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 12:59:40 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 12:46:18 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
There are at least three threads solely about this one argument. I have no idea why that's necessary.
because reducing the content of an ambiguous proposition is needed to counteract the enormity of discourse which has been offered.........
"...no goal other than personal gratification within the mind that offered..."
Do you even recognize ambiguity fallacy within problematic subject matter? Nice attempt tho,

No, I recognize that indeed there are 3 threads about this exact subject, and agree that it is not necessary, and was looking for a reason as to why 3 threads on such would be a requirement.

Only one immediate possibility presented itself.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 1:05:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
There are at least three threads solely about this one argument. I have no idea why that's necessary.
Do you recognize ambiguity fallacy within problematic subject matter? Its simple. These people with their convoluted minds are emotionalists.They need to incorporate useless material into their repertoire , thus it demands division of offered viewpoints and alternates to disallow deflection.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
There are at least three threads solely about this one argument. I have no idea why that's necessary.

Two of them are started by skipsaweirdo here.
If eternalism is true, then there is no entity that created the universe,
Ambiguity Fallacy in case you need to attempt to find some more rose petals to wrap this turd up in.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 1:25:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 1:04:20 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/10/2015 12:59:40 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 12:46:18 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
There are at least three threads solely about this one argument. I have no idea why that's necessary.
because reducing the content of an ambiguous proposition is needed to counteract the enormity of discourse which has been offered.........
"...no goal other than personal gratification within the mind that offered..."
Do you even recognize ambiguity fallacy within problematic subject matter? Nice attempt tho,

No, I recognize that indeed there are 3 threads about this exact subject, and agree that it is not necessary, and was looking for a reason as to why 3 threads on such would be a requirement.

Only one immediate possibility presented itself.

The format in which the ideas are presented disallows in depth conversation. It limits responses to a specific number of characters and it has a snowball effect. Most people have no need for in depth analysis of what they already hope is true or believable or reasonable. So I started it basically under the premise of divide and conquer. Was that wrong? Should I limit my behavior to what you or others think is necessary?
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 2:54:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
There are at least three threads solely about this one argument. I have no idea why that's necessary.

Two of them are started by skipsaweirdo here.
If eternalism is true, then there is no entity that created the universe,
Ambiguity Fallacy in case you need to attempt to find some more rose petals to wrap this turd up in.

No, this isn't an ambiguity fallacy. The sentence doesn't have multiple meanings, and it's pretty obvious what it means.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 4:17:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 2:54:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
There are at least three threads solely about this one argument. I have no idea why that's necessary.

Two of them are started by skipsaweirdo here.
If eternalism is true, then there is no entity that created the universe,
Ambiguity Fallacy in case you need to attempt to find some more rose petals to wrap this turd up in.

No, this isn't an ambiguity fallacy. The sentence doesn't have multiple meanings, and it's pretty obvious what it means....

seriously I have to reference oxford english dictionary...a THING with distinct and independent existence.......yeh, THING isn't ambiguous in the least,
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 4:49:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 4:17:42 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:54:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
There are at least three threads solely about this one argument. I have no idea why that's necessary.

Two of them are started by skipsaweirdo here.
If eternalism is true, then there is no entity that created the universe,
Ambiguity Fallacy in case you need to attempt to find some more rose petals to wrap this turd up in.

No, this isn't an ambiguity fallacy. The sentence doesn't have multiple meanings, and it's pretty obvious what it means....

seriously I have to reference oxford english dictionary...a THING with distinct and independent existence.......yeh, THING isn't ambiguous in the least,
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Thing is ambiguous, that's why they qualified it with "distinct" and "independent".

Besides, the whole point of my using the word entity was to point out that literally anything could be the subject for the first premise. It could be God, it could be magic, it could be Mary Poppins. It doesn't matter.

The whole point is that Eternalism naturally implies that universe-creating entities don't exist, and since God is one, God doesn't exist.

But if we wanted, we could use the argument to disprove Magic Universe-making Sandwich. We could use the argument to disprove literally anything you can come up with that has the attribute of creating the universe.

Yes, God is the first one that comes to mind. That doesn't mean anything.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 5:00:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 4:49:25 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:17:42 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:54:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
There are at least three threads solely about this one argument. I have no idea why that's necessary.

Two of them are started by skipsaweirdo here.
If eternalism is true, then there is no entity that created the universe,
Ambiguity Fallacy in case you need to attempt to find some more rose petals to wrap this turd up in.

No, this isn't an ambiguity fallacy. The sentence doesn't have multiple meanings, and it's pretty obvious what it means....

seriously I have to reference oxford english dictionary...a THING with distinct and independent existence.......yeh, THING isn't ambiguous in the least,
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Thing is ambiguous, that's why they qualified it with "distinct" and "independent".
Seriously?, distinct and independent existence has nothing what so ever to do with what it addresses. Modifiers to it are irrelevant, it does not make it less ambiguous. That would be equivalent to me saying hey, look at that white dot up in the sky at night. A white dot has a distinct existence, but I bet you a million bucks you wouldn't know which one in the night sky I'm talking about, that's the definition ambiguous, and you are flat out admitting it by saying it could be anything including Mary Poppins, that its an ambiguous fallacy.
Besides, the whole point of my using the word entity was to point out that literally anything could be the subject for the first premise. It could be God, it could be magic, it could be Mary Poppins. It doesn't matter.

