Hitchens was wildly overrated as a thinker/debater

[Rise]

I got news for you bub, this is a public forum and I can post where I like.

It is surely supported in the forum rules that you can post whatever nonsense you want - but nobody has to take it seriously or regard it as true just because you posted it.

So you have no basis to start whining or crying when you go into a debate forum and find that your baseless assertions don't carry any weight and can be dismissed as invalid.

Your problem, and the problem of those like you here, is that you seem to feel entitled to make assertions and have them accepted as true just because you asserted them.

Nobody is required to accept your opinion as true, and argue against it as though it were true, if you can’t provide logic and evidence that would force them to accept it as true.

The burden of proof is first on your to establish your claim is true before someone else is obligated to refute it with a counter argument.

I don't normally respond to your tedious screeds. Save yourself the time and don't bother responding to this with another of your endless "fallacy of" posts. We all know what your posts will say before you've typed them.

Logical fallacy, ad hominem.

You cannot refute what I have said on logical grounds so you can only resort to personal attacks to hide the fact that you don’t have a valid counter argument available.

 

[Rise]

I see that you still cannot enter into a discussion properly or even how to use logical fallacies.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot cite any fallacy I have called you out on and give any arguments or evidence that would prove your claim it is in error in any way.

Therefore, my conclusion stands and you are guilty of committing those fallacies.

Which means the burden is on you to correct your fallacious arguments if you want your conclusion to be valid.

If you are unwilling to do that then you concede the debate by definition as your only arguments have been invalidated and you have nothing left to offer.

If you want to learn I will gladly help you.

You would need to be capable of supply reasons and evidence for your claims before you could even try to teach anyone anything.

You have not supplied a single reason for any claim you have made in this entire thread so far.

You are operating out of a profound delusion about how truth is determined if you think spewing your baseless opinions all over a thread constitutes teaching anyone anything.

But trolling behavior is against the rules here.

Logical fallacy, ad hominem. Because you cannot refute the truth of what I have argued, you turn to name calling to hie that fact. You are therefore the only one between the two of us who would be guilty of trolling by definition.

Your claim is also demonstrably false by looking at the fact that none of the fallacies I have pointed out can be shown to be in error. I gave reasons why you committed them and have no counter argument to show why you think you didn't.

Because you did commit those fallacies it means your arguments are invalid.
Which means you need to reformulate your argument to be valid if you expect a counter argument to be required.

If you are unwilling to do that then you concede the debate by definition.

Pointing out where and why people's arguments are invalid in a debate is the very definition of how a debate is conducted.
The fact that you don't understand this is why you are having so many problems understanding why you can't just make baseless assertions and have them be accepted as true.

It is quite ironic that all of your claims supporting Craig here are all "logical fallacies by assertion".

Your statement shows you don't understand what is involved in a debate.

None of my calling out of your fallacies qualifies as a statement of "support" for Craig's claims by definition nor was it intended to be.

Those responses are called counter arguments to your claims.

You are the one making claims here, so the burden is on you to support your claims.

My counter argument to your claim is to point out that you have no basis for your claims. Neither logical arguments nor evidence.
Your claims are just your unsupported opinion and therefore are invalid for proving your conclusion.

I don't have a burden to support any claims with regards to my responses to you because I never made any claims to you other than claims about how your arguments are invalid on fallacious grounds (and in those cases I give reasons and evidence for that claim).

Once again I can explain this to you, but right now you are not worth my time.

Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of rejoinder.

You have failed to offer a counter argument to my arguments which refuted your arguments.

And by admitting you have no intention to, you have conceded the debate by definition as you are unwilling to offer a counter argument in defense of your claim.

I see that you still cannot enter into a discussion properly or even how to use logical fallacies.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot cite any fallacy I have called you out on and give any arguments or evidence that would prove your claim it is in error in any way.

Therefore, my conclusion stands and you are guilty of committing those fallacies.

Which means the burden is on you to correct your fallacious arguments if you want your conclusion to be valid.

If you are unwilling to do that then you concede the debate by definition as your only arguments have been invalidated and you have nothing left to offer.

If you want to learn I will gladly help you.

You would need to be capable of supply reasons and evidence for your claims before you could even try to teach anyone anything.

You have not supplied a single reason for any claim you have make in this entire thread so far.

You are operating out of a profound delusion about how truth is determined if you think spewing your baseless opinions all over a thread constitutes teaching anyone anything other than as an object lesson in how not to support your claims.

But trolling behavior is against the rules here.

Logical fallacy, ad hominem. Because you cannot refute the truth of what i have argued, you turn to name calling to hide that fact. You are therefore the only one between the two of us who would be guilty of trolling by definition.

Your claim is also demonstrably false by looking at the fact that none of the fallacies I have pointed out were in error. I gave reasons why you committed them and have no counter argument to show why you think you didn't.

Because you did commit those fallacies it means your arguments are invalid.
Which means you need to reformulate your argument to be valid if you expect a counter argument to be required.

If you are unwilling to do that then you concede the debate by definition.

Pointing out where and why peoples arguments are invalid in a debate is the very definition of how a debate is conducted.
The fact that you don't understand this is why you are having so many problems understanding why you an't just make baseless assertions and have them be accepted as true.

It is quite ironic that all of your claims supporting Craig here are all "logical fallacies by assertion".

Your statement shows you don't understand what is involved in a debate.

None of my calling out of your fallacies was intended to "support" any of Craig's claims. Nor were they required to.

Those responses are called counter arguments to your claims.

