Special Pleading and the PoE (Part 3)

[Rise]

No, I used no logical fallacy. Like many people you do not seem to understand how they work. An insufficiently supported claim is of no value in a debate. I did not say that it was false, there is merely no reason to believe it and the sources that you used only makes it look like useless drivel. When I make a positive assertion about a scientific concept I can support it properly. You seem to lack that talent. At least in this instance.


Do you understand that when you fail to support your point that you means that you have not demonstrated reliable evidence for your beliefs. Once again that does not prove you "wrong" it only shows that your case is unsupported.

In layman's terms, you screwed the pooch and now you are trying to shift the burden of proof. You never provided proper evidence for your claim in the first place.

Logical fallacy, "hitchens fallacy".
The truth or falseness of a position is not determined by your personal level of persuasion.

You saying "I'm not convinced by this source" doesn't logically mean anything with regards to refuting information in that source.

That's just your opinion. It doesn't refute the logic or disprove the evidence in any way just because you personally don't find it convincing.

You don't invalidate a piece of evidence in a debate unless you can give specific reasons or evidence against it.

If you think a piece of evidence is insufficient to establish a claim then you bear the burden of giving specific valid logical reasons why the evidence should not be regarded as sufficient.

Which you haven't done.

So you are committing a fallacy of argument by assertion when you try to assert it is not a reliable source when you have given no reasons why your claim would be true.

You are also committing the genetic fallacy on top of that because the only reason you give for not being convinced by the source is because you think it's "extreme christian".

You do not logically disprove the conclusion or the evidence by attacking it's source. Especially when you don't even attempt to give valid logical reasons why the source would be at all relevant to disproving the claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logical fallacy, "hitchens fallacy".
The truth or falseness of a position is not determined by your personal level of persuasion.

You saying "I'm not convinced by this source" doesn't logically mean anything with regards to refuting information in that source.

That's just your opinion. It doesn't refute the logic or disprove the evidence in any way just because you personally don't find it convincing.

You don't invalidate a piece of evidence in a debate unless you can give specific reasons or evidence against it.

Which you haven't done, and can't do.

So you are committing a fallacy of argument by assertion when you try to assert it is not a reliable source when you have given no reasons why your claim would be true.

You are also committing the genetic fallacy on top of that because the only reason you give for not being convinced by the source is because you think it's "extreme christian".

You do not logically disprove the conclusion or the evidence by attacking it's source.

Wow! A strawman argument is also a logical fallacy. I never said that your claim was false. I pointed out the fact that it was not properly supported.

Try again.

 

[Rise]

Wow! A strawman argument is also a logical fallacy. I never said that your claim was false. I pointed out the fact that it was not properly supported.

Try again.

Logical fallacy, avoiding the issue and/or strawman.
You tried to make two claims. You ignored trying to defend one of them and you misrepresented my argument to avoid defending your other claim.

With regards to the hitchens fallacy you committed, it applies to your claim that the evidence doesn't support the conclusion.
You don't need to be claiming the conclusion is false in order for you to be committing the hitchens fallacy.
The hitchens fallacy applies to those who aren't claiming they can outright prove something is false but instead applies to those who are trying to claim someone has not properly evidenced a claim just because it fails to personally convince them of it's truth - which is what you did.


1. You tried to claim the source wasn't reliable.
You committed the genetic fallacy and argument by assertion in doing so. As you gave no valid reasons why the information or it's source should not be considered reliable.

2. You tried to claim the conclusion was not established sufficiently by the evidence presented.

Which is you committing the hitchens fallacy because you never gave any valid logical reasons why you think the given evidence should not be regarded as sufficiently establishing the claim for the purposes of the debate.

You only declared your personal opinion that you don't find the evidence convincing.
But your personal level of persuasion has nothing to do with determining whether or not a claim has been logically evidenced sufficiently.

In fact, it appears the only basis upon which you try to claim the evidence is not sufficient is purely on the basis that you consider it's source unreliable. A claim which was also based on the genetic and argument by assertion fallacies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logical fallacy, avoiding the issue and/or strawman.
You tried to make two claims. You ignored trying to defend one of them and you misrepresented my argument to avoid defending your other claim.

With regards to the hitchens fallacy you committed, it applies to your claim that the evidence doesn't support the conclusion.
You don't need to be claiming the conclusion is false in order for you to be committing the hitchens fallacy.
The hitchens fallacy applies to those who aren't claiming they can outright prove something is false but instead applies to those who are trying to claim someone has not properly evidenced a claim just because it fails to personally convince them of it's truth - which is what you did.


