Hitchens was wildly overrated as a thinker/debater

[sayak83]

Your claim of a repetition fallacy is demonstrably false.

You never provided valid counter arguments to my arguments in any case where I repeated an argument. My conclusions still stand as valid because you never tried to refute it. You just ignored it. Therefore, if I have repeated anything, it is only so that you will address what I argued instead of committing the fallacy of "ignoring the issue".

In order for something to qualify as a fallacy of repetition, someone must ignore valid counter arguments and simply repeat their refuted argument - something which you are the one one to have done between the two of us.
You cannot quote any instance of me doing such a thing.



Your response demonstrates you don't even understand the nature of the infinite regress issue much less how to form a counter argument against it.
If you did understand it, you wouldn't think you could rebut the issue by saying "we don't need to worry how we got here because there was never a beginning".

I can try explaining this for you again, but more simply:
1. Our current state depends on a previous state to bring us to this point.
2. Each previous state depends on another state preceding it.
3. If our current state existing depends on traveling through all the previous states to get here, and the oldest state is an infinite amount of changes ago, then it would take an infinity to reach our current state.
4. We would never reach our current state because it is impossible to go through an infinite a state changes to reach a given state. As infinity, by definition, never ends.

The really bizarre thing here is you think that saying "we don't have a beginning" solves the problem.

Not having a beginning makes the problem worse for you - because there's literally no end point to the infinite past so it's literally impossible to reach the present.

That's why you only solve the problem of an impossible infinite regress by having a beginning.

Your response fails to understand the nature of the problem and falls under the fallacy of "not even wrong". Meaning, not only is it not a right answer, it's not even a wrong answer, because it fails to understand the nature of the issue at stake and what would constitute a valid true of false answer to the question.




Your definition of entropy doesn't disprove anything I argued. As such, it is a fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. You have demonstrated no relevance.

Your definition is also false by way of what it omits. Entropy is when energy based order/structure breaks down until everything reaches equilibrium.




There are many problems with your claim.

1. You don't solve the infinite regress problem of our current state depending on an infinity of prior states, which would make the current state impossible to reach.

2. You have given no actual reasons for why you think a bounce cosmology can avoid entropy. Saying "because planck scale" isn't a reason. It's merely an assertion. So your answer constitutes a fallacy of argument by assertion because you are merely asserting that some magic happens with bounce cosmology to make it violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics without giving any attempt at explaining how or why you think that would be justified.



The hawking-hartle model has a beginning singularity point - so it doesn't solve anything for you.
Instead of having a sharp point singularity it's simply a curved model like lines of longitude meeting at a point on the south pole.

The idea that the singularity disappears is based on converting the equation to use imaginary numbers to make time disappear but if you leave the equation in that state then it no longer reflects reality so it's not useful for describing anything about our reality.
When you convert it back to real numbers, which is necessary for the equation to mean anything to reality, the singularity reappears.

This is a perfect example of why your previous claim was false that just because something is mathematically valid that it must reflect reality.

3) is false as there is no oldest state. In an infinite sequence, there is No Oldest State. It does not exist.
Your argument is therefore invalid.
Secondly time is defined through change of states. There is nothing that is moving through time at all. Each state is an independent existence whose properties are correlated with states in its localty which we call 'past' states. That is all that is. There is no classical independent entity called TIME in which change occurs. That much is quite clear. Hence these classical arguments about movement through time are all wrong.

Your definition of entropy is scientific nonsense. I recommend a book on Statistical Thermodynamics to understand what entropy is in the first place. To repeat, the concept of entropy is a statistical property that exists only when a system can be said to have large scale macroscopic properties that supervene on microscopic structures. It's not a fundamental property like charge/mass etc. and such cannot exist in a system that is entirely microscopic in nature, as is expected from Planck level physics. So every instance of a contraction space-time into realms where Planck level scales become important, the concept of entropy itself will disappear.
Statistical Entropy

 

[Subduction Zone]

Watch his debate with William Lane Craig.

