Religions favourite argument

[McBell]

its not empty since alot of our day to day life is caused by agents its just a step beyond the usual attribution of agents but still since we can say all of our conversations are agents interacting that every other event is also in responsibility of an agent.

Merely reworded the empty claim does not make it magically an unempty claim.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Merely reworded the empty claim does not make it magically an unempty claim.

How is it empty? can you refute it by saying that there are events not caused by agents?

 

[McBell]

How is it empty? can you refute it by saying that there are events not caused by agents?

You have not presented anything but a bold empty claim.
No need for me to refute your claim you cannot support.
It merely gets dismissed as being the wishful thinking you have thus far presented it to be.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

You have not presented anything but a bold empty claim.
No need for me to refute your claim you cannot support.
It merely gets dismissed as being the wishful thinking you have thus far presented it to be.

everything presented in a logical argument is true unless proven false

 

[McBell]

everything presented in a logical argument is true unless proven false

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation

you disagree?

 

[McBell]

you disagree?

 

[Riverwolf]

everything presented in a logical argument is true unless proven false

Actually... it's the exact opposite.

Truths are most often and efficiently found when the starting assumption in an argument is false (innocent) until proven true (guilty). It is the responsibility of the claimant to prove the truth of their claim.

Heck, a practical application of this can be found in computer programming. When you set up a boolean variable, you set it to 0 (false) by default ALWAYS, unless there's good reason to set it to 1 (true) to start with. If you did the opposite, debugging would be a NIGHTMARE because the computer would start doing a bunch of things it's not supposed to.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Actually... it's the exact opposite.

Truths are most often and efficiently found when the starting assumption in an argument is false (innocent) until proven true (guilty). It is the responsibility of the claimant to prove the truth of their claim.

Heck, a practical application of this can be found in computer programming. When you set up a boolean variable, you set it to 0 (false) by default ALWAYS, unless there's good reason to set it to 1 (true) to start with. If you did the opposite, debugging would be a NIGHTMARE because the computer would start doing a bunch of things it's not supposed to.

Now think about it for a second before you make silly replies. Should i believe your story(argument) about how computer programming works, or your personal stories of your day to day life, right away as you mention them? or should you always provide direct evidence for everything that has happened (i.e. fotos, videos and reference to the programms)? Otherwise youre a liar?

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Cant form normal sentences on your own?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What's your favorite argument?

Simplistic anti-religious arguments based on the trivializing of trivial arguments for religion. They amuse me.

 

[McBell]

Cant form normal sentences on your own?

You really should try reading the link for comprehension before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

 

[jeager106]

Just say you believe in Thor, it would save a lot of your time Meanwhile you can also believe in the tooth fairy and Flying pink unicorns. Science can't prove neither exist so why not? heh

Thor is REAL. Just yesterday I hoed my garden while speaking with
the invisible lettuce fairy and my back is still THOR~!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Heck, a practical application of this can be found in computer programming. When you set up a boolean variable, you set it to 0 (false) by default ALWAYS, unless there's good reason to set it to 1 (true) to start with. If you did the opposite, debugging would be a NIGHTMARE because the computer would start doing a bunch of things it's not supposed to.

That is simply nonsense. How one defaults a boolean variable depends entirely on what that variable represents, and that is entirely under the control of the programmer.

 

[Riverwolf]

That is simply nonsense. How one defaults a boolean variable depends entirely on what that variable represents, and that is entirely under the control of the programmer.

...yeah, upon reflection, that was a pretty bad example, likely based on misapplying a technique I was taught, that variables (boolean or otherwise) always be set to 0 if they're not set to anything else upon declaration. I am not a very good programmer.

 

[Riverwolf]

Now think about it for a second before you make silly replies. Should i believe your story(argument) about how computer programming works, or your personal stories of your day to day life, right away as you mention them? or should you always provide direct evidence for everything that has happened (i.e. fotos, videos and reference to the programms)? Otherwise youre a liar?

Liars are people who claim untrue things knowing that they're untrue. You are not a liar for claiming an untruth that you believe is true. I disagree with many, many people on these forums, but, except for the periodic POE troll, I don't think any of them are liars.