1. You tried to claim the source wasn't reliable.
You committed the genetic fallacy and argument by assertion in doing so. As you gave no valid reasons why the information or it's source should not be considered reliable.

2. You tried to claim the conclusion was not established sufficiently by the evidence presented.

Which is you committing the hitchens fallacy because you never gave any valid logical reasons why you think the given evidence should not be regarded as sufficiently establishing the claim for the purposes of the debate.

You only declared your personal opinion that you don't find the evidence convincing.
But your personal level of persuasion has nothing to do with determining whether or not a claim has been logically evidenced sufficiently.

In fact, it appears the only basis upon which you try to claim the evidence is not sufficient is purely on the basis that you consider it's source unreliable. A claim which was also based on the genetic and argument by assertion fallacies.

LOL, more babble from the person that does not understand logical fallacies.

Your source was not reliable for scientific claims. For that one needs to ultimately link to a science based source. Sadly not only have you failed at logical fallacies, you fail when it comes to reliable sources. And by the way, when you claim that your source is reliable you take on a burden of proof. Once again you failed to do that .

Shifting the burden of proof appears to be your favorite logical fallacy.

 

[Rise]

LOL, more babble from the person that does not understand logical fallacies.

Logical fallacy, appeal to mockery, argument by assertion, and failure of the burden of rejoinder.

You have not given any evidence or arguments to prove your claim why any fallacy I pointed out of yours is supposedly in error. Because you can't. Thus you committed the fallacy of argument by assertion and my arguments stand unrefuted by you.

You appeal to mockery because you have lost the argument on logical grounds and have nothing left to fall back on as a response.

And you have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder to offer a counter argument to my arguments. As such, my arguments stand unrefuted and you have tacitly conceded the debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logical fallacy, appeal to mockery, argument by assertion, and failure of the burden of rejoinder.

You have not given any evidence or arguments to prove your claim why any fallacy I pointed out of yours is supposedly in error. Because you can't.

You appeal to mockery because you have lost the argument on logical grounds and have nothing left to fall back on as a response.

And you have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder to offer a counter argument to my arguments. As such, my arguments stand unrefuted and you have tacitly conceded the debate.

Nope, an observation is not a logical fallacy.

Try again.

 

[Rise]

Nope, an observation is not a logical fallacy.

Try again.

Logical fallacies, argument by repetition, avoiding the issue, and failure of the burden of rejoinder.

1. You tried to claim that I supposedly don't understand logical fallacies. You have given no evidence or arguments to support your claim. Thus you did commit the fallacy of argument by assertion and did not meet your burden of proof for your claim.

Calling it an "observation" doesn't change the fact that you are still making a claim about what you suppose is true but you can't support that claim.
You are not merely trying to express your opinion but are trying to make a claim to supposed truth.

Which puts the burden of proof on you to substantiate your claim. Otherwise your claim can be dismissed.


2. You are avoiding the real issue, which is that you failed to meet your required burden of rejoinder and only made a fallacious appeal to mockery in it's place.

You have not corrected that issue with your latest response.

As such, my arguments against your claims remain standing and you have lost the debate by definition by being unable to offer a valid counter argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logical fallacies, argument by repetition, avoiding the issue, and failure of the burden of rejoinder.

1. You tried to claim that I supposedly don't understand logical fallacies. You have given no evidence or arguments to support your claim. Thus you did commit the fallacy of argument by assertion and did not meet your burden of proof for your claim.

Calling it an "observation" doesn't change the fact that you are still making a claim about what you suppose is true but you can't support that claim.
You are not merely trying to express your opinion but are trying to make a claim to supposed truth.

Which puts the burden of proof on you to substantiate your claim. Otherwise your claim can be dismissed.


2. You are avoiding the real issue, which is that you failed to meet your required burden of rejoinder and only made a fallacious appeal to mockery in it's place.

You have not corrected that issue with your latest response.

As such, my arguments against your claims remain standing and you have lost the debate by definition by being unable to offer a valid counter argument.

Still more babble. When you want a serious discussion tell me. But you probably have lost all of those due to the use of logical fallacies, which you still do not understand.

 

[samtonga43]

Still more babble. When you want a serious discussion tell me. But you probably have lost all of those due to the use of logical fallacies, which you still do not understand.