You are the one making claims here, so the burden is on you to support your claims.

My counter argument to your claim is to point out that you have no basis for your claims. Neither logical arguments nor evidence.
Your claims are just your unsupported opinion and therefore are invalid for proving your conclusion.

I don't have a burden to support any of Craig's claims with regards to my responses to you because I never made any claims to you with regards to that.

You were the one who came in her claiming Craig's arguments were false.
The burden is on you to prove your claim is true with reasons and evidence.

If you aren't wiling or able to do that then you concede your claim is baseless and just your opinion.
No one is required to treat your opinion as though it is true.

And you should not be stating it as though it is truth if you aren't willing to defend it as true.
You should state it as merely an opinion.

Once again I can explain this to you, but right now you are not worth my time.

Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of rejoinder.

You have failed to offer a counter argument to my arguments which refuted your arguments.

And by admitting you have no intention to, you have conceded the debate by definition as you are unwilling to offer a counter argument in defense of your claim.

 

[Moonjuice]

Hitchens was indeed overrated as a thinker. Much worse still are Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Why would people waste money on their books?

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. If you are interested in learning about how evolution works, and you are not trained in the field, you can read one of his books to help explain it. He has one written for children, to simplify it so even the adults who make idiotic statements like "I didn't come from no monkey" can understand the facts of evolution. Its called the Greatest Show on Earth. As a professor at Oxford (like a Harvard or Yale of the UK) he is well suited to explain evolutionary biology to those who are ignorant about the science and would like to understand it better. Two of his early books (the Selfish Gene and the The Extended Phenotype) were printed at Oxford's own University Printing Press. I think its safe to say that not any moron off the street is going to get Oxford University to publish a science book you wrote. For those interested in evolutionary biology, I am guessing they do not think these books are a waste of money.

Sam Harris is a neuroscientist and philosopher. He's interested in topics like spirituality and morality. You might want to read "the Moral Landscape" if you are interested in ideas of how morality develops. Some people who are spiritual but not interested in organized religion might enjoy "Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion." Not sure why this would be a waste of money for those interested in these topics.

Hitchens wrote a great book on George Orwell called "Why Orwell Matters". He also wrote a biography on Thomas Jefferson that is really interesting. In fact, he wrote dozens of books that don't have anything to do with religion. Why would people want to read about the Trial of Henry Kissinger? I'm not sure, but if you are interested in the topic then I don't suppose it would be a waste of money.

Some people read a book, try to understand it, then critique it. Others just critique it without even knowing the title. To each his own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot cite any fallacy I have called you out on and give any arguments or evidence that would prove your claim it is in error in any way.

Therefore, my conclusion stands and you are guilty of committing those fallacies.

Which means the burden is on you to correct your fallacious arguments if you want your conclusion to be valid.

If you are unwilling to do that then you concede the debate by definition as your only arguments have been invalidated and you have nothing left to offer.



You would need to be capable of supply reasons and evidence for your claims before you could even try to teach anyone anything.

You have not supplied a single reason for any claim you have made in this entire thread so far.

You are operating out of a profound delusion about how truth is determined if you think spewing your baseless opinions all over a thread constitutes teaching anyone anything.




Logical fallacy, ad hominem. Because you cannot refute the truth of what I have argued, you turn to name calling to hie that fact. You are therefore the only one between the two of us who would be guilty of trolling by definition.

Your claim is also demonstrably false by looking at the fact that none of the fallacies I have pointed out can be shown to be in error. I gave reasons why you committed them and have no counter argument to show why you think you didn't.

Because you did commit those fallacies it means your arguments are invalid.
Which means you need to reformulate your argument to be valid if you expect a counter argument to be required.

If you are unwilling to do that then you concede the debate by definition.

Pointing out where and why people's arguments are invalid in a debate is the very definition of how a debate is conducted.
The fact that you don't understand this is why you are having so many problems understanding why you can't just make baseless assertions and have them be accepted as true.




Your statement shows you don't understand what is involved in a debate.

None of my calling out of your fallacies qualifies as a statement of "support" for Craig's claims by definition nor was it intended to be.

Those responses are called counter arguments to your claims.

You are the one making claims here, so the burden is on you to support your claims.

My counter argument to your claim is to point out that you have no basis for your claims. Neither logical arguments nor evidence.
Your claims are just your unsupported opinion and therefore are invalid for proving your conclusion.

I don't have a burden to support any claims with regards to my responses to you because I never made any claims to you other than claims about how your arguments are invalid on fallacious grounds (and in those cases I give reasons and evidence for that claim).



Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of rejoinder.

You have failed to offer a counter argument to my arguments which refuted your arguments.

And by admitting you have no intention to, you have conceded the debate by definition as you are unwilling to offer a counter argument in defense of your claim.





Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot cite any fallacy I have called you out on and give any arguments or evidence that would prove your claim it is in error in any way.

Therefore, my conclusion stands and you are guilty of committing those fallacies.

Which means the burden is on you to correct your fallacious arguments if you want your conclusion to be valid.

If you are unwilling to do that then you concede the debate by definition as your only arguments have been invalidated and you have nothing left to offer.



You would need to be capable of supply reasons and evidence for your claims before you could even try to teach anyone anything.

You have not supplied a single reason for any claim you have make in this entire thread so far.

You are operating out of a profound delusion about how truth is determined if you think spewing your baseless opinions all over a thread constitutes teaching anyone anything other than as an object lesson in how not to support your claims.