You’ll notice that throughout the entire debate he really doesn't even attempt to present a real logical argument of his own that God doesn’t exist. He also never even tries to dispute Craig’s logical arguments for why God does exist.

So what does Hitchens fill all his time doing? Trying to slander God’s character by calling God’s behavior bad or pointing to bad things and blaming God for it. It’s the logical fallacy equivalent of an ad hominem. That makes up basically the entirety of Hitchens time. Which logically has nothing to do with disproving God’s existence even if you assumed the slander were true.

I think the only reason he had gotten away with that for so long and gained admiration for it is because the eloquent manner in which he speaks makes him sound far smarter and more poignant than what the logical substance of his argument actually is.

This exposes the root of what I have noticed with most militant atheists - their objection to God is not based on logic, but anger. Anger at God. They don’t want to believe He is real, not because the evidence is in their favor but because they don’t like Him or don’t like the implications of His reality being true.

Hitchens displays unbridled anger and resentment at God, but puts forth no logical arguments or counter arguments against the reality of His existence.

William Lane Craig is a pretty low bar. His arguments have been thoroughly roasted. It appears that Hitchens realized that no argument was needed against such poor reasoning.

 

[Rise]

3) is false as there is no oldest state. In an infinite sequence, there is No Oldest State. It does not exist.

Your argument is therefore invalid.

You have completely failed to grasp the issue.

There are two fatal problems with what you are saying:

1. If you admit that the present state is casually linked in a chain of states/events preceding it then you are required to advance from any prior state up to the present in order for the present state to exist.
If these prior states go back to infinity then it is impossible for you to ever traverse through them all in order to arrive the present state.
You will spend an infinity stuck in prior states never arrive at the current state.

2. Your claim that there doesn't have to be a beginning is completely incoherent. Any casually linked chain of states/events cannot, by definition, have an infinite regress of causes because the casual system requires something to first set the chain of sequences in motion.


This is why you completely failed to understand that the only form of universe that could be eternal is one that never changed.

But you aren't advocating for a universe that never changes.

Which makes you subject to the impossibility of having an infinite regress of past states and/or causes.

Secondly time is defined through change of states. There is nothing that is moving through time at all. Each state is an independent existence whose properties are correlated with states in its localty which we call 'past' states. That is all that is. There is no classical independent entity called TIME in which change occurs. That much is quite clear. Hence these classical arguments about movement through time are all wrong.

You are committing the logical fallacy of argument by repetition.
You already tried saying that earlier and I refuted it. You never offered a counter argument but are merely repeating your original refuted argument as though it hasn't already been refuted.

I will repeat for you what I already said to refute your claim:

Time doesn't need to be a substance we physically move through in order for my arguments to stand. Your definition of time is a strawman that has no relevance to anything I argued.

My arguments are exactly the same even if you are just talking about a series of sequential state changes.

That's why I have long since change the verbage I use when communicating these ideas to you: to demonstrate it's exactly the same concept when you talk about sequential state changes or casual chains.

Your definition of entropy is scientific nonsense. I recommend a book on Statistical Thermodynamics to understand what entropy is in the first place.

…

Statistical Entropy

Your own link’s definition of entropy is consistent with the definition I gave.
I said:” Entropy is when energy based order/structure breaks down until everything reaches equilibrium.”

You did not understand the significance of what I said to understand why it is consistent with the link you posted.

Entropy:
· noun For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
· noun A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
· noun A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
· noun The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
· noun Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.
entropy - definition and meaning

It is true to say the primary definition of entropy is energy loss.
But the consequence of energy loss is in reality is to see a dissolution of ordered systems and information which results in a state of disorder. Which is why the term is synonymous with such things happening.

Which is why I specified in my definition that entropy is when the order and structure caused by energy in a system starts to break down when energy leaves the system to reach equilibrium with everything else.


