Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

The Kalam Homosexual Argument

MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2013 1:54:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hello!

Allow me to lay out an argument for you:

P1: All mammals exhibit homosexual behaviour.
P2: William Lane Craig is a mammal.
C: Therefore, William Lane Craig exhibits homosexual behaviour.


Prof. Krauss used this in an epic debate with WLC to try and demonstrate the problem with syllogisms; I think it's hilarious.

Clearly, the problem with this is that the first use of the word mammal refers to species of mammal, whereas the second is referring to something within that species - but it does show quite well how things can be misleading.

Hope you enjoyed it!

J
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2013 3:53:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/9/2013 1:54:10 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hello!

Allow me to lay out an argument for you:

P1: All mammals exhibit homosexual behaviour.
P2: William Lane Craig is a mammal.
C: Therefore, William Lane Craig exhibits homosexual behaviour.


Prof. Krauss used this in an epic debate with WLC to try and demonstrate the problem with syllogisms; I think it's hilarious.

Clearly, the problem with this is that the first use of the word mammal refers to species of mammal, whereas the second is referring to something within that species - but it does show quite well how things can be misleading.

Hope you enjoyed it!

J

God created homosexuality as part of the world delusion that His created "beings" experience life in. This activity will not be present in the next age after this world is destroyed soon.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 4:25:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Lool. Lawrence is always funny when he attempts to do or criticize philosophy, he actually thought this is a valid argument?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 4:36:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 4:25:50 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Lool. Lawrence is always funny when he attempts to do or criticize philosophy, he actually thought this is a valid argument?

*very slow clap*

Not only did you miss the point, but the point was even explained in the OP.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 6:06:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 4:36:46 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/10/2013 4:25:50 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Lool. Lawrence is always funny when he attempts to do or criticize philosophy, he actually thought this is a valid argument?

*very slow clap*

Not only did you miss the point, but the point was even explained in the OP.

Oh no! My interruption of the point is different than yours! How can this logically be?
Can someone construct a syllogism for this?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 6:11:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 6:06:05 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Oh no! My interruption of the point is different than yours! How can this logically be?
Can someone construct a syllogism for this?

You are claiming the complete opposite of what was clearly specified. This means that your interpretation of the point is wrong. It was explicitly said that Krauss - who, by the way, I think is a bit of an arse - used it to prove the point that such reasoning IS NOT VALID. And you come along asking incredulously whether he thought it was a valid argument. When it was clearly stated that he was using it as an example of why such reasoning is not valid.

That isn't a question of interpretation, that is you being a spastic with the reading comprehension of an infant. Marmot.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 6:37:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 6:11:42 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/10/2013 6:06:05 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Oh no! My interruption of the point is different than yours! How can this logically be?
Can someone construct a syllogism for this?

You are claiming the complete opposite of what was clearly specified. This means that your interpretation of the point is wrong. It was explicitly said that Krauss - who, by the way, I think is a bit of an arse - used it to prove the point that such reasoning IS NOT VALID. And you come along asking incredulously whether he thought it was a valid argument. When it was clearly stated that he was using it as an example of why such reasoning is not valid.

That isn't a question of interpretation, that is you being a spastic with the reading comprehension of an infant. Marmot.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and you never failed to disappoint as usual.

This is so damn funny. Especially that you repeated one of the more obvious fallacies in the argument.
Clearly, the problem with this is that the first use of the word reasoning refers to fallacious arguments, whereas the second is referring to the logical format of the argument.

People suffering from the anti-philosophy complex are so amusing.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 6:57:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/9/2013 1:54:10 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hello!

Allow me to lay out an argument for you:

P1: All mammals exhibit homosexual behaviour.
P2: William Lane Craig is a mammal.
C: Therefore, William Lane Craig exhibits homosexual behaviour.


Prof. Krauss used this in an epic debate with WLC to try and demonstrate the problem with syllogisms; I think it's hilarious.

Clearly, the problem with this is that the first use of the word mammal refers to species of mammal, whereas the second is referring to something within that species - but it does show quite well how things can be misleading.

Hope you enjoyed it!

J

Despite the argument being illogical, the conclusion is probably true.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 6:59:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 6:37:25 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and you never failed to disappoint as usual.

No, you just said something spectacularly stupid. As usual.

This is so damn funny. Especially that you repeated one of the more obvious fallacies in the argument.

Not at all. If you weren't so f*cking dumb - worked out how to read yet, by the way? It is a great help - then you'd be glowing with shame right now.

Clearly, the problem with this is that the first use of the word reasoning refers to fallacious arguments, whereas the second is referring to the logical format of the argument.

No, not 'clearly' at all. He is using an analogous argument to show a particular problem with the reasoning that makes the arguments fallacious. That is the logical format of the argument. There is no other meaning to the 'reasoning' I used. I realise that reading comprehension isn't something you have any of or an interest in obtaining, so it is understandable that you didn't understand that. The reason the arguments are fallacious is because they are structurally flawed. It's the same thing. You. Retard.

People suffering from the anti-philosophy complex are so amusing.

No, you aren't. You're just yet another loud-mouthed div on the internet who can't read very well.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 8:25:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/9/2013 1:54:10 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hello!

Allow me to lay out an argument for you:

P1: All mammals exhibit homosexual behaviour.
P2: William Lane Craig is a mammal.
C: Therefore, William Lane Craig exhibits homosexual behaviour.


Prof. Krauss used this in an epic debate with WLC to try and demonstrate the problem with syllogisms; I think it's hilarious.

Clearly, the problem with this is that the first use of the word mammal refers to species of mammal, whereas the second is referring to something within that species - but it does show quite well how things can be misleading.