Logical fallacy, ad hominem. Because you cannot refute the truth of what i have argued, you turn to name calling to hide that fact. You are therefore the only one between the two of us who would be guilty of trolling by definition.

Your claim is also demonstrably false by looking at the fact that none of the fallacies I have pointed out were in error. I gave reasons why you committed them and have no counter argument to show why you think you didn't.

Because you did commit those fallacies it means your arguments are invalid.
Which means you need to reformulate your argument to be valid if you expect a counter argument to be required.

If you are unwilling to do that then you concede the debate by definition.

Pointing out where and why peoples arguments are invalid in a debate is the very definition of how a debate is conducted.
The fact that you don't understand this is why you are having so many problems understanding why you an't just make baseless assertions and have them be accepted as true.




Your statement shows you don't understand what is involved in a debate.

None of my calling out of your fallacies was intended to "support" any of Craig's claims. Nor were they required to.

Those responses are called counter arguments to your claims.

You are the one making claims here, so the burden is on you to support your claims.

My counter argument to your claim is to point out that you have no basis for your claims. Neither logical arguments nor evidence.
Your claims are just your unsupported opinion and therefore are invalid for proving your conclusion.

I don't have a burden to support any of Craig's claims with regards to my responses to you because I never made any claims to you with regards to that.

You were the one who came in her claiming Craig's arguments were false.
The burden is on you to prove your claim is true with reasons and evidence.

If you aren't wiling or able to do that then you concede your claim is baseless and just your opinion.
No one is required to treat your opinion as though it is true.

And you should not be stating it as though it is truth if you aren't willing to defend it as true.
You should state it as merely an opinion.



Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of rejoinder.

You have failed to offer a counter argument to my arguments which refuted your arguments.

And by admitting you have no intention to, you have conceded the debate by definition as you are unwilling to offer a counter argument in defense of your claim.

LOL!!

 

[Regiomontanus]

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. If you are interested in learning about how evolution works, and you are not trained in the field, you can read one of his books to help explain it. He has one written for children, to simplify it so even the adults who make idiotic statements like "I didn't come from no monkey" can understand the facts of evolution. Its called the Greatest Show on Earth. As a professor at Oxford (like a Harvard or Yale of the UK) he is well suited to explain evolutionary biology to those who are ignorant about the science and would like to understand it better. Two of his early books (the Selfish Gene and the The Extended Phenotype) were printed at Oxford's own University Printing Press. I think its safe to say that not any moron off the street is going to get Oxford University to publish a science book you wrote. For those interested in evolutionary biology, I am guessing they do not think these books are a waste of money.

Sam Harris is a neuroscientist and philosopher. He's interested in topics like spirituality and morality. You might want to read "the Moral Landscape" if you are interested in ideas of how morality develops. Some people who are spiritual but not interested in organized religion might enjoy "Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion." Not sure why this would be a waste of money for those interested in these topics.

Hitchens wrote a great book on George Orwell called "Why Orwell Matters". He also wrote a biography on Thomas Jefferson that is really interesting. In fact, he wrote dozens of books that don't have anything to do with religion. Why would people want to read about the Trial of Henry Kissinger? I'm not sure, but if you are interested in the topic then I don't suppose it would be a waste of money.

Some people read a book, try to understand it, then critique it. Others just critique it without even knowing the title. To each his own.

Yes, I know who they are as do most people here. I simply meant that outside of their fields expertise - especially when those guys turn to philosophy and their attacks on theism - they fail miserably. Harris is a buffoon.

So sure, Dawkins could teach me things about genetics that I don't know (and I could teach him much about active galaxies that I would wager he does not know) but when he opens his mouth in public in these debates he usually ends up embarrassing himself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I know who they are as do most people here. I simply meant that outside of their fields expertise - especially when those guys turn to philosophy and their attacks on theism - they fail miserably. Harris is a buffoon.

So sure, Dawkins could teach me things about genetics that I don't know (and I could teach him much about active galaxies that I would wager he does not know) but when he opens his mouth in public in these debates he usually ends up embarrassing himself.

You may be expecting too much of him. Exactly how is he a "buffoon"? I am sure that he gets some facts wrong about astronomy. But he would have to be terribly wrong to earn the buffoon label.

 

[sayak83]

There are two fatal flaws with your claim:

1. Your belief in no causation is logically incoherent and untenable as a position.

If you push a ball it moves. There was a cause to the effect.

A child can run an experiment to verify the principle that the concept of causes for effects exists.

There is no way to logically justify the claim that causes don't exist.

Anyone advocating such a position is therefore pushing a logically incoherent viewpoint.


2. It doesn't refute what I argued.
Because what I argued doesn't even require asserting a direct casual relationship between one state and another in order for my conclusion to be true.

Any sequence of states, one following after another, cannot logically be past infinite otherwise you would never be able to arrive at the current state.

So use a noncasual but sequential math analogy: If you go back on the negative number line to a point of infinity negative numbers, and try to count forward from an infinity of negative numbers, you can never reach zero.

Reaching zero by counting forwards requires a finite number of negative numbers to traverse through sequentially to reach zero. An infinity means it is, by definition, impossible to reach zero.

So even if reality were nothing but a random non-casual fluctuation, it's still situation of sequential states that changes from one to another.

If there was an actual sequence of states one following another then there is a denominated list of states following a certain order.

This list of order cannot be traversed from any infinite past state to the current state because it could never be arrived at by definition.

There is no need for either space-time or causation for the problem of infinity to apply to any claim that the universe could be eternal and changing.