Your definition was flawed because it doesn’t even fit your link. You left out of your original definition the most critical feature of entropy. The feature which undermines your claims:

“Qualitatively, entropy is simply a measure how much the energy of atoms and molecules become more spread out”

Entropy is a thermodynamic quantity that is generally used to describe the course of a process,

By not talking about entropy as a fundamental issue of energy in a system, but merely talking about it as a statistical probability, you are avoiding the most serious problem with cyclical models: Where's the energy to power the cycling forever? If you can't power it forever then it can't be past eternal. You're destined to have successively smaller bounces until it eventually ceases.

To repeat, the concept of entropy is a statistical property that exists only when a system can be said to have large scale macroscopic properties that supervene on microscopic structures. It's not a fundamental property like charge/mass etc. and such cannot exist in a system that is entirely microscopic in nature, as is expected from Planck level physics. So every instance of a contraction space-time into realms where Planck level scales become important, the concept of entropy itself will disappear.

You are committing the fallacy of “avoiding the issue”. You don’t get away from the infinite regress problem with the model you are advocating. It’s still a casually linked change based system that cannot be past eternal without it being impossible to arrive at the present state.

We don’t even need to get into the major problems with wildly speculative bounce models and why they aren’t viable (lack of mechanisms to explain the collapse behavior, inability to explain where the necessary physics fine tuning would come from to make the system cycle, an eventual breakdown of the system into equilibrium, etc) because they don’t solve your problem of avoiding the past eternity problem even if they were true.

Even if we were to grant you the wild speculative fantasy of a bounce model that had some unknown magic forces to cycle the system forever without regards to entropy, and just granted you the a priori fine tuning necessary to run the system, without any prior explanation for where this system came from, you still run headfirst into the wall of logical impossibility when you try to claim this system could be past eternal.

If this system can't get around the infinite regress problem then it doesn't matter if you could explain away all those physics problems with the model. It would be a logical impossibility.

Therefore, the system wold have to have a beginning point.

And any cosmological system that has a beginning point falls under the kalaam cosmological argument.

 

[Rise]

William Lane Craig is a pretty low bar. His arguments have been thoroughly roasted.

You would not be capable of pulling out a single argument Craig made and giving any specific reason why it is supposedly false.

If what you claim were true, it should be easy for you to disprove any of the first thee arguments Craig made (The cosmological, teleological, and moral).

But you can't do it.

And neither could Hitchens.

Because your claim isn't true.

It appears that Hitchens realized that no argument was needed against such poor reasoning.

Is that what you're telling yourself?

You surely don't expect anyone else to buy that excuse, do you?

"Your argument is so bad I dont need to refute it".
On a public debate stage that will be seen by millions?
You'd have to be the stupidest debater in existence to think that was a good strategy. To not refute the core argument your opponent is making even though it's supposedly so easy to.

So in your opinion is hitchens just the most incompetent, bumbling, and inept debater in atheist history, because he supposedly missed a golden opportunity to hit one out of the park?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You would not be capable of pulling out a single argument Craig made and giving any specific reason why it is supposedly false.

If what you claim were true, it should be easy for you to disprove any of the first thee arguments Craig made (The cosmological, teleological, and moral).

But you can't do it.

And neither could Hitchens.

Because your claim isn't true.



Is that what you're telling yourself?

You surely don't expect anyone else to buy that excuse, do you?

"Your argument is so bad I dont need to refute it".
On a public debate stage that will be seen by millions?
You'd have to be the stupidest debater in existence to think that was a good strategy. To not refute the core argument your opponent is making even though it's supposedly so easy to.

So in your opinion is hitchens just the most incompetent, bumbling, and inept debater in atheist history, because he supposedly missed a golden opportunity to hit one out of the park?

You are of course wrong. That is because you do not appear to understand how WLC's Kalam Cosmological argument is based upon pseudoscience. Did you watch the debate where Sean Carroll handed him his backside?