As Jay pointed out, and as I kinda realized not long after posting, my programming example is very, very poor. Since that involves a real-life skill and trade, you absolutely should double-check claims made about it if it's important enough for you to know. (Which WILL give you headaches, because programmers can sometimes be rather... zealous about the perfectness of their particular favorite techniques, and the stupidness of all other techniques).

Now, obviously if we ask for "evidence" for everything we hear from other people, including mundane stuff like "it's my birthday today!" (which, I swear by Loki's fabulous hair is SHEER coincidence , it actually is), then casual interactions would be cumbersome and unwieldy. But not all human interaction is the same.

In the context of a debate, any newly presented arguments need to be supported, or there's no reason to believe them. When I say it's my birthday, that's not an argument. When I say that boolean variables MUST be set to false at all times in programming unless there's good reason not to, that is an argument which can be discarded without proper support.

This is THE reason why in the US justice system (ideally, anyway), a convict is innocent: i.e., the claim that they broke a law is assumed false; until proven guilty: the claim is proven true.

BTW, I do think before I post. I think on my posts for several minutes before making them; it's not unheard of for me to think on a single post for a whole hour before posting it. Often, it also involves something I'd been thinking about in my own time. The quality of an argument rarely as anything to do with the "quantity" of thought that was put into it. After all, it's also not unheard of for some of these long-thought-out posts to be dismissed because I was thinking in the completely wrong direction. That's why I'm here: to help guide my thinking.

 

[Riverwolf]

Just say you believe in Thor, it would save a lot of your time

Thunder is real, dude. I'm pretty sure even people who live in regions that don't often get them would know that.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

You really should try reading the link for comprehension before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

And where exactly have i made such an equivocation fallacy? The statement "everything presented in a logical argument is true unless proven false"? How? I cant follow your train of thought. And you make it even harder by not typing full sentences but giving links instead.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Liars are people who claim untrue things knowing that they're untrue. You are not a liar for claiming an untruth that you believe is true. I disagree with many, many people on these forums, but, except for the periodic POE troll, I don't think any of them are liars.

As Jay pointed out, and as I kinda realized not long after posting, my programming example is very, very poor. Since that involves a real-life skill and trade, you absolutely should double-check claims made about it if it's important enough for you to know. (Which WILL give you headaches, because programmers can sometimes be rather... zealous about the perfectness of their particular favorite techniques, and the stupidness of all other techniques).

Now, obviously if we ask for "evidence" for everything we hear from other people, including mundane stuff like "it's my birthday today!" (which, I swear by Loki's fabulous hair is SHEER coincidence , it actually is), then casual interactions would be cumbersome and unwieldy. But not all human interaction is the same.

In the context of a debate, any newly presented arguments need to be supported, or there's no reason to believe them. When I say it's my birthday, that's not an argument. When I say that boolean variables MUST be set to false at all times in programming unless there's good reason not to, that is an argument which can be discarded without proper support.

This is THE reason why in the US justice system (ideally, anyway), a convict is innocent: i.e., the claim that they broke a law is assumed false; until proven guilty: the claim is proven true.

BTW, I do think before I post. I think on my posts for several minutes before making them; it's not unheard of for me to think on a single post for a whole hour before posting it. Often, it also involves something I'd been thinking about in my own time. The quality of an argument rarely as anything to do with the "quantity" of thought that was put into it. After all, it's also not unheard of for some of these long-thought-out posts to be dismissed because I was thinking in the completely wrong direction. That's why I'm here: to help guide my thinking.

Belated happy birthday. I dont see any point of disagreement with this post. Best of wishes.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

everything presented in a logical argument is true unless proven false

Allow me to give you a perfectly logical argument:
1) Everything I say is true | Premise
2) I say that nothing presented in a logical argument is true | Premise
3) Nothing presented in a logical argument is true | Valid conclusion given 1 & 2

Logic allows us (most agree) to determine what inferences and deductions we can make given particular premises and so forth. An argument can be logical quite easily and be obviously wrong because validity doesn't require premises to be true.