You just described a casual relationship, you just changed the name of it to "functional relationship".

It is a a relationship where the state of one thing influences the state of another.

That is fundamentally the same as a casual relationship. The behavior of one thing influences the behavior of another
The absence of that influence would result in a different behavior.



I suspect you have some hidden definition behind what you mean by "prior" which makes you think your statement makes sense. So it's not entirely clear what you are trying to imply.

But it doesn't really matter, because the fact is:
The ball being at point B depends on a push that happened at point A.

The current state of ball does depend something that happened in a previous state to make the current state have the form that it does.



It doesn't matter how you want to change the verbage because the concepts remain the same.
The state of one thing influences the state of another to be different than it otherwise would be.

Trying to change terms doesn't solve your infinity problem anyway, as I pointed out above.



Your statement doesn't refute anything I said to you, which was:
1. You failed to mention a critical part of the entropy definition, as found at the start of your own link, which states entropy is the energy lost in a system.

How you measure that, be it statistics or otherwise, is not relevant to the conceptual fact that entropy involves energy leaving something.

Which is why your cyclical models have an entropy problem. How do you cycle the system without inputing new energy so that it truly could run for infinity instead of only running for a really really long time before finally falling apart?


2. Therefore, my definition was accurate. As I started with the statement of entropy as energy loss and then described the practical consequences of that (breakdown of order in systems and energy equilibrium).


3. That the answer to that question isn't even relevant in the sense that it doesn't solve your infinity problem because you have a changing universe that cannot have an infinite number of prior states and reach the current state.

Infinity is not a point or a number from which one starts counting. It's quite unbelievable that you are still using such a demonstrably wrong idea of infinity here for all your arguments.
Your argument about cause fails on closer examination. The push and accelaration of the ball are simultaneous events. So the statement that the force of the push causes the accelaration is wrong from the basic physics consideration. We still speak in such terms in ordinary language of course. But just because we still say that the sun is rising or setting does not mean that the sun is actually moving in the sky and geocentrism is true. The use of causes in ordinary language is similar.
Energy is always conserved. So the definition of entropy as energy lost is obviously wrong. Unfortunately there is only so much that is available in free internet sites. Should I recommend a text book of entropy so that you can read it and understand how entropy is actually defined?
Thermal Physics | ScienceDirect

 

[sayak83]

There are two fatal flaws with your claim:

1. Your belief in no causation is logically incoherent and untenable as a position.

If you push a ball it moves. There was a cause to the effect.

A child can run an experiment to verify the principle that the concept of causes for effects exists.

There is no way to logically justify the claim that causes don't exist.

Anyone advocating such a position is therefore pushing a logically incoherent viewpoint.


2. It doesn't refute what I argued.
Because what I argued doesn't even require asserting a direct casual relationship between one state and another in order for my conclusion to be true.

Any sequence of states, one following after another, cannot logically be past infinite otherwise you would never be able to arrive at the current state.

So use a noncasual but sequential math analogy: If you go back on the negative number line to a point of infinity negative numbers, and try to count forward from an infinity of negative numbers, you can never reach zero.

Reaching zero by counting forwards requires a finite number of negative numbers to traverse through sequentially to reach zero. An infinity means it is, by definition, impossible to reach zero.

So even if reality were nothing but a random non-casual fluctuation, it's still situation of sequential states that changes from one to another.

If there was an actual sequence of states one following another then there is a denominated list of states following a certain order.

This list of order cannot be traversed from any infinite past state to the current state because it could never be arrived at by definition.

There is no need for either space-time or causation for the problem of infinity to apply to any claim that the universe could be eternal and changing.



You just described a casual relationship, you just changed the name of it to "functional relationship".

It is a a relationship where the state of one thing influences the state of another.

That is fundamentally the same as a casual relationship. The behavior of one thing influences the behavior of another
The absence of that influence would result in a different behavior.



I suspect you have some hidden definition behind what you mean by "prior" which makes you think your statement makes sense. So it's not entirely clear what you are trying to imply.

But it doesn't really matter, because the fact is:
The ball being at point B depends on a push that happened at point A.

The current state of ball does depend something that happened in a previous state to make the current state have the form that it does.



It doesn't matter how you want to change the verbage because the concepts remain the same.
The state of one thing influences the state of another to be different than it otherwise would be.

Trying to change terms doesn't solve your infinity problem anyway, as I pointed out above.



Your statement doesn't refute anything I said to you, which was:
1. You failed to mention a critical part of the entropy definition, as found at the start of your own link, which states entropy is the energy lost in a system.

How you measure that, be it statistics or otherwise, is not relevant to the conceptual fact that entropy involves energy leaving something.

Which is why your cyclical models have an entropy problem. How do you cycle the system without inputing new energy so that it truly could run for infinity instead of only running for a really really long time before finally falling apart?


2. Therefore, my definition was accurate. As I started with the statement of entropy as energy loss and then described the practical consequences of that (breakdown of order in systems and energy equilibrium).


3. That the answer to that question isn't even relevant in the sense that it doesn't solve your infinity problem because you have a changing universe that cannot have an infinite number of prior states and reach the current state.

Along with my previous response, read this article carefully as it shows why causality does not exist in the fundamental structure of our reality.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-mischief-rewrites-the-laws-of-cause-and-effect-20210311/

 

[Augustus]

You may be expecting too much of him. Exactly how is he a "buffoon"? I am sure that he gets some facts wrong about astronomy. But he would have to be terribly wrong to earn the buffoon label.

