Hitchens was wildly overrated as a thinker/debater

[Rise]

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.

Your statement is again a fallacy of irrelevance as your definition of infinity doesn't change the absurd implications of having a set of prior states/events that are in total "infinity".

You have not given a single reason why you think your definition of infinity would solve the mathematical or logical problems I outlined with trying to claim infinity could exist in concrete reality as an infinite past or infinite number of objects

The paradoxes and mathematical contradictions I outlined previous still stand and refute your claim that an infinite regression of prior states for the universe could exist.

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.

You are committing the fallacy of argument by repetition and failure to meet your burden of rejoinder. I will explain why:

I gave a specific example in my last post that refuted two of your claims:
1. The claim that causality as a concept doesn't exist.
2. The claim that this is relevant to proving your claim about an infinite past being viable.

Here is what I said:

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.

You have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder as you have offered no counter argument to my argument.

Therefore, your claim stands refuted by my argument.

All you have done is responded with an assertion fallacy, claiming this article proves you right, without giving any reasons why you think it does. Which is itself also a fallacy of repetition, because you already asserted that in the last post. So your response is nothing more than repeating your original assertion while ignoring my counter argument which has already refuted your claim.

You appear to be confirming what I said in my last post: Which is that I don't believe you understand enough about what you're trying to argue to directly counter my arguments with your own words - which is why you are trying to let articles talk for you.

If the article really did prove your claim were true then it should be easy for you to give specific reasons why my red ball analogy is supposedly not a refutation of your claim that causality as a concept doesn't exist.

But you can't do that. Because it's not true.

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.

Your response is a fallacy of argument by repetition.

You did not respond to my arguments in the previous post which refuted your position. All you did is merely repeat your already refuted original claim.

What I argued:

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).

I refuted in there both your claim that my definition of entropy is not correct, but more importantly I refuted your claim that your quibbling over the definition of entropy is even relevant to anything.

Even if I were to appease your definition by taking out the part of my definition that says entropy leads to disorder, and simply talked about entropy as energy leaving one system to establish equilibrium over the whole, it doesn't change anything about what I have argued about why the bounce models you have mentioned are incapable of dealing with the problem of entropy.

So your attempts to quibble over the definition of entropy have no material impact on what I am arguing nor do they defend what you are trying to claim about the bounce model dealing with entropy.

Which makes your attempt to quibble over this a meaningless red herring fallacy - a distraction from the fact that the bounce model is incompatible with the concept of entropy as energy always establishing an equilibrium over time. It doesn't matter whether or not you want to put disorder in the definition of not. Entropy still refutes your bounce model claims on the grounds that you have no viable way of explaining how the energy puts itself back into a concentrated state after spreading out towards equilibrium.

This is the same fallacious way of arguing you are taking with the infinity issue - instead of dealing with the conceptual arguments about why the concept of infinity is incompatible with reality, you try to quibble over irrelevant points of definition that don't actually impact the conceptual arguments being made.

Likewise, you're trying to quibble over irrelevant points about the definition of entropy that don't actually impact the conceptual arguments being made.

You cannot give any reasons why your quibbling over these specific details would be relevant to either refuting what I argued or proving what you claimed. Which is why your arguments are just red herring fallacies. Distractions. Because you can't counter the conceptual arguments directly.

 

[Rise]

I wasn't mocking ...

You've already annoyed the **** out of me.

Frankly, I fear for the server.

Ooh bit of a long shot that.

... I don't normally respond to your tedious screeds. ...

Your entire post history in this thread is nothing but what would qualify as mocking/ad hominem.

Responding only with mocking to something you disagree with, offering no valid logical argument against it, is the definition of the fallacy of appealing to mockery.

It is a sign of weakness in your belief system.

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.

This obviously qualified as mockery on the grounds that you:
a) Ad hominem and strawman my argument by accusing it falsely of just being "repasted posts".
b) Make reference to laughing at my posts.
c) Call me or my posts sad.

Since you offer no valid logical arguments against any argument I have made, but only attempt to mock it because you disagree with it, you have committed a textbook logical fallacy of appeal to mockery.

... wasn't making claims ...

You did indeed make claims. I will identify them for you:

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

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.

1. You claim there is nothing wrong with the way you are posting in the forum you are posting in. Which means you are claiming, in the context of what you were responding to, that you think there's nothing wrong with making fallacies of assertion in a debate forum and offering no logically valid arguments or counter arguments.

2. Which would also imply the claim that you think there is nothing wrong with you committing ad hominem and mockery fallacies in a debate forum without offering any valid logical arguments or counter arguments.

3. You claim my posts qualify as "tedious screeds".

4 You imply the claim that there is something wrong with my pointing out logical fallacies.

5. You claim my posts are just repasting the same thing.

... and you have refuted nothing.

You have offered no evidence or logical reasons to meet your required burden of proof for claims #3, #4, or #5. They are at best fallacies of arguments by assertion and at worst simply ad hominem fallacies you know can't be backed up with logical arguments. As such, they can be dismissed without further need for rebuttal.