The whole point is that Eternalism naturally implies that universe-creating entities don't exist, and since God is one, God doesn't exist.
excuse me, but universe creating entities, equivocation fallacy. You know what's being argued.
But if we wanted, we could use the argument to disprove Magic Universe-making Sandwich. We could use the argument to disprove literally anything you can come up with that has the attribute of creating the universe.

Yes, God is the first one that comes to mind. That doesn't mean anything.

Wrong, you pervert the intention of what is implicitly the purpose of a proposition. If you say anything can be the subject, that's equivocation in regards to the 4th statement. Its simple surr, If you have a mutual respect for the opposing subject matters, which I know you don't, than you will keep doing what you have been.
I say content
You reword
I say content
You say form
I say content
you reword
I say content
You say form
All I've done is address the content, all you've done is keep changing your mind. You're so conditioned to think "how dare someone challenge my proposition Debate me, not the proposition" I can play your ambiguous game to, Mary Poppins created the universe but didn't create time until after. Physical bodies have no relationship to time that has ever been proven, so creation was the physical manifestation of celestial bodies without any thoughts that could remotely be connected to time. A creator of the universe can create the ability for humans to have a concept of time, so the creator limited that knowledge to never being able to detect or determine creation. Argument not even a proposition.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 5:18:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 5:00:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:49:25 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:17:42 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:54:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
There are at least three threads solely about this one argument. I have no idea why that's necessary.

Two of them are started by skipsaweirdo here.
If eternalism is true, then there is no entity that created the universe,
Ambiguity Fallacy in case you need to attempt to find some more rose petals to wrap this turd up in.

No, this isn't an ambiguity fallacy. The sentence doesn't have multiple meanings, and it's pretty obvious what it means....

seriously I have to reference oxford english dictionary...a THING with distinct and independent existence.......yeh, THING isn't ambiguous in the least,
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Thing is ambiguous, that's why they qualified it with "distinct" and "independent".
Seriously?, distinct and independent existence has nothing what so ever to do with what it addresses. Modifiers to it are irrelevant, it does not make it less ambiguous. That would be equivalent to me saying hey, look at that white dot up in the sky at night. A white dot has a distinct existence, but I bet you a million bucks you wouldn't know which one in the night sky I'm talking about, that's the definition ambiguous, and you are flat out admitting it by saying it could be anything including Mary Poppins, that its an ambiguous fallacy.
Besides, the whole point of my using the word entity was to point out that literally anything could be the subject for the first premise. It could be God, it could be magic, it could be Mary Poppins. It doesn't matter.

The whole point is that Eternalism naturally implies that universe-creating entities don't exist, and since God is one, God doesn't exist.
excuse me, but universe creating entities, equivocation fallacy. You know what's being argued.
But if we wanted, we could use the argument to disprove Magic Universe-making Sandwich. We could use the argument to disprove literally anything you can come up with that has the attribute of creating the universe.

Yes, God is the first one that comes to mind. That doesn't mean anything.

Wrong, you pervert the intention of what is implicitly the purpose of a proposition. If you say anything can be the subject, that's equivocation in regards to the 4th statement. Its simple surr, If you have a mutual respect for the opposing subject matters, which I know you don't, than you will keep doing what you have been.
I say content
You reword
I say content
You say form
I say content
you reword
I say content
You say form
All I've done is address the content, all you've done is keep changing your mind. You're so conditioned to think "how dare someone challenge my proposition Debate me, not the proposition" I can play your ambiguous game to, Mary Poppins created the universe but didn't create time until after. Physical bodies have no relationship to time that has ever been proven, so creation was the physical manifestation of celestial bodies without any thoughts that could remotely be connected to time. A creator of the universe can create the ability for humans to have a concept of time, so the creator limited that knowledge to never being able to detect or determine creation. Argument not even a proposition.

I'm not changing the first premise at all. I'm just explaining to you in different ways, because you don't seem to understand them.

This whole time, the first premise has meant that should it be the case that Eternalism is true, then it would follow that no entity with the quality "created the universe" would exist.

God is one such entity.

This is just another rewording of the first premise, not a change in it. The meaning has stayed the same.

You keep saying that the consequent of the first premise implicitly implies God as its subject. I've pointed out that even if it did, the argument would STILL be valid. You fail to grasp this.

If God is the implied subject of the first premise, then the argument is merely this:

Premise One: If Eternalism is true, then God does not exist.
Premise Two: Eternalism is true.
Conclusion: God does not exist.

If you want to claim THAT is circular, there is no hope for you.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:09:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 5:18:48 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:00:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:49:25 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:17:42 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:54:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
There are at least three threads solely about this one argument. I have no idea why that's necessary.

Two of them are started by skipsaweirdo here.
If eternalism is true, then there is no entity that created the universe,
Ambiguity Fallacy in case you need to attempt to find some more rose petals to wrap this turd up in.