From about 22.20 for 3 or so minutes Sam Harris is certainly terribly wrong about history.

Christianity lead to the downfall of the Roman Empire and ushered in the Dark Ages.

Classical knowledge was only preserved in the Islamic world

The church which was opposed to science refused to look through Galileo's telescope to confirm he was right

etc.

People like this who purportedly prize scholarship, evidence and reason and have made a career out of talking about the impact of religion in society yet can't be bothered to do the most cursory research on things they pontificate about publicly.

 

[ecco]

It is surely supported in the forum rules that you can post whatever nonsense you want - but nobody has to take it seriously or regard it as true just because you posted it.

So you have no basis to start whining or crying when you go into a debate forum and find that your baseless assertions don't carry any weight and can be dismissed as invalid.

Mirror, mirror on the wall...

 

[paarsurrey]

Hitchens was wildly overrated as a thinker/debater

Everybody please focus on the topic ^ of the thread please.
Right?

Regards

 

[Rise]

Oh my! Your conclusion is a huge non sequitur. You do not get to assume that a person cannot refute you simply because they will not respond to trolling.

It is not a claim without basis but is a reasoned deduction based on your repeated demonstrated behavior.

You have repeatedly tried to defend your original claims, or deflect from having to do so, with repeated fallacies. Chiefly the assertion fallacy.

This is consistent evidence that you would like to be able to defend your claims but you can't in a valid logical way.

If you were simply unwilling to defend your claims, then you would simply stop responding.
The fact that you try to defend them, but use only fallacies to do so, suggests you simply aren't capable of doing so.

If we assumed you were capable of logically defending your claims, but simply choosing to use fallacies to defend it instead, then that would made you additionally guilty of the logical fallacy of males fides - arguing in bad faith. Which also means you concede the debate on the grounds that you aren't even attempting to have a debate.

Regardless, you have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder either way.
Even if we assumed you were you capable of logically defending your claims, and not using fallacies to do so, you would still be tacitly conceding the debate by definition by consequence of being unwilling to offer a counter argument.

Your posts tell us that you have been endlessly been beaten down by people pointing out your logical fallacies in the past.

Your claim is incoherent as it is without evidence.
You can't even identify a single thing I have said in this thread that would qualify as a fallacy.
You have no grounds, therefore, for claiming you think I have a past of committing them.
And if I don't have a past of committing them then I can't have a past of people pointing them out.

Now you are mistakenly claiming these fallacies of others

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot point to a single fallacy I have called you, or someone else on, and demonstrate with logic and evidence why you think doing so was supposedly in error.

You can't do that because your claim isn't true.

while making endless logical fallacies of your own. It appears that you did not learn your lesson.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot quote a single thing I have said an give any reasons or evidence to justify your claim that it would qualify as a fallacy.

Much less could you justify your claim that it has supposedly happened more than once "endlessly".

You are currently the only one who has been shown to be guilty of endless fallacies as I have identified you as committing numerous ones in each post you've made in this thread. And you haven't been able to refute the truth of the fallacies I have pointed out.

This would make you guilty of psychological projection - accusing others of what you yourself are doing.

By the way, did you watch the video of the debate between Sean Carroll and WLC?

Yes.

If you can be polite we can discuss it.

Logical fallacy, tone policing.

I have already identified four claims you made about Craig's debates and arguments which you have not been able or wiling to meet the burden of proof for your claims.

You don't absolve yourself of the logical need to support your claims with proof just because you accuse someone of being impolite.

If you are unwilling to unable to meet your burden of proof or your burden of rejoinder then you have tacitly conceded that your claims are refuted.

WLC looked like a fool in that debate

Logical fallacy, ad hominem.
Calling Craig names doesn't disprove his conclusions or refute his arguments.

You cannot quote anything Craig argued and give any specific valid logic or evidence for why it is supposedly false.

LOL!!

Logical fallacy, appeal to mockery.

You are not able to provide a valid logical counter argument to my arguments. As evidenced by your repeated fallacies when you attempt to do so.

You have nothing to fall back on as a response but ad hominems.

 

[Rise]

Mirror, mirror on the wall...

Logical fallacy, appeal to mockery.

You are not able to offer a valid counter argument to anything I have argued.

You have nothing left you can respond with but ad hominems.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not a claim without basis but is a reasoned deduction based on your repeated demonstrated behavior.

You have repeatedly tried to defend your original claims, or deflect from having to do so, with repeated fallacies. Chiefly the assertion fallacy.

This is consistent evidence that you would like to be able to defend your claims but you can't in a valid logical way.

If you were simply unwilling to defend your claims, then you would simply stop responding.
The fact that you try to defend them, but use only fallacies to do so, suggests you simply aren't capable of doing so.

If we assumed you were capable of logically defending your claims, but simply choosing to use fallacies to defend it instead, then that would made you additionally guilty of the logical fallacy of males fides - arguing in bad faith. Which also means you concede the debate on the grounds that you aren't even attempting to have a debate.

Regardless, you have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder either way.
Even if we assumed you were you capable of logically defending your claims, and not using fallacies to do so, you would still be tacitly conceding the debate by definition by consequence of being unwilling to offer a counter argument.



Your claim is incoherent as it is without evidence.
You can't even identify a single thing I have said in this thread that would qualify as a fallacy.
You have no grounds, therefore, for claiming you think I have a past of committing them.
And if I don't have a past of committing them then I can't have a past of people pointing them out.



Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot point to a single fallacy I have called you, or someone else on, and demonstrate with logic and evidence why you think doing so was supposedly in error.

You can't do that because your claim isn't true.



Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot quote a single thing I have said an give any reasons or evidence to justify your claim that it would qualify as a fallacy.

Much less could you justify your claim that it has supposedly happened more than once "endlessly".

You are currently the only one who has been shown to be guilty of endless fallacies as I have identified you as committing numerous ones in each post you've made in this thread. And you haven't been able to refute the truth of the fallacies I have pointed out.

This would make you guilty of psychological projection - accusing others of what you yourself are doing.



Yes.



Logical fallacy, tone policing.

I have already identified four claims you made about Craig's debates and arguments which you have not been able or wiling to meet the burden of proof for your claims.

You don't absolve yourself of the logical need to support your claims with proof just because you accuse someone of being impolite.

If you are unwilling to unable to meet your burden of proof or your burden of rejoinder then you have tacitly conceded that your claims are refuted.



Logical fallacy, ad hominem.
Calling Craig names doesn't disprove his conclusions or refute his arguments.

You cannot quote anything Craig argued and give any specific valid logic or evidence for why it is supposedly false.



Logical fallacy, appeal to mockery.

You are not able to provide a valid logical counter argument to my arguments. As evidenced by your repeated fallacies when you attempt to do so.

You have nothing to fall back on as a response but ad hominems.

I see that you still do not understand logical fallacies. I offered to have a discussion with you. You ran away.

 

[Rise]

Infinity is not a point or a number from which one starts counting. It's quite unbelievable that you are still using such a demonstrably wrong idea of infinity here for all your arguments.

You are committing the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion and/or nonsequitur.
You have given no reasons why you think claiming that infinity is not a specific point or number would prove your claim that an infinite prior regression of sequences/states is not an impossible and absurd concept in reality. There's no logical connection between the claims you are trying to defend and your claim that infinity is not a point or a number.

I have already given you many specific mathematical examples and paradoxes which demonstrate why it is logically absurd and impossible for an actual infinite number of things to exist in reality and for an infinite past regression of states to exist in actual reality.

You haven't attempted to refute any of those with specific counter arguments. Nor have you give any specific reasons why you think your latest claim is even relevant to refuting my arguments.
The fact that you think it's relevant only suggests you don't understand the arguments and their implications. If you tried to explain why you think its relevant you might come to realize why it's not.


Furthermore, your argument is self refuting

You tried to claim earlier that every math equation had a parallel in reality.
I showed why you were wrong with a series of examples involving infinity. Which you never attempted to refute.

But I also said something else there which deals with your claim:

But we can take that example further and show why the task itself cannot be physically undertaken:
You would never be able to arrive at the end of the equation because you would spend an infinite amount of time trying to add and subject infinity from the equation.

Infinity as an actual number of things also cannot exist because you could never arrive at the point where you could create an infinite number of objects to add to the equation. You'd never arrive at the point at which you had achieved creating an infinite number of objects. It would take you an infinite mount of time - which could never be reached.


We can take this further and say that true infinity, with regards to sets of objects (such as sequential numbers), doesn't even exist in math. Which refutes your claim that infinity is consistent with math. You might represent the concept of infinity with a symbol - but you can't actually calculate using an infinite number of objects. You'd never be able to arrive at the end point in order to complete your equation because there is no end point. Note that I am referring to math with regards to an infinite set of numbers/objects and not math with regards to an equation that cycles around repeating itself infinitely (such as an equation that generates fractals patterns).

This is similar to the grim reaper paradox whereby the equation is stuck in a loop where it can't be solved because it's waiting for an infinite number to reach an end point but it never can.

You see there the problem with infinity not being an actual number or point only undermines your claim that it can actually represent something coherent with concrete reality.

That's why the paradoxes involving imagining real infinite scenarios ends up producing illogical nonsense as well as mathematically contradictory results.

Your argument about cause fails on closer examination. The push and accelaration of the ball are simultaneous events. So the statement that the force of the push causes the accelaration is wrong from the basic physics consideration.

We still speak in such terms in ordinary language of course. But just because we still say that the sun is rising or setting does not mean that the sun is actually moving in the sky and geocentrism is true. The use of causes in ordinary language is similar.

Your claim is a fallacy of irrelevance as it doesn't dispute the fact that a casual chain of events set in motion the contact point where the push and acceleration happened.

There's a lot of physics, biology, to say nothing of non-material mind choices, and sequential states/events behind moving your hand from point A to point B to make contact with the ball.

Remove any step from that chain of events and your hand never makes contact with the ball.
The effect never happens because the causal chain did not reach the point at which it could produce the effect

We can tie this in with your claims that infinity is not absurd in reality.

If there were an infinite regression of past sequential events that had to happen in order for your hand to make contact with that ball then your hand would never be able to push the ball, ever, because you would spend an infinity trying to reach that point but never getting there.

Along with my previous response, read this article carefully as it shows why causality does not exist in the fundamental structure of our reality.
Quantum Mischief Rewrites the Laws of Cause and Effect | Quanta Magazine

Above, I just refuted your claim that causality doesn't exist as a concept.

If what you claimed were true you should be able to argue for yourself why that's the case and deliver a direct rebuttal to my argument.

Your constant attempts to throw up articles to talk for you suggests you don't have enough understanding of these subjects to argue them for yourself.

Given that you don't appear to have a solid enough grasp of this material to argue it for yourself, you're not in a position to act as though you've got everything figured out.