Hitchens made it obvious that Craig's arguments were nonsensical garbage. But just for fun let's discuss Craig's arguments and how they fail.

 

[Rise]

You are of course wrong.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion .

I said you were incapable of pulling out any argument Craig made and showing why it was supposedly wrong.
Because you committed another fallacy of argument by assertion in your last post when you made claims about Crag's arguments being refuted while giving no arguments or evidence to prove that claim.

You don't prove that you have reasons for your claim by simply claiming I am wrong without giving any reasons or evidence to support your claim.

Something is not proven to be true just because you assert it is so.

That is because you do not appear to understand how WLC's Kalam Cosmological argument is based upon pseudoscience. Did you watch the debate where Sean Carroll handed him his backside?

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot quote a single argument Craig made and give any specific reasons Carroll supposedly refuted or disproved it.

You cannot give any evidence of reasons to support your claim that anything Craig argued is "pseudoscience".

If what you claimed were true, it should be extremely easy for you to demonstrate why Craig's argument was supposedly refuted.

But you can't do it because it never actually happened.

Hitchens made it obvious that Craig's arguments were nonsensical garbage.

You are contradicting yourself. As well as committing more fallacies of argument by assertion.

You just got done admitting hitchens ignored Craig's arguments and tried to claim it was because they were so weak hitchens didn't want to bother. A patently absurd claim on it's face in a public debate setting but it's what you're going with.

But now you contradict that claim by claiming hitchens made it "obvious" that Craigs arguments were "nonsense".

So which is it? Did hitchens ignore Craig's arguments or refute them?

You cannot quote a single thing hitchens said that refuted any of Craigs first three arguments (The cosmological, teleological, moral).
It never happened.

But just for fun let's discuss Craig's arguments and how they fail.

Great.
Since you are one making the claim, the onus is on you to provide proof of your claim.

You've claimed the following things thus far:
1. Craig's arguments fail.
2. Hitchens showed in the debate why Craig's arguments are "obviously nonsensical garbage"
3. That the kalam cosmological argument is based on pseudoscience.
4. That Carroll defeat Craig in their debate.

The burden of proof is on you as the one making the claims to provide proof of your claims.

If you cannot prove your claims then they are just your opinion, and your opinion can be dismissed as easily as it was formed - your opinion is meaningless with regards to determining what is true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion .

I said you were incapable of pulling out any argument Craig made and showing why it was supposedly wrong.
Because you committed another fallacy of argument by assertion in your last post when you made claims about Crag's arguments being refuted while giving no arguments or evidence to prove that claim.

You don't prove that you have reasons for your claim by simply claiming I am wrong without giving any reasons or evidence to support your claim.

Something is not proven to be true just because you assert it is so.



Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot quote a single argument Craig made and give any specific reasons Carroll supposedly refuted or disproved it.

You cannot give any evidence of reasons to support your claim that anything Craig argued is "pseudoscience".

If what you claimed were true, it should be extremely easy for you to demonstrate why Craig's argument was supposedly refuted.

But you can't do it because it never actually happened.




You are contradicting yourself. As well as committing more fallacies of argument by assertion.

You just got done admitting hitchens ignored Craig's arguments and tried to claim it was because they were so weak hitchens didn't want to bother. A patently absurd claim on it's face in a public debate setting but it's what you're going with.

But now you contradict that claim by claiming hitchens made it "obvious" that Craigs arguments were "nonsense".

So which is it? Did hitchens ignore Craig's arguments or refute them?

You cannot quote a single thing hitchens said that refuted any of Craigs first three arguments (The cosmological, teleological, moral).
It never happened.



Great.
Since you are one making the claim, the onus is on you to provide proof of your claim.

You've claimed the following things thus far:
1. Craig's arguments fail.
2. Hitchens showed in the debate why Craig's arguments are "obviously nonsensical garbage"
3. That the kalam cosmological argument is based on pseudoscience.
4. That Carroll defeat Craig in their debate.