No, this isn't an ambiguity fallacy. The sentence doesn't have multiple meanings, and it's pretty obvious what it means....

seriously I have to reference oxford english dictionary...a THING with distinct and independent existence.......yeh, THING isn't ambiguous in the least,
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Thing is ambiguous, that's why they qualified it with "distinct" and "independent".
Seriously?, distinct and independent existence has nothing what so ever to do with what it addresses. Modifiers to it are irrelevant, it does not make it less ambiguous. That would be equivalent to me saying hey, look at that white dot up in the sky at night. A white dot has a distinct existence, but I bet you a million bucks you wouldn't know which one in the night sky I'm talking about, that's the definition ambiguous, and you are flat out admitting it by saying it could be anything including Mary Poppins, that its an ambiguous fallacy.
Besides, the whole point of my using the word entity was to point out that literally anything could be the subject for the first premise. It could be God, it could be magic, it could be Mary Poppins. It doesn't matter.

The whole point is that Eternalism naturally implies that universe-creating entities don't exist, and since God is one, God doesn't exist.
excuse me, but universe creating entities, equivocation fallacy. You know what's being argued.
But if we wanted, we could use the argument to disprove Magic Universe-making Sandwich. We could use the argument to disprove literally anything you can come up with that has the attribute of creating the universe.

Yes, God is the first one that comes to mind. That doesn't mean anything.

Wrong, you pervert the intention of what is implicitly the purpose of a proposition. If you say anything can be the subject, that's equivocation in regards to the 4th statement. Its simple surr, If you have a mutual respect for the opposing subject matters, which I know you don't, than you will keep doing what you have been.
I say content
You reword
I say content
You say form
I say content
you reword
I say content
You say form
All I've done is address the content, all you've done is keep changing your mind. You're so conditioned to think "how dare someone challenge my proposition Debate me, not the proposition" I can play your ambiguous game to, Mary Poppins created the universe but didn't create time until after. Physical bodies have no relationship to time that has ever been proven, so creation was the physical manifestation of celestial bodies without any thoughts that could remotely be connected to time. A creator of the universe can create the ability for humans to have a concept of time, so the creator limited that knowledge to never being able to detect or determine creation. Argument not even a proposition.

I'm not changing the first premise at all. I'm just explaining to you in different ways, because you don't seem to understand them.
ad hominem, you're incapable of "making me see it your way" and quite frankly you're incapable of any thought that I couldn't understand, if you don't want to you reason to proposition an opening volley, ie. Initiate, you warrant no acknowledgement of an ability to reaso
This whole time, the first premise has meant that should it be the case that Eternalism is true, then it would follow that no entity with the quality "created the universe" would exist.
Holding on to Your ambiguity fallacy I see, indirect reference to an implied subject

God is, one such entity.
this by definition makes it specifically equivocation, should I explain this again. You cannot say that a word may apply to something internally in the loop, then claim later it means something specific.
This is just another rewording of the first premise, not a change in it. The meaning has stayed the same.
Yes, and the new is ambiguous why do I have to explain simple definitions to you?

You keep saying that the consequent of the first premise implicitly implies God as its subject. I've pointed out that even if it did, the argument would STILL be valid. You fail to grasp this.
what you don't grasp, is a valid FORM, does not translate to a sound loop. that's what you fail to realize. And in problematic subject matter mere utterance doesn't make it sound.
If God is the implied subject of the first premise, then the argument is merely this:
Removed content
changing it to God now, you do not have enough support of eternalism to discount God or created, I have already explained this 2 you. You cannot prove human beings can conceive of a concept of time in a way that dismisses creation. You cannot prove that time even exists with demonstrable evidence. You cannot prove that time was created just because celestial bodies were created. If you attach time to the existence of celestial bodies, then historically you are saying time merely , reduced to what it initially was, the tracking of Earth(celestial body) in relation to the sun (celestial body). Because if you then say well, " time is also a SPECIAL kind of dimension in regards to the other three demonstrable dimensions," THATS special pleading. And when you comeback With appeal to authority, I.e. Einstein, just because some of his predictions came true, doesn't therefore mean he is an authority on something that hasn't been proven to exist in the universe..(time) not to mention Einstein thought the speed of light was a constant. DEMONSTRBLY proven false, therefore Einstein isn't an authority, and surely has never demonstrated to be an authority on time.
And if you want a good book to read that just might shake your beliefs and confidence in exactly how "honest" physicists are. Read this. Its rather eye opening, if you dare challenge popular beliefs that is.
"Einstein's Relativity; A Criticism"....Dunlop Jamison McAdam,
light not a constant
http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
https://www.sciencenews.org...