Hope you enjoyed it!

J

I agree that it's funny, but I'm not sure what Krauss' overall point is with regard to syllogisms. They can obviously be misused, misleading, or just plain illogical, but they can also be useful as a clear, concise way of presenting a valid argument in just a few words. Most people would have no trouble identifying his example as one that is fallacious, but his example has no bearing on the validity of other syllogisms.

I didn't see the debate. Was Krauss trying to argue that a syllogism can be logically consistent, yet still false??
bulproof
Posts: 25,272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 9:35:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 8:25:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/9/2013 1:54:10 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hello!

Allow me to lay out an argument for you:

P1: All mammals exhibit homosexual behaviour.
P2: William Lane Craig is a mammal.
C: Therefore, William Lane Craig exhibits homosexual behaviour.


Prof. Krauss used this in an epic debate with WLC to try and demonstrate the problem with syllogisms; I think it's hilarious.

Clearly, the problem with this is that the first use of the word mammal refers to species of mammal, whereas the second is referring to something within that species - but it does show quite well how things can be misleading.

Hope you enjoyed it!

J

I agree that it's funny, but I'm not sure what Krauss' overall point is with regard to syllogisms. They can obviously be misused, misleading, or just plain illogical, but they can also be useful as a clear, concise way of presenting a valid argument in just a few words. Most people would have no trouble identifying his example as one that is fallacious, but his example has no bearing on the validity of other syllogisms.

I didn't see the debate. Was Krauss trying to argue that a syllogism can be logically consistent, yet still false??

What I got from it was that he wanted to break legs. Am I wrong?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 9:39:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 9:35:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
What I got from it was that he wanted to break legs. Am I wrong?

I don't see how you could be. I mean, that would be the height of reasonableness, would it not?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 10:37:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/9/2013 1:54:10 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hello!

Allow me to lay out an argument for you:

P1: All mammals exhibit homosexual behaviour.
P2: William Lane Craig is a mammal.
C: Therefore, William Lane Craig exhibits homosexual behaviour.


Prof. Krauss used this in an epic debate with WLC to try and demonstrate the problem with syllogisms; I think it's hilarious.

Clearly, the problem with this is that the first use of the word mammal refers to species of mammal, whereas the second is referring to something within that species - but it does show quite well how things can be misleading.

Hope you enjoyed it!

J

Well if the premises are true, the conclusion follows from logical necessity.

Craig either as to deny premise 1) or agree with the conclusion.

1) All men are liars
2) William Craig is a man
C1) Therefore William Craig is a liar

1) We should not believe liars
2) William Craig is a liar (from C1)
C2) Therefore we should not believe William Craig

If the premises are true...................................
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 10:39:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
These are DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS..................................MUHAHAHAHAHA
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 8:04:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 9:39:00 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/10/2013 9:35:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
What I got from it was that he wanted to break legs. Am I wrong?

I don't see how you could be. I mean, that would be the height of reasonableness, would it not?

Hey, if you're going to put your legs on other people's private property, where they aren't welcome, then your legs are fair game. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
bulproof
Posts: 25,272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 8:25:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 8:04:31 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/10/2013 9:39:00 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/10/2013 9:35:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
What I got from it was that he wanted to break legs. Am I wrong?

I don't see how you could be. I mean, that would be the height of reasonableness, would it not?

Hey, if you're going to put your legs on other people's private property, where they aren't welcome, then your legs are fair game. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Well of course it would to a bronze age barbarian such as you, oh wait, it's just the stone age illiterates that you worship and whisper your "morality" to you isn't it?

Sorry to get you confused with humans, you are after all a self proclaimed proclaimer of christian hatred.

A very recent introduction to the pantheon of alleged christian factions.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 9:29:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 8:04:31 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Hey, if you're going to put your legs on other people's private property, where they aren't welcome, then your legs are fair game. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Yes, but that's because you're a total scumbag. It is also partly why you are, too.
YYW
Posts: 36,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/9/2013 1:54:10 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hello!

Allow me to lay out an argument for you:

P1: All mammals exhibit homosexual behaviour.
P2: William Lane Craig is a mammal.
C: Therefore, William Lane Craig exhibits homosexual behaviour.


Prof. Krauss used this in an epic debate with WLC to try and demonstrate the problem with syllogisms; I think it's hilarious.

Clearly, the problem with this is that the first use of the word mammal refers to species of mammal, whereas the second is referring to something within that species - but it does show quite well how things can be misleading.

Hope you enjoyed it!

J

rofl
Tsar of DDO
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 10:43:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 8:25:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/13/2013 8:04:31 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/10/2013 9:39:00 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/10/2013 9:35:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
What I got from it was that he wanted to break legs. Am I wrong?

I don't see how you could be. I mean, that would be the height of reasonableness, would it not?

Hey, if you're going to put your legs on other people's private property, where they aren't welcome, then your legs are fair game. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Well of course it would to a bronze age barbarian such as you, oh wait, it's just the stone age illiterates that you worship and whisper your "morality" to you isn't it?

Sorry to get you confused with humans, you are after all a self proclaimed proclaimer of christian hatred.

A very recent introduction to the pantheon of alleged christian factions.

http://quotesmykidslike.files.wordpress.com...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 10:46:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 9:29:22 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/13/2013 8:04:31 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Hey, if you're going to put your legs on other people's private property, where they aren't welcome, then your legs are fair game. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Yes, but that's because you're a total scumbag. It is also partly why you are, too.

Sticks and stones may break your bones...especially leg bones.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 12:39:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 10:46:03 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Sticks and stones may break your bones...especially leg bones.

It's okay, we're already aware of how pathetic and unpleasant you are. No need for yet another demonstration.