The burden of proof is on you as the one making the claims to provide proof of your claims.

If you cannot prove your claims then they are just your opinion, and your opinion can be dismissed as easily as it was formed - your opinion is meaningless with regards to determining what is true.

Can you debate properly? Quoting out of context is almost always a lie and breaking up a post excessively is usually an attempt to do so. You should have read the short post and responded to it in kind. You forgot that I offered to refute your ignorance and bald assertions.

Would you care to discuss Craig's failed arguments? And please, like most theists you do not appear to understand the concept of a logical fallacy. You need to avoid using such false claims. Only make claims that you can support. Lastly, there is no need to write a book in response. You are just preaching when you do so.

Would you like to try again?

 

[Rise]

Can you debate properly? Quoting out of context is almost always a lie and breaking up a post excessively is usually an attempt to do so.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You did not, and cannot, give a single reason why anything I said misrepesented your statements/arguments when taken out of context.

Therefore, my arguments and conclusions remain standing because you have identified no specific fault with any of them.

You forgot that I offered to refute your ignorance and bald assertions.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot point to anything I have said and give reasons why it would only be just an assertion or ignorance.

I identified four claims you made, which were presented as mere assertions by you, and you have thus far never tried to meet your burden of proof for any of them.

You are the only one between the two of us shown to be committing the fallacy of argument by assertion.

And please, like most theists you do not appear to understand the concept of a logical fallacy. You need to avoid using such false claims.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot prove your claim is true that any fallacy I have called you out on is incorrect in any way.
Merely asserting it doesn't make it true just because you assert it.

If you cannot show why you didn't commit a logical fallacy, then my conclusion stands, and your argument is invalid on the grounds that it was fallacious logic.

The responsibility is then on you to correct your fallacious reasoning if you want your conclusion to be accepted as true.

If you are unwilling to do that then your argument is invalidated and your conclusion cannot stand.

Only make claims that you can support.

This is ironic coming from you because I identified four claims you made about Craig's debates that you have made not even the slightest efforts to support with reasons or evidence.

Your statement also qualified as the fallacy of argument by assertion.
You cannot quote a single thing I have said that lacks reasons to support my claim.

You should have read the short post and responded to it in kind.

...

Lastly, there is no need to write a book in response. You are just preaching when you do so.

The length of a post has no bearing on whether or not what I said is true.
Therefore, your objection is logically invalid.

You cannot find fault with any specific thing I said in my post.

The only thing the disparity in our posts proves is that you manage to pack a high degree of fallacious statements into a small area.

As the saying goes: "The amount of effort it to takes to refute BS is disproportionately high compared with the amount of effort it takes to generate it".

You can generate a lot of fallacious BS in a very short amount of time but refuting your fallacious BS requires more words than it took you to generate it.

Would you care to discuss Craig's failed arguments?

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

I already addressed your statement in the last post. You ignored what I said and just repeated yourself.

I will, therefore, repost what my response to you was:

Great.
Since you are one making the claim, the onus is on you to provide proof of your claim.

You've claimed the following things thus far:
1. Craig's arguments fail.
2. Hitchens showed in the debate why Craig's arguments are "obviously nonsensical garbage"
3. That the kalam cosmological argument is based on pseudoscience.
4. That Carroll defeat Craig in their debate.

The burden of proof is on you as the one making the claims to provide proof of your claims.

If you cannot prove your claims then they are just your opinion, and your opinion can be dismissed as easily as it was formed - your opinion is meaningless with regards to determining what is true.

Would you like to try again?

As I have shown above, you have not successfully identified anything in my post that would need to be done differently.

But you have consistently failed to provide any proof for your assertions.

So the only one here who needs to try redoing their post again is yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You did not, and cannot, give a single reason why anything I said misrepesented your statements/arguments when taken out of context.

Therefore, my arguments and conclusions remain standing because you have identified no specific fault with any of them.



Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot point to anything I have said and give reasons why it would only be just an assertion or ignorance.