If you want to claim THAT is circular, there is no hope for you.
Ad hominem ,
you are a hypocrite. Eternalism says that something not proven to exist (time) with demonstrable evidence in the universe can have an affect on the universe. Ummm really so the concept of God, (not proven to exist in the universe) also can have an affect on the universe. And I've asserted this before, Just because it is a popularly held beleif that time had to start when the universe was created isn't a reasoned rejoinder. please explain how something not proven to exist can be said to have started with things proven to exist? Appealing to a popular belief that time beginning and celestial bodies beginning at the same instance is an appeal to popular belief, it isn't an argument.
You claim a connection that isn't true, the loop is unsound. Circularity applies to reasoning,
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 3:09:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 5:18:48 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:00:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:49:25 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:17:42 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:54:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
surr, your form can be valid and also be circular reasoning. Here is where I think the disconnect is. Eternalism is about the concept of time, Essentially that time didn't have a beginning point. Well that would mean God exists because God exists in a form of time. Secondly, if you then say time is in regards to existing in the universe, theres no evidence of that. The concept of time is the issue. No matter which way you "reason" as to what time applies to or what it is, it is isn't physical. Creationist merely argue that time began ,in the universe , when it was created. They are not saying that time didn't exist before the universe was created, because God has a form of time in relationship to him as humans conceptualize it. Circular reasoning isn't applied to form in this case, it applies to how you are reasoning the argument. The external aspects that are being applied to the loop. The loop is valid but your reasoning external to the loop is what is Circular.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 6:46:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 3:09:44 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:18:48 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:00:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:49:25 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:17:42 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:54:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
surr, your form can be valid and also be circular reasoning. Here is where I think the disconnect is. Eternalism is about the concept of time, Essentially that time didn't have a beginning point. Well that would mean God exists because God exists in a form of time. Secondly, if you then say time is in regards to existing in the universe, theres no evidence of that. The concept of time is the issue. No matter which way you "reason" as to what time applies to or what it is, it is isn't physical. Creationist merely argue that time began ,in the universe , when it was created. They are not saying that time didn't exist before the universe was created, because God has a form of time in relationship to him as humans conceptualize it. Circular reasoning isn't applied to form in this case, it applies to how you are reasoning the argument. The external aspects that are being applied to the loop. The loop is valid but your reasoning external to the loop is what is Circular.

It doesn't matter if you disagree with the premises. That has no effect on the validity of an argument. It does have an effect on if the argument is sound, but that's different.

In any case, Eternalism actually DOES imply the non-existence of God. The reason for that is because in an Eternalist cosmology, everything exists and has existed forever. Ergo, no creation. Ergo, no creators.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 6:50:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 6:46:47 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 3:09:44 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:18:48 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:00:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:49:25 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:17:42 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:54:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
surr, your form can be valid and also be circular reasoning. Here is where I think the disconnect is. Eternalism is about the concept of time, Essentially that time didn't have a beginning point. Well that would mean God exists because God exists in a form of time. Secondly, if you then say time is in regards to existing in the universe, theres no evidence of that. The concept of time is the issue. No matter which way you "reason" as to what time applies to or what it is, it is isn't physical. Creationist merely argue that time began ,in the universe , when it was created. They are not saying that time didn't exist before the universe was created, because God has a form of time in relationship to him as humans conceptualize it. Circular reasoning isn't applied to form in this case, it applies to how you are reasoning the argument. The external aspects that are being applied to the loop. The loop is valid but your reasoning external to the loop is what is Circular.

It doesn't matter if you disagree with the premises. That has no effect on the validity of an argument. It does have an effect on if the argument is sound, but that's different.

In any case, Eternalism actually DOES imply the non-existence of God. The reason for that is because in an Eternalist cosmology, everything exists and has existed forever. Ergo, no creation. Ergo, no creators.

Eternalism is about the ontological nature of time..the only thing it applies to is TIME. And since you are now claiming that time has existed equally with cosmological bodies. Please provide me one shrewd of physical evidence for the existence of time.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 6:54:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 2:09:21 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:18:48 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:00:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:49:25 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:17:42 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:54:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
I'm not changing the first premise at all. I'm just explaining to you in different ways, because you don't seem to understand them.
ad hominem, you're incapable of "making me see it your way" and quite frankly you're incapable of any thought that I couldn't understand, if you don't want to you reason to proposition an opening volley, ie. Initiate, you warrant no acknowledgement of an ability to reaso

I'm not sure what type of person would open their argument by accusing me of an ad hominem attack that I didn't make, then make one themselves.

This whole time, the first premise has meant that should it be the case that Eternalism is true, then it would follow that no entity with the quality "created the universe" would exist.
Holding on to Your ambiguity fallacy I see, indirect reference to an implied subject

It's not an ambiguity fallacy unless I conflate two different things. I didn't.

God is, one such entity.
this by definition makes it specifically equivocation, should I explain this again. You cannot say that a word may apply to something internally in the loop, then claim later it means something specific.

Entity doesn't mean specifically God and I never said that it did. What I said was that God fits within the set of entities that have the quality "created the universe". I'm not changing definitions at all.

This is just another rewording of the first premise, not a change in it. The meaning has stayed the same.
Yes, and the new is ambiguous why do I have to explain simple definitions to you?

It's ambiguous on purpose. The only time that ambiguity is fallacious is if you use it to conflate two different ideas. I have not done so. I've merely used the ambiguity as a vessel to define a set of entities with the quality "created the universe".

You keep saying that the consequent of the first premise implicitly implies God as its subject. I've pointed out that even if it did, the argument would STILL be valid. You fail to grasp this.
what you don't grasp, is a valid FORM, does not translate to a sound loop. that's what you fail to realize. And in problematic subject matter mere utterance doesn't make it sound.