#1 and #2 are claims of yours I already refuted in my previous responses to you. You did not try to offer counter argument to them, but merely responded with fallacious appeals to mockery.

As a result, you have failed to meet your required burden of rejoinder to offer a valid counter argument.

Consequently, your original claims stand refuted. You therefore are not in the right to claim you can spew fallacies of assertion and ad hominem all over a debate thread without ever attempting to offer a valid logical argument in defense of your position.

I was simply being honest.

You believing your ad hominems/appeals to mockery to be true doesn't make them stop being fallacies.

Even if we assumed they were true they wouldn't represent a logically valid counter argument to what you disagree with.

The fact that you can only respond with ad hominems shows that your position is too weak to stand on logic.

I could respond a lot more but we all know what the cookie cutter response would be. May your god go with you.

If all you have to respond with is more fallacies of assertion and ad hominem/mockery then of course we know what the response would have to be.

You can't offer a valid logical rebuttal.

You aren't entitled to have your fallacies of assertion treated as though they are valid logical arguments. You need to provide reasons and evidence for your claims.

You aren't entitled to have your ad hominem fallacies treated as valid counter arguments and rebuttals. You aren't even addressing the argument by definition.

Why do you feel entitled to commit the fallacies of assertion and ad hominem and then have them treated as valid arguments?

 

[Secret Chief]

3. You claim my posts qualify as "tedious screeds".

You have offered no evidence or logical reasons to meet your required burden of proof for claims #3.

Secret Chief said: ↑
I wasn't mocking ...
↑
You've already annoyed the **** out of me.
↑
Frankly, I fear for the server.
↑
Ooh bit of a long shot that.
↑
... I don't normally respond to your tedious screeds. ...
Your entire post history in this thread is nothing but what would qualify as mocking/ad hominem.

Responding only with mocking to something you disagree with, offering no valid logical argument against it, is the definition of the fallacy of appealing to mockery.

It is a sign of weakness in your belief system.

↑
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.
This obviously qualified as mockery on the grounds that you:
a) Ad hominem and strawman my argument by accusing it falsely of just being "repasted posts".
b) Make reference to laughing at my posts.
c) Call me or my posts sad.

Since you offer no valid logical arguments against any argument I have made, but only attempt to mock it because you disagree with it, you have committed a textbook logical fallacy of appeal to mockery.


↑
I got news for you bub, this is a public forum and I can post where I like. 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.
↑
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.
1. You claim there is nothing wrong with the way you are posting in the forum you are posting in. Which means you are claiming, in the context of what you were responding to, that you think there's nothing wrong with making fallacies of assertion in a debate forum and offering no logically valid arguments or counter arguments.

2. Which would also imply the claim that you think there is nothing wrong with you committing ad hominem and mockery fallacies in a debate forum without offering any valid logical arguments or counter arguments.

3. You claim my posts qualify as "tedious screeds".

4 You imply the claim that there is something wrong with my pointing out logical fallacies.

5. You claim my posts are just repasting the same thing.

... and you have refuted nothing.
You have offered no evidence or logical reasons to meet your required burden of proof for claims #3, #4, or #5. They are at best fallacies of arguments by assertion and at worst simply ad hominem fallacies you know can't be backed up with logical arguments. As such, they can be dismissed without further need for rebuttal.

#1 and #2 are claims of yours I already refuted in my previous responses to you. You did not try to offer counter argument to them, but merely responded with fallacious appeals to mockery.

As a result, you have failed to meet your required burden of rejoinder to offer a valid counter argument.

Consequently, your original claims stand refuted. You therefore are not in the right to claim you can spew fallacies of assertion and ad hominem all over a debate thread without ever attempting to offer a valid logical argument in defense of your position.

I was simply being honest.
You believing your ad hominems/appeals to mockery to be true doesn't make them stop being fallacies.

Even if we assumed they were true they wouldn't represent a logically valid counter argument to what you disagree with.

The fact that you can only respond with ad hominems shows that your position is too weak to stand on logic.

I could respond a lot more but we all know what the cookie cutter response would be. May your god go with you.
If all you have to respond with is more fallacies of assertion and ad hominem/mockery then of course we know what the response would have to be.

You can't offer a valid logical rebuttal.

You aren't entitled to have your fallacies of assertion treated as though they are valid logical arguments. You need to provide reasons and evidence for your claims.

You aren't entitled to have your ad hominem fallacies treated as valid counter arguments and rebuttals. You aren't even addressing the argument by definition.

Why do you feel entitled to commit the fallacies of assertion and ad hominem and then have them treated as valid arguments?

 

[Rise]

Secret Chief said: ↑
I wasn't mocking ...
↑
You've already annoyed the **** out of me.
↑
Frankly, I fear for the server.
↑
Ooh bit of a long shot that.
↑
... I don't normally respond to your tedious screeds. ...
Your entire post history in this thread is nothing but what would qualify as mocking/ad hominem.