I identified four claims you made, which were presented as mere assertions by you, and you have thus far never tried to meet your burden of proof for any of them.

You are the only one between the two of us shown to be committing the fallacy of argument by assertion.



Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot prove your claim is true that any fallacy I have called you out on is incorrect in any way.
Merely asserting it doesn't make it true just because you assert it.

If you cannot show why you didn't commit a logical fallacy, then my conclusion stands, and your argument is invalid on the grounds that it was fallacious logic.

The responsibility is then on you to correct your fallacious reasoning if you want your conclusion to be accepted as true.

If you are unwilling to do that then your argument is invalidated and your conclusion cannot stand.



This is ironic coming from you because I identified four claims you made about Craig's debates that you have made not even the slightest efforts to support with reasons or evidence.

Your statement also qualified as the fallacy of argument by assertion.
You cannot quote a single thing I have said that lacks reasons to support my claim.




The length of a post has no bearing on whether or not what I said is true.
Therefore, your objection is logically invalid.

You cannot find fault with any specific thing I said in my post.

The only thing the disparity in our posts proves is that you manage to pack a high degree of fallacious statements into a small area.

As the saying goes: "The amount of effort it to takes to refute BS is disproportionately high compared with the amount of effort it takes to generate it".

You can generate a lot of fallacious BS in a very short amount of time but refuting your fallacious BS requires more words than it took you to generate it.



Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

I already addressed your statement in the last post. You ignored what I said and just repeated yourself.

I will, therefore, repost what my response to you was:

Great.
Since you are one making the claim, the onus is on you to provide proof of your claim.

You've claimed the following things thus far:
1. Craig's arguments fail.
2. Hitchens showed in the debate why Craig's arguments are "obviously nonsensical garbage"
3. That the kalam cosmological argument is based on pseudoscience.
4. That Carroll defeat Craig in their debate.

The burden of proof is on you as the one making the claims to provide proof of your claims.

If you cannot prove your claims then they are just your opinion, and your opinion can be dismissed as easily as it was formed - your opinion is meaningless with regards to determining what is true.




As I have shown above, you have not successfully identified anything in my post that would need to be done differently.

But you have consistently failed to provide any proof for your assertions.

So the only one here who needs to try redoing their post again is yourself.

Wow! Another long failure, and you still are not debating properly.

You appear to have a difficulty understanding rather basic ideas.

Since you are unable to debate properly and politely perhaps I could answer some questions for you. No improper questions please.

 

[Rise]

Wow! Another long failure, and you still are not debating properly.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot give any reasons or evidence for your claim that anything I have said is not proper debating or a failure in any way.

Your claims are not true just because you assert they are.

You appear to have a difficulty understanding rather basic ideas.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot give any reasons or evidence for your claim that anything I have said demonstrates a lack of understanding for any particular idea.

Your claims are not true just because you assert they are.

...perhaps I could answer some questions for you.
No improper questions please.

Logical fallacy, avoiding the issue.

I already identified four claims you made about Craig's debates and why you didn't provide any proof for your claims.

You have ignored that twice in a row because you aren't capable of giving proof for your claims.


Great.
Since you are one making the claim, the onus is on you to provide proof of your claim.

You've claimed the following things thus far:
1. Craig's arguments fail.
2. Hitchens showed in the debate why Craig's arguments are "obviously nonsensical garbage"
3. That the kalam cosmological argument is based on pseudoscience.
4. That Carroll defeat Craig in their debate.

The burden of proof is on you as the one making the claims to provide proof of your claims.

If you cannot prove your claims then they are just your opinion, and your opinion can be dismissed as easily as it was formed - your opinion is meaningless with regards to determining what is true.

Since you are unable to debate properly and politely ...

Logical fallacies, argument by assertion and ad hominem.
You cannot give any valid reasons to prove your claim that anything I have said constitutes not debating properly or politely.
As such, your accusation is just an ad hominem on top of being a fallacious argument by assertion.