I never claimed it was sound, because that wasn't the issue of contention. We were arguing whether or not the argument in and of itself was circular, and it evidently isn't. Now you're shifting the goalpost.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 6:57:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 6:50:14 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:46:47 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 3:09:44 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:18:48 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:00:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:49:25 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:17:42 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:54:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
surr, your form can be valid and also be circular reasoning. Here is where I think the disconnect is. Eternalism is about the concept of time, Essentially that time didn't have a beginning point. Well that would mean God exists because God exists in a form of time. Secondly, if you then say time is in regards to existing in the universe, theres no evidence of that. The concept of time is the issue. No matter which way you "reason" as to what time applies to or what it is, it is isn't physical. Creationist merely argue that time began ,in the universe , when it was created. They are not saying that time didn't exist before the universe was created, because God has a form of time in relationship to him as humans conceptualize it. Circular reasoning isn't applied to form in this case, it applies to how you are reasoning the argument. The external aspects that are being applied to the loop. The loop is valid but your reasoning external to the loop is what is Circular.

It doesn't matter if you disagree with the premises. That has no effect on the validity of an argument. It does have an effect on if the argument is sound, but that's different.

In any case, Eternalism actually DOES imply the non-existence of God. The reason for that is because in an Eternalist cosmology, everything exists and has existed forever. Ergo, no creation. Ergo, no creators.

Eternalism is about the ontological nature of time..the only thing it applies to is TIME. And since you are now claiming that time has existed equally with cosmological bodies. Please provide me one shrewd of physical evidence for the existence of time.

That's not what the word shrewd means, and once again you're shifting the goalpost. The issue of contention was whether the argument was circular. I've demonstrated that it isn't, and now you're shifting the goalpost to proving that the argument is sound.

In any case, you've made it clear that you deny relativity, which is a rabbithole I'd rather not go down when relativity is used in as everyday an object as your GPS.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 6:59:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 6:54:03 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:09:21 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:18:48 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:00:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:49:25 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:17:42 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:54:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
I'm not changing the first premise at all. I'm just explaining to you in different ways, because you don't seem to understand them.
ad hominem, you're incapable of "making me see it your way" and quite frankly you're incapable of any thought that I couldn't understand, if you don't want to you reason to proposition an opening volley, ie. Initiate, you warrant no acknowledgement of an ability to reaso

I'm not sure what type of person would open their argument by accusing me of an ad hominem attack that I didn't make, then make one themselves.

This whole time, the first premise has meant that should it be the case that Eternalism is true, then it would follow that no entity with the quality "created the universe" would exist.
Holding on to Your ambiguity fallacy I see, indirect reference to an implied subject

It's not an ambiguity fallacy unless I conflate two different things. I didn't.

God is, one such entity.
this by definition makes it specifically equivocation, should I explain this again. You cannot say that a word may apply to something internally in the loop, then claim later it means something specific.

Entity doesn't mean specifically God and I never said that it did. What I said was that God fits within the set of entities that have the quality "created the universe". I'm not changing definitions at all.

This is just another rewording of the first premise, not a change in it. The meaning has stayed the same.
Yes, and the new is ambiguous why do I have to explain simple definitions to you?

It's ambiguous on purpose. The only time that ambiguity is fallacious is if you use it to conflate two different ideas. I have not done so. I've merely used the ambiguity as a vessel to define a set of entities with the quality "created the universe".

You keep saying that the consequent of the first premise implicitly implies God as its subject. I've pointed out that even if it did, the argument would STILL be valid. You fail to grasp this.
what you don't grasp, is a valid FORM, does not translate to a sound loop. that's what you fail to realize. And in problematic subject matter mere utterance doesn't make it sound.

I never claimed it was sound, because that wasn't the issue of contention. We were arguing whether or not the argument in and of itself was circular, and it evidently isn't. Now you're shifting the goalpost.
Surr, circular reasoning isn't in regards to form of the argument. Who told you it was? And shifting the goal posts is a deflection typical of circular reasoning. You are claiming that the argument isn't circular, eternalism is about time, period. You are now saying that inquiring to the existence of time is irrelevant to the reasoning. Back your belief that this isn't a circular argument that was posited based on circular reasoning.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 8:13:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 6:59:16 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:54:03 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:09:21 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:18:48 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:00:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:49:25 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:17:42 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:54:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
I'm not changing the first premise at all. I'm just explaining to you in different ways, because you don't seem to understand them.
ad hominem, you're incapable of "making me see it your way" and quite frankly you're incapable of any thought that I couldn't understand, if you don't want to you reason to proposition an opening volley, ie. Initiate, you warrant no acknowledgement of an ability to reaso

I'm not sure what type of person would open their argument by accusing me of an ad hominem attack that I didn't make, then make one themselves.

This whole time, the first premise has meant that should it be the case that Eternalism is true, then it would follow that no entity with the quality "created the universe" would exist.
Holding on to Your ambiguity fallacy I see, indirect reference to an implied subject

It's not an ambiguity fallacy unless I conflate two different things. I didn't.

God is, one such entity.
this by definition makes it specifically equivocation, should I explain this again. You cannot say that a word may apply to something internally in the loop, then claim later it means something specific.

Entity doesn't mean specifically God and I never said that it did. What I said was that God fits within the set of entities that have the quality "created the universe". I'm not changing definitions at all.

This is just another rewording of the first premise, not a change in it. The meaning has stayed the same.
Yes, and the new is ambiguous why do I have to explain simple definitions to you?

It's ambiguous on purpose. The only time that ambiguity is fallacious is if you use it to conflate two different ideas. I have not done so. I've merely used the ambiguity as a vessel to define a set of entities with the quality "created the universe".