Energy is always conserved. So the definition of entropy as energy lost is obviously wrong. Unfortunately there is only so much that is available in free internet sites. Should I recommend a text book of entropy so that you can read it and understand how entropy is actually defined?
Thermal Physics | ScienceDirect

You are misrepresenting what I said.
Me saying "energy is lost in a system" is not the same as saying "energy is lost".
The very definition of entropy, by the website you linked earlier, explicitly refers to energy lost in a specific area to become spread out into equilibrium. Ie. Energy lost in a specific system; leaving it to flow into other areas not part of that system.

From your own link earlier:
Energy of all types -- in chemistry, most frequently the kinetic energy of molecules (but also including the phase change/potential energy of molecules in fusion and vaporization, as well as radiation) changes from being localized to becoming more dispersed in space if that energy is not constrained from doing so.

To say that energy is being lost in a given area, which results in systems losing their order, is consistent with the definition of entropy.

You aren't refuting what I said by talking about how statistics are used to calculate what the state of entropy is.

Nor are you refuting the concept I was communicating when you try to quibble over the details of how I communicated it when I can simply alter how I communicated it and the concept remains the same.

That concept remains the same: Which is that the energy starts concentrated in the universe, it disperses in the bang, and then it inevitably will fall into equilibrium by the laws that govern entropy.

The fact is that you don't have a viable bounce universe model that can overcome the entropy problem of how you get the universe to come back together for another bang.

Even if we granted you the allowance of positing some mystery force we know nothing about to explain this behavior; you still run into not being able to account for how this system could supposedly be so fine tuned as to collapse and re-expand in exactly the same manner each time. So that it could supposedly go on for infinity and won't eventually break down to some degree after each bounce until it ceases to bounce.

At that point the level of fine tuning you'd need for such a model to work would dwarf what is currently needed to explain how the big bang could have happened to produce a life sustaining universe.

So you become even more vulnerable than the current big bang model is to the teleological argument for the existence of God (ie. the fine tuning is evidence of design and realistically requires a designer to be probable).

The whole reason we have the multiverse hypothesis' is to avoid the fine tuning problem.
But you don't get around it with a bounce model - you just make it worse.

Nevermind the fact that all of that is irrelevant considering that you do not solve the infinite regress problem with a bounce model.
You merely postulate a mechanism for a potentially infinite universe going forward into the future - but you don't solve the logical need for there to be a finite beginning point to that universe with a finite number of past states that can be traced back (for all the reasons I have already outlined in previous posts, which you did not refute).

 

[Rise]

I see that you still do not understand logical fallacies.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

I already pointed out you are committing the fallacy of assertion by offering no evidence or reasons to support your claim.

Your claim does not stop being a fallacy of argument by assertion just because you repeat it.

I offered to have a discussion with you. You ran away.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.
I already refuted your claim in a prior post. You did not provide a counter argument to what I argued but merely repeated your original claim.

My prior post which refuted your claim is:

This is ironic coming from you because you have not even tried to meet the burden of proof for your claims.

A serious discussion would involve someone who took their claims seriously enough to meet the burden of proof for their claims.

A serious discussion would involve someone who took the issue seriously enough to give valid reasons and evidence for what they claim and not just keep making fallacies of assertion throughout each post.

You have not attempted to meet the burden of proof for the original 4 claims you made that I identified, and you keep committing a slew of fallacious arguments by assertion in every post you make.

You're in no position to accuse anyone of not being serious about having a discussion.


What you are doing is an attempt at merely saving face to hide the fact that you can't justify your 4 claims about the debates.

You are trying to pretend you have reason to bow out without conceding that you are unable justify your claims.

You are engaging in a dishonest rhetorical tactic to avoid admitting you have lost the debate by being unable to defend 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.

I don't know how you define "discussion", but clearly it doesn't involve you abiding by the laws of logic and giving any reasons to support the flippant and baseless claims you make.
In that case you don't have anything of value to add to the discussion so there would be no loss.

You are clearly just trying to save face, engaging in the psychological behavior of gaslighting and projection, to distract from the fact that you are completely unable to defend your claims using valid logic and evidence.

You have run away from providing any support for your original four claims. You project and gaslight trying to claim I am running away from you by challenging you to support your claims with reasons and evidence.

Your claim is absurd on its face, as one is obviously not running away when they are actively engaged in debating your claims; but what else are you going to do if you want to run away from your claims without having to admit you can't support them? You'll reach for whatever absurd psychological tactic you can to tell yourself you aren't running away from your claims but that it must be the other person who is running away from you.

You have failed to meet both your burden of proof and your burden of rejoinder, even when it was explained why you needed to, which means you have chosen to concede the debate and your claims stand refuted.

 

[Secret Chief]

whining or crying

Actually, on the odd occasion I look at the latest variation of the eternally repasted post it makes me laugh a little, and paradoxically, a little sad.

 

[Rise]

Actually, on the odd occasion I look at the latest variation of the eternally repasted post it makes me laugh a little, and paradoxically, a little sad.

Logical fallacy, appeal to mockery.
Your claims have been refuted and you have no counter argument.
You have nothing left to respond with but ad hominems.

 

[sayak83]

You are committing the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion and/or nonsequitur.
You have given no reasons why you think claiming that infinity is not a specific point or number would prove your claim that an infinite prior regression of sequences/states is not an impossible and absurd concept in reality. There's no logical connection between the claims you are trying to defend and your claim that infinity is not a point or a number.