Which is supremely ironic coming from you, someone who serially commits the fallacy of argument by assertion and never in this thread tries to meet the burden of proof for your claims.

That is the textbook definition of what it means to not debate properly. And we wouldn't say it's polite either when you are unwilling to correct your fallacious behavior when it is pointed out to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot give any reasons or evidence for your claim that anything I have said is not proper debating or a failure in any way.

Your claims are not true just because you assert they are.



Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot give any reasons or evidence for your claim that anything I have said demonstrates a lack of understanding for any particular idea.

Your claims are not true just because you assert they are.




Logical fallacy, avoiding the issue.

I already identified four claims you made about Craig's debates and why you didn't provide any proof for your claims.

You have ignored that twice in a row because you aren't capable of giving proof for your claims.


Great.
Since you are one making the claim, the onus is on you to provide proof of your claim.

You've claimed the following things thus far:
1. Craig's arguments fail.
2. Hitchens showed in the debate why Craig's arguments are "obviously nonsensical garbage"
3. That the kalam cosmological argument is based on pseudoscience.
4. That Carroll defeat Craig in their debate.

The burden of proof is on you as the one making the claims to provide proof of your claims.

If you cannot prove your claims then they are just your opinion, and your opinion can be dismissed as easily as it was formed - your opinion is meaningless with regards to determining what is true.




Logical fallacies, argument by assertion and ad hominem.
You cannot give any valid reasons to prove your claim that anything I have said constitutes not debating properly or politely.
As such, your accusation is just an ad hominem on top of being a fallacious argument by assertion.

Which is supremely ironic coming from you, someone who serially commits the fallacy of argument by assertion and never in this thread tries to meet the burden of proof for your claims.

That is the textbook definition of what it means to not debate properly. And we wouldn't say it's polite either when you are unwilling to correct your fallacious behavior when it is pointed out to you.

You really need to drop the false claims if you want anyone to get into a discussion with you. Or are you just trolling since you appear to be guilty of all of the logical fallacies that you accuse others of committing.

I offered to discuss how we know Craig is full of excrement (to put it politely). You appear to only want to make false claims about others.

 

[Rise]

You really need to drop the false claims if you want anyone to get into a discussion with you.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot demonstrate with reason or evidence why anything I have said is supposedly false.

Merely asserting it is true doesn't prove it's true just because you assert it is so.

Or are you just trolling since you appear to be guilty of all of the logical fallacies that you accuse others of committing.

...

You appear to only want to make false claims about others

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot demonstrate with reason or evidence why anything I have said would be guilty of committing any logical fallacy, much less the ones you are continually shown to be committing.

Merely asserting it is true doesn't prove it's true just because you assert it is so.

I offered to discuss how we know Craig is full of excrement (to put it politely). .

Logical fallacies, failure of the burden of proof and avoiding the issue.

You have already made four claims about Craig's debates which you have not even tried to meet the burden of proof for:


You've claimed the following things thus far:
1. Craig's arguments fail.
2. Hitchens showed in the debate why Craig's arguments are "obviously nonsensical garbage"
3. That the kalam cosmological argument is based on pseudoscience.
4. That Carroll defeat Craig in their debate.

The burden of proof is on you as the one making the claims to provide proof of your claims.


You are committing the fallacy of avoiding the issue by refusing to meet your burden of proof and attempting to offer no reason why you think you shouldn't have to.

Despite your repeated pretense of claiming you are willing to prove your claims are supposedly true - you demonstrate you aren't actually capable or willing to do so when directly challenged to support a specific claim you made.

This demonstrates you don't know how an actual debate works, where logical arguments and evidence must be used to support your conclusions, and you can't just sling around unnaked baseless assertions in response to everything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot demonstrate with reason or evidence why anything I have said is supposedly false.

Merely asserting it is true doesn't prove it's true just because you assert it is so.



Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot demonstrate with reason or evidence why anything I have said would be guilty of committing any logical fallacy, much less the ones you are continually shown to be committing.

Merely asserting it is true doesn't prove it's true just because you assert it is so.



Logical fallacies, failure of the burden of proof and avoiding the issue.

You have already made four claims about Craig's debates which you have not even tried to meet the burden of proof for:


You've claimed the following things thus far:
1. Craig's arguments fail.
2. Hitchens showed in the debate why Craig's arguments are "obviously nonsensical garbage"
3. That the kalam cosmological argument is based on pseudoscience.
4. That Carroll defeat Craig in their debate.

The burden of proof is on you as the one making the claims to provide proof of your claims.

If you cannot prove your claims then they are just your opinion, and your opinion can be dismissed as easily as it was formed - your opinion is meaningless with regards to determining what is true.

Try again.

 

[Rise]

Try again.

Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of rejoinder.

By being unable and unwilling to offer a valid counter argument to my arguments, you have tacitly conceded the debate by being unwilling and unable to meet the requirements of a debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of rejoinder.

By being unable and unwilling to offer a valid counter argument to my arguments, you have tacitly conceded the debate by being unwilling and unable to meet the requirements of a debate.

I see that the concept of a logical fallacy still appears to elude you.

I offered a discussion, in effect you ran away.

 

[Rise]

I see that the concept of a logical fallacy still appears to elude you.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot show any fault with any logical fallacy I have called you out on for committing.
Therefore, my conclusions stand.
You are committing gratuitous logical fallacies to hide the fact that you can't make a valid argument in support of your claims.

I offered a discussion, in effect you ran away.

Logical fallacy, shifting the burden of proof.

You aren't capable of having a discussion about this issue if you can't provide support for anything you claim.

You were the first to make claims.
You therefore have the burden of proof to support your claims.
You have been unwilling to do that because you are not able to, because your claims were false to begin with.

There is no logical burden on me to do anything first before you have to meet the burden of proof for your claims. And you have given no reasons why there would be.

Your four claims were:
1. Craig's arguments fail.
2. Hitchens showed in the debate why Craig's arguments are "obviously nonsensical garbage"
3. That the kalam cosmological argument is based on pseudoscience.
4. That Carroll defeat Craig in their debate.

If you can't provide any proof for your claims then your claims are nullified and rejected as invalid.

And since you have nothing else to offer once your claims are invalidated that means you have by definition lost the debate.

 

[Moonjuice]

You are committing gratuitous logical fallacies to hide the fact that you can't make a valid argument in support of your claims.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You aren't capable of having a discussion about this issue if you can't provide support for anything you claim.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

If you can't provide any proof for your claims then your claims are nullified and rejected as invalid.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

What a incredibly annoying way to have a discussion.

 

[Rise]

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You have specified no reasons why anything I said qualified as a fallacy of assertion
Therefore, your assertion is itself a fallacy

You see that - I gave a reason why you committed a fallacy of assertion.

What a incredibly annoying way to have a discussion.

It is indeed annoying when people feel entitled to debate using nothing but naked assertions without having to provide logical reasons and evidence for their claims.

It is entirely within your power to stop using logical fallacies if you don't like being called out for your fallacies.

You aren't entitled to debate using fallacious arguments and then not have people call you out for your fallacious logic.

The real question here is, for those people here who unrepentantly do nothing but argue using repeated fallacies; Why do you feel entitled to not be bound by the laws of logic?

Because the only reason you would get huffy and indignant when people call you out for your fallacious logic is if you somehow feel entitled to make fallacious arguments and force others to accept them as logically valid arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You have specified no reasons why anything I said qualified as a fallacy of assertion
Therefore, your assertion is itself a fallacy

You see that - I gave a reason why you committed a fallacy of assertion.

Oh my the irony!

 

[Rise]

Oh my the irony!

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You have provided no reasons why it would be ironic.
Merely claim it is doesn't make it so just because you assert it.