You keep saying that the consequent of the first premise implicitly implies God as its subject. I've pointed out that even if it did, the argument would STILL be valid. You fail to grasp this.
what you don't grasp, is a valid FORM, does not translate to a sound loop. that's what you fail to realize. And in problematic subject matter mere utterance doesn't make it sound.

I never claimed it was sound, because that wasn't the issue of contention. We were arguing whether or not the argument in and of itself was circular, and it evidently isn't. Now you're shifting the goalpost.
Surr, circular reasoning isn't in regards to form of the argument. Who told you it was?

The definition of circular reasoning did.

And shifting the goal posts is a deflection typical of circular reasoning.

Okay, you've just accused yourself of circular reasoning.

You are claiming that the argument isn't circular, eternalism is about time, period. You are now saying that inquiring to the existence of time is irrelevant to the reasoning. Back your belief that this isn't a circular argument that was posited based on circular reasoning.

Okay, I will. It's premises are not the same as its conclusion. Therefore it isn't circular.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:36:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 8:13:24 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:59:16 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:54:03 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:09:21 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:18:48 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:00:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:49:25 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:17:42 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:54:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
I'm not changing the first premise at all. I'm just explaining to you in different ways, because you don't seem to understand them.
ad hominem, you're incapable of "making me see it your way" and quite frankly you're incapable of any thought that I couldn't understand, if you don't want to you reason to proposition an opening volley, ie. Initiate, you warrant no acknowledgement of an ability to reaso

I'm not sure what type of person would open their argument by accusing me of an ad hominem attack that I didn't make, then make one themselves.

This whole time, the first premise has meant that should it be the case that Eternalism is true, then it would follow that no entity with the quality "created the universe" would exist.
Holding on to Your ambiguity fallacy I see, indirect reference to an implied subject

It's not an ambiguity fallacy unless I conflate two different things. I didn't.

God is, one such entity.
this by definition makes it specifically equivocation, should I explain this again. You cannot say that a word may apply to something internally in the loop, then claim later it means something specific.

Entity doesn't mean specifically God and I never said that it did. What I said was that God fits within the set of entities that have the quality "created the universe". I'm not changing definitions at all.

This is just another rewording of the first premise, not a change in it. The meaning has stayed the same.
Yes, and the new is ambiguous why do I have to explain simple definitions to you?

It's ambiguous on purpose. The only time that ambiguity is fallacious is if you use it to conflate two different ideas. I have not done so. I've merely used the ambiguity as a vessel to define a set of entities with the quality "created the universe".

You keep saying that the consequent of the first premise implicitly implies God as its subject. I've pointed out that even if it did, the argument would STILL be valid. You fail to grasp this.
what you don't grasp, is a valid FORM, does not translate to a sound loop. that's what you fail to realize. And in problematic subject matter mere utterance doesn't make it sound.

I never claimed it was sound, because that wasn't the issue of contention. We were arguing whether or not the argument in and of itself was circular, and it evidently isn't. Now you're shifting the goalpost.
Surr, circular reasoning isn't in regards to form of the argument. Who told you it was?

The definition of circular reasoning did.

And shifting the goal posts is a deflection typical of circular reasoning.

Okay, you've just accused yourself of circular reasoning.

You are claiming that the argument isn't circular, eternalism is about time, period. You are now saying that inquiring to the existence of time is irrelevant to the reasoning. Back your belief that this isn't a circular argument that was posited based on circular reasoning.

Okay, I will. It's premises are not the same as its conclusion. Therefore it isn't circular

Definition of circular reasoning is a pragmatic flaw in the reasoning of an argument surr, where the premises are in equal need of the truth. It can also be a representation of form but it applies to content as well. Form can be valid and its still circular reasoning. Look it up bro. You think I'm full of hot air. Its not a formal fallacy.
So its simple, show me the physical evidence for the existence of time and I will show you the physical evidence for the existence of God...C'mon dude, you can't be this blinded by preconceptions.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 11:09:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:36:12 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 8:13:24 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:59:16 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:54:03 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:09:21 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:18:48 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:00:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:49:25 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:17:42 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:54:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
I'm not changing the first premise at all. I'm just explaining to you in different ways, because you don't seem to understand them.
ad hominem, you're incapable of "making me see it your way" and quite frankly you're incapable of any thought that I couldn't understand, if you don't want to you reason to proposition an opening volley, ie. Initiate, you warrant no acknowledgement of an ability to reaso

I'm not sure what type of person would open their argument by accusing me of an ad hominem attack that I didn't make, then make one themselves.

This whole time, the first premise has meant that should it be the case that Eternalism is true, then it would follow that no entity with the quality "created the universe" would exist.
Holding on to Your ambiguity fallacy I see, indirect reference to an implied subject

It's not an ambiguity fallacy unless I conflate two different things. I didn't.

God is, one such entity.
this by definition makes it specifically equivocation, should I explain this again. You cannot say that a word may apply to something internally in the loop, then claim later it means something specific.

Entity doesn't mean specifically God and I never said that it did. What I said was that God fits within the set of entities that have the quality "created the universe". I'm not changing definitions at all.

This is just another rewording of the first premise, not a change in it. The meaning has stayed the same.
Yes, and the new is ambiguous why do I have to explain simple definitions to you?