Responding only with mocking to something you disagree with, offering no valid logical argument against it, is the definition of the fallacy of appealing to mockery.

It is a sign of weakness in your belief system.

↑
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.
This obviously qualified as mockery on the grounds that you:
a) Ad hominem and strawman my argument by accusing it falsely of just being "repasted posts".
b) Make reference to laughing at my posts.
c) Call me or my posts sad.

Since you offer no valid logical arguments against any argument I have made, but only attempt to mock it because you disagree with it, you have committed a textbook logical fallacy of appeal to mockery.


↑
I got news for you bub, this is a public forum and I can post where I like. 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.
↑
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.
1. You claim there is nothing wrong with the way you are posting in the forum you are posting in. Which means you are claiming, in the context of what you were responding to, that you think there's nothing wrong with making fallacies of assertion in a debate forum and offering no logically valid arguments or counter arguments.

2. Which would also imply the claim that you think there is nothing wrong with you committing ad hominem and mockery fallacies in a debate forum without offering any valid logical arguments or counter arguments.

3. You claim my posts qualify as "tedious screeds".

4 You imply the claim that there is something wrong with my pointing out logical fallacies.

5. You claim my posts are just repasting the same thing.

... and you have refuted nothing.
You have offered no evidence or logical reasons to meet your required burden of proof for claims #3, #4, or #5. They are at best fallacies of arguments by assertion and at worst simply ad hominem fallacies you know can't be backed up with logical arguments. As such, they can be dismissed without further need for rebuttal.

#1 and #2 are claims of yours I already refuted in my previous responses to you. You did not try to offer counter argument to them, but merely responded with fallacious appeals to mockery.

As a result, you have failed to meet your required burden of rejoinder to offer a valid counter argument.

Consequently, your original claims stand refuted. You therefore are not in the right to claim you can spew fallacies of assertion and ad hominem all over a debate thread without ever attempting to offer a valid logical argument in defense of your position.

I was simply being honest.
You believing your ad hominems/appeals to mockery to be true doesn't make them stop being fallacies.

Even if we assumed they were true they wouldn't represent a logically valid counter argument to what you disagree with.

The fact that you can only respond with ad hominems shows that your position is too weak to stand on logic.

I could respond a lot more but we all know what the cookie cutter response would be. May your god go with you.
If all you have to respond with is more fallacies of assertion and ad hominem/mockery then of course we know what the response would have to be.

You can't offer a valid logical rebuttal.

You aren't entitled to have your fallacies of assertion treated as though they are valid logical arguments. You need to provide reasons and evidence for your claims.

You aren't entitled to have your ad hominem fallacies treated as valid counter arguments and rebuttals. You aren't even addressing the argument by definition.

Why do you feel entitled to commit the fallacies of assertion and ad hominem and then have them treated as valid arguments?

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You have only asserted you think what you quoted proves your claim but have given no reasons why what you quoted would qualify as what you claim.
Merely asserting it doesn't make it true just because you assert it is so.

Logical fallacy, ad hominem and irrelevant conclusion/red herring.
Whether or not your claim would be true is irrelevant to refuting any argument I made.
It is also irrelevant to proving any of your claims that there is nothing wrong with posting nothing but fallacies in a debate forum.

The fact that you only even tried to defend the most irrelevant of your claims, which was nothing more than an ad hominem to begin with, whilst ignoring the main claims you made, shows that your original claims were intellectually bankrupt and without merit.

Your claims were:

1. You claim there is nothing wrong with the way you are posting in the forum you are posting in. Which means you are claiming, in the context of what you were responding to, that you think there's nothing wrong with making fallacies of assertion in a debate forum and offering no logically valid arguments or counter arguments.

2. Which would also imply the claim that you think there is nothing wrong with you committing ad hominem and mockery fallacies in a debate forum without offering any valid logical arguments or counter arguments.

3 You imply the claim that there is something wrong with my pointing out logical fallacies.

4. You claim my posts are just repasting the same thing.


Which then makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of red herring. You're trying to create a distraction away from the fact that you can't defend your main three claims #1-3 by using ad hominem attacks like "tedious screed".

But the truth or falseness of your attack doesn't prove your main claims nor disprove my arguments that refute your main claims.

Which is why your attack constitutes a fallacy of ad hominem because you are using the attack in lieu of having a real counter argument. Your ad hominem has no bearing on proving or disproving anything even if it were assumed to be true.



It is telling that the only claim you were even willing to try to defend was the ad hominem. Which fits with the fact that your posts have been characterized as nothing but ad hominems since the beginning with no legitimate attempt at making any real arguments.

You even tried to claim you hadn't made any arguments. You didn't realize you had. You weren't intending to make real arguments, but just sprew ad hominems. As a result, the only things you're willing to defend are the ad hominems, and not your unintentional arguments.

This demostrated behavior by you shows you are further guilty of the fallacy of males fides - arguing in bad faith. You never intended to make valid arguments but only intended to commit ad hominem fallacies against a position you disagreed with.