I have already given you many specific mathematical examples and paradoxes which demonstrate why it is logically absurd and impossible for an actual infinite number of things to exist in reality and for an infinite past regression of states to exist in actual reality.

You haven't attempted to refute any of those with specific counter arguments. Nor have you give any specific reasons why you think your latest claim is even relevant to refuting my arguments.
The fact that you think it's relevant only suggests you don't understand the arguments and their implications. If you tried to explain why you think its relevant you might come to realize why it's not.


Furthermore, your argument is self refuting

You tried to claim earlier that every math equation had a parallel in reality.
I showed why you were wrong with a series of examples involving infinity. Which you never attempted to refute.

But I also said something else there which deals with your claim:



You see there the problem with infinity not being an actual number or point only undermines your claim that it can actually represent something coherent with concrete reality.

That's why the paradoxes involving imagining real infinite scenarios ends up producing illogical nonsense as well as mathematically contradictory results.





Your claim is a fallacy of irrelevance as it doesn't dispute the fact that a casual chain of events set in motion the contact point where the push and acceleration happened.

There's a lot of physics, biology, to say nothing of non-material mind choices, and sequential states/events behind moving your hand from point A to point B to make contact with the ball.

Remove any step from that chain of events and your hand never makes contact with the ball.
The effect never happens because the causal chain did not reach the point at which it could produce the effect

We can tie this in with your claims that infinity is not absurd in reality.

If there were an infinite regression of past sequential events that had to happen in order for your hand to make contact with that ball then your hand would never be able to push the ball, ever, because you would spend an infinity trying to reach that point but never getting there.




Above, I just refuted your claim that causality doesn't exist as a concept.

If what you claimed were true you should be able to argue for yourself why that's the case and deliver a direct rebuttal to my argument.

Your constant attempts to throw up articles to talk for you suggests you don't have enough understanding of these subjects to argue them for yourself.

Given that you don't appear to have a solid enough grasp of this material to argue it for yourself, you're not in a position to act as though you've got everything figured out.



You are misrepresenting what I said.
Me saying "energy is lost in a system" is not the same as saying "energy is lost".
The very definition of entropy, by the website you linked earlier, explicitly refers to energy lost in a specific area to become spread out into equilibrium. Ie. Energy lost in a specific system; leaving it to flow into other areas not part of that system.

From your own link earlier:
Energy of all types -- in chemistry, most frequently the kinetic energy of molecules (but also including the phase change/potential energy of molecules in fusion and vaporization, as well as radiation) changes from being localized to becoming more dispersed in space if that energy is not constrained from doing so.

To say that energy is being lost in a given area, which results in systems losing their order, is consistent with the definition of entropy.

You aren't refuting what I said by talking about how statistics are used to calculate what the state of entropy is.

Nor are you refuting the concept I was communicating when you try to quibble over the details of how I communicated it when I can simply alter how I communicated it and the concept remains the same.

That concept remains the same: Which is that the energy starts concentrated in the universe, it disperses in the bang, and then it inevitably will fall into equilibrium by the laws that govern entropy.

The fact is that you don't have a viable bounce universe model that can overcome the entropy problem of how you get the universe to come back together for another bang.

Even if we granted you the allowance of positing some mystery force we know nothing about to explain this behavior; you still run into not being able to account for how this system could supposedly be so fine tuned as to collapse and re-expand in exactly the same manner each time. So that it could supposedly go on for infinity and won't eventually break down to some degree after each bounce until it ceases to bounce.

At that point the level of fine tuning you'd need for such a model to work would dwarf what is currently needed to explain how the big bang could have happened to produce a life sustaining universe.

So you become even more vulnerable than the current big bang model is to the teleological argument for the existence of God (ie. the fine tuning is evidence of design and realistically requires a designer to be probable).

The whole reason we have the multiverse hypothesis' is to avoid the fine tuning problem.
But you don't get around it with a bounce model - you just make it worse.

Nevermind the fact that all of that is irrelevant considering that you do not solve the infinite regress problem with a bounce model.
You merely postulate a mechanism for a potentially infinite universe going forward into the future - but you don't solve the logical need for there to be a finite beginning point to that universe with a finite number of past states that can be traced back (for all the reasons I have already outlined in previous posts, which you did not refute).

1) Infinity is a property of the entire set and not a point in that set. Hence the idea that one starts from infinity and has to reach a point within the set after starting from infinity is entirely wrong. All your so called fallacies are stemming from not understanding what infinity is.
2) As clearly demonstrated in the article I referred, causality is not a fundamental feature of reality at all, but a convenient human made simplification that works in some cases and does not in others. Hence any argument that tries use causality as a fundamental feature of the universe is wrong.
3) Entropy, as clearly understood in all of physics is fundamentally a statistical measure of probability of a macro-state in comparison to other states. Such a description ceases to be meaningful at Planck scales.
Entropy Is Not Disorder: A Physicist’s Perspective
These three statements above are simple facts as I have demonstrated again and again. I am giving you the links so that you can learn what the correct physics perspective is. If you take the trouble of actually learning the concepts then you will yourself understand the incorrect assumptions that make your arguments fallacious.

 

[Secret Chief]

Logical fallacy, appeal to mockery.
Your claims have been refuted and you have no counter argument.
You have nothing left to respond with but ad hominems.

I wasn't mocking, I wasn't making claims and you have refuted nothing. I was simply being honest. I could respond a lot more but we all know what the cookie cutter response would be. May your god go with you.