It's ambiguous on purpose. The only time that ambiguity is fallacious is if you use it to conflate two different ideas. I have not done so. I've merely used the ambiguity as a vessel to define a set of entities with the quality "created the universe".

You keep saying that the consequent of the first premise implicitly implies God as its subject. I've pointed out that even if it did, the argument would STILL be valid. You fail to grasp this.
what you don't grasp, is a valid FORM, does not translate to a sound loop. that's what you fail to realize. And in problematic subject matter mere utterance doesn't make it sound.

I never claimed it was sound, because that wasn't the issue of contention. We were arguing whether or not the argument in and of itself was circular, and it evidently isn't. Now you're shifting the goalpost.
Surr, circular reasoning isn't in regards to form of the argument. Who told you it was?

The definition of circular reasoning did.

And shifting the goal posts is a deflection typical of circular reasoning.

Okay, you've just accused yourself of circular reasoning.

You are claiming that the argument isn't circular, eternalism is about time, period. You are now saying that inquiring to the existence of time is irrelevant to the reasoning. Back your belief that this isn't a circular argument that was posited based on circular reasoning.

Okay, I will. It's premises are not the same as its conclusion. Therefore it isn't circular

Definition of circular reasoning is a pragmatic flaw in the reasoning of an argument surr, where the premises are in equal need of the truth. It can also be a representation of form but it applies to content as well. Form can be valid and its still circular reasoning. Look it up bro. You think I'm full of hot air. Its not a formal fallacy.
So its simple, show me the physical evidence for the existence of time and I will show you the physical evidence for the existence of God...C'mon dude, you can't be this blinded by preconceptions.

Look up circular reasoning? Fine, here's the definition:

"A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition" - http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Here's another:

"Circular reasoning occurs when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with." - http://www.iep.utm.edu...

I couldn't find a single source that says circular reasoning is "a pragmatic flaw in the reasoning of an argument". Seriously, that definition is so vague it could be anything from an ad hoc to an ad hominem to affirming the consequent. Who's making an ambiguity fallacy now?

And again, you're shifting the goalpost. If you want to debate Eternalism in a different thread, that's fine. The topic of contention here is whether or not the argument is circular. Now that I've proven it isn't, you're shifting the goalpost.

I mean seriously. Even Benshapiro, who's made it clear that they don't think this is a sound argument AND disagrees with its conclusion, has admitted that it's quite obvious the argument is not circular.

You're letting your own preconceptions get in the way of recognizing that you're using the wrong words to try and rebuke this argument.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 3:57:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 11:09:00 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:36:12 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 8:13:24 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:59:16 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:54:03 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:09:21 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:18:48 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:00:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:49:25 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:17:42 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:54:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
I'm not changing the first premise at all. I'm just explaining to you in different ways, because you don't seem to understand them.
ad hominem, you're incapable of "making me see it your way" and quite frankly you're incapable of any thought that I couldn't understand, if you don't want to you reason to proposition an opening volley, ie. Initiate, you warrant no acknowledgement of an ability to reaso

I'm not sure what type of person would open their argument by accusing me of an ad hominem attack that I didn't make, then make one themselves.

This whole time, the first premise has meant that should it be the case that Eternalism is true, then it would follow that no entity with the quality "created the universe" would exist.
Holding on to Your ambiguity fallacy I see, indirect reference to an implied subject

It's not an ambiguity fallacy unless I conflate two different things. I didn't.

God is, one such entity.
this by definition makes it specifically equivocation, should I explain this again. You cannot say that a word may apply to something internally in the loop, then claim later it means something specific.

Entity doesn't mean specifically God and I never said that it did. What I said was that God fits within the set of entities that have the quality "created the universe". I'm not changing definitions at all.

This is just another rewording of the first premise, not a change in it. The meaning has stayed the same.
Yes, and the new is ambiguous why do I have to explain simple definitions to you?

It's ambiguous on purpose. The only time that ambiguity is fallacious is if you use it to conflate two different ideas. I have not done so. I've merely used the ambiguity as a vessel to define a set of entities with the quality "created the universe".

You keep saying that the consequent of the first premise implicitly implies God as its subject. I've pointed out that even if it did, the argument would STILL be valid. You fail to grasp this.
what you don't grasp, is a valid FORM, does not translate to a sound loop. that's what you fail to realize. And in problematic subject matter mere utterance doesn't make it sound.

I never claimed it was sound, because that wasn't the issue of contention. We were arguing whether or not the argument in and of itself was circular, and it evidently isn't. Now you're shifting the goalpost.
Surr, circular reasoning isn't in regards to form of the argument. Who told you it was?

The definition of circular reasoning did.

And shifting the goal posts is a deflection typical of circular reasoning.

Okay, you've just accused yourself of circular reasoning.

You are claiming that the argument isn't circular, eternalism is about time, period. You are now saying that inquiring to the existence of time is irrelevant to the reasoning. Back your belief that this isn't a circular argument that was posited based on circular reasoning.

Okay, I will. It's premises are not the same as its conclusion. Therefore it isn't circular

Definition of circular reasoning is a pragmatic flaw in the reasoning of an argument surr, where the premises are in equal need of the truth. It can also be a representation of form but it applies to content as well. Form can be valid and its still circular reasoning. Look it up bro. You think I'm full of hot air. Its not a formal fallacy.
So its simple, show me the physical evidence for the existence of time and I will show you the physical evidence for the existence of God...C'mon dude, you can't be this blinded by preconceptions.

Look up circular reasoning? Fine, here's the definition:

"A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition" - http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
that's the subset begging the question,
Here's another:

"Circular reasoning occurs when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with." - http://www.iep.utm.edu...

I couldn't find a single source that says circular reasoning is "a pragmatic flaw in the reasoning of an argument". Seriously, that definition is so vague it could be anything from an ad hoc to an ad hominem to affirming the consequent. Who's making an ambiguity fallacy now?

And again, you're shifting the goalpost. If you want to debate Eternalism in a different thread, that's fine. The topic of contention here is whether or not the argument is circular. Now that I've proven it isn't, you're shifting the goalpost.

I mean seriously. Even Benshapiro, who's made it clear that they don't think this is a sound argument AND disagrees with its conclusion, has admitted that it's quite obvious the argument is not circular.

You're letting your own preconceptions get in the way of recognizing that you're using the wrong words to try and rebuke this argument.
That's limited definition sure, here is s more expanded
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[2] Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Checked all references, credible sources
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 4:39:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 11:09:00 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:36:12 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 8:13:24 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:59:16 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 6:54:03 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:09:21 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:18:48 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/12/2015 5:00:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:49:25 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:17:42 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:54:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:11:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/8/2015 6:08:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:42:25 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
I'm not changing the first premise at all. I'm just explaining to you in different ways, because you don't seem to understand them.
ad hominem, you're incapable of "making me see it your way" and quite frankly you're incapable of any thought that I couldn't understand, if you don't want to you reason to proposition an opening volley, ie. Initiate, you warrant no acknowledgement of an ability to reaso

I'm not sure what type of person would open their argument by accusing me of an ad hominem attack that I didn't make, then make one themselves.

This whole time, the first premise has meant that should it be the case that Eternalism is true, then it would follow that no entity with the quality "created the universe" would exist.
Holding on to Your ambiguity fallacy I see, indirect reference to an implied subject

It's not an ambiguity fallacy unless I conflate two different things. I didn't.

God is, one such entity.
this by definition makes it specifically equivocation, should I explain this again. You cannot say that a word may apply to something internally in the loop, then claim later it means something specific.

Entity doesn't mean specifically God and I never said that it did. What I said was that God fits within the set of entities that have the quality "created the universe". I'm not changing definitions at all.

This is just another rewording of the first premise, not a change in it. The meaning has stayed the same.
Yes, and the new is ambiguous why do I have to explain simple definitions to you?

It's ambiguous on purpose. The only time that ambiguity is fallacious is if you use it to conflate two different ideas. I have not done so. I've merely used the ambiguity as a vessel to define a set of entities with the quality "created the universe".

You keep saying that the consequent of the first premise implicitly implies God as its subject. I've pointed out that even if it did, the argument would STILL be valid. You fail to grasp this.
what you don't grasp, is a valid FORM, does not translate to a sound loop. that's what you fail to realize. And in problematic subject matter mere utterance doesn't make it sound.

I never claimed it was sound, because that wasn't the issue of contention. We were arguing whether or not the argument in and of itself was circular, and it evidently isn't. Now you're shifting the goalpost.
Surr, circular reasoning isn't in regards to form of the argument. Who told you it was?

The definition of circular reasoning did.

And shifting the goal posts is a deflection typical of circular reasoning.

Okay, you've just accused yourself of circular reasoning.

You are claiming that the argument isn't circular, eternalism is about time, period. You are now saying that inquiring to the existence of time is irrelevant to the reasoning. Back your belief that this isn't a circular argument that was posited based on circular reasoning.

Okay, I will. It's premises are not the same as its conclusion. Therefore it isn't circular

Definition of circular reasoning is a pragmatic flaw in the reasoning of an argument surr, where the premises are in equal need of the truth. It can also be a representation of form but it applies to content as well. Form can be valid and its still circular reasoning. Look it up bro. You think I'm full of hot air. Its not a formal fallacy.
So its simple, show me the physical evidence for the existence of time and I will show you the physical evidence for the existence of God...C'mon dude, you can't be this blinded by preconceptions.

Look up circular reasoning? Fine, here's the definition:

"A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition" - http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Here's another:

"Circular reasoning occurs when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with." - http://www.iep.utm.edu...
this was a fantastic link, but did you read deeper explanation page about infinitism?
I couldn't find a single source that says circular reasoning is "a pragmatic flaw in the reasoning of an argument". Seriously, that definition is so vague it could be anything from an ad hoc to an ad hominem to affirming the consequent. Who's making an ambiguity fallacy now?

And again, you're shifting the goalpost. If you want to debate Eternalism in a different thread, that's fine. The topic of contention here is whether or not the argument is circular. Now that I've proven it isn't, you're shifting the goalpost.

I mean seriously. Even Benshapiro, who's made it clear that they don't think this is a sound argument AND disagrees with its conclusion, has admitted that it's quite obvious the argument is not circular.

You're letting your own preconceptions get in the way of recognizing that you're using the wrong words to try and rebuke this argument.