"Ridicule is the first and last argument of a fool".
Charles Simmons

 

[Rise]

Still more babble.

Logical fallacy, ad hominem.
You are unable to refute my arguments on logical grounds so you can only resort to calling those arguments names.

When you want a serious discussion tell me.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and ad hominem.
You cannot point to any factual point to demonstrate a supposed lack of seriousness on my part. Which makes your ad hominem attempted attack on character based on nothing but unsupported assertions.

Your accusation would also qualify as the psycological act of projection and gaslighting - as I have shown in previous posts how you are the only one here who is unable and unwilling to defend your claims with valid proof or respond to arguments with valid counter arguments.

By definition you are not engaging in a debate at that point.

So we could conclude you aren't serious about debate or the truth.

But you probably have lost all of those due to the use of logical fallacies, which you still do not understand.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.
You are not only committing a fallacy of argument by assertion, as you cannot prove your claim that I supposedly don't understand logical fallacies, but you are now committing a fallacy of repetition by merely repeating your refuted argument while not attempting to provide a valid counter argument to that which refuted it.

Your refuted argument does not stop being refuted just because you repeat it.

As such, you have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder to provide a counter argument to my arguments which refuted your claims.

If you are unable to offer a counter argument you lose the debate by definition.

If you continue to use logical fallacies as counter arguments, after they have already been pointed out as fallacies, then you are further guilty of the fallacy of malas fides - arguing in bad faith. At that point you also lose the debate by definition on grounds that you are not actually trying to have a real debate which requires obeying the laws of logic.

 

[Rise]

"Ridicule is the first and last argument of a fool".
Charles Simmons

That statement is more true than most people realize. Because the Biblical definition of a fool, as seen in places like Proverbs, is one who doesn't love truth/wisdom.

I have observed that most people, when pressed beyond their ability to offer a counter argument, respond with ridicule or anger in an effort to shut down debate without having to admit they can't respond or might be wrong.

Someone who does that does not love the truth.

Someone who loves the truth welcomes when someone can show why they are wrong because it refines them closer to what is true.

A fool doesn't love truth but only loves their own ideas. Which is why, instead of honestly admitting they don't have a counter argument, or even changing their mind to admit they were wrong, they simply attack.

That is also why the fool is also engaging in idolatry - because God is the definition of Truth. Anyone who wants to elevate their own false ideas over the truth of God is trying to make themselves out to be god. Because there can only be one truth by definition of what truth is (singular, exclusive). And God by definition is who determines what is true by being the origin and creator of all reality. These people want to be the ones who determine what is true in place of God. But they can't. It's a delusion.

Maybe that is then where this propensity to attack comes from? You're telling someone they aren't god. You're undermining their view of themselves and the world that they depend on in order to live the way they do by showing them that their opinion doesn't determine reality. So they attack because they can't argue against the truth but they don't want to give up idolizing themselves as gods either.

It's not unlike the worshippers of fake statue idol gods attacking the apostle Paul for coming into town and proving to them that their idols are fake by doing supernatural demonstrations of healing and power in the name of Jesus. They think they get something by believing in the idols and rejecting the truth of God. They don''t want to give that up to embrace the truth. It is the original sin in the Garden of Eden all over again. Mankind keeps repeating it over and over in different forms, trapped in that sin cycle, because they don't want to embrace the work of Jesus to be free them from it - because doing that would require dying to themselves and giving up what they currently have in exchange for what God wants to give them. They don't believe what God wants to give them is as good as what they currently cling to; just as Eve did not believe that what God had already given them was better than what satan promised them if they rebelled.

 

[samtonga43]

Never were truer words spoken.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Never were truer words spoken.

Unfortunately we are dealing with what appears to be a one trick pony. He shows all of the signs of losing debates using logical fallacies . constantly. He still uses them himself while accusing others of using them and refuses to enter into a polite discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Ridicule is the first and last argument of a fool".
Charles Simmons

Is pointing out that all he has is babble "ridicule"? Unfortunately one cannot properly engage with this person.

 

[night912]

I had to look into that story. It appears to be pure BS. I could not find any reliable independent sources that confirmed it. Only rather extreme Christian sources.

Are there any reliable sources for that at all?

Logical fallacy, genetic fallacy and/or argument by assertion.

You have no evidence to claim that is is BS.
You have not identified any flaws with the book that was written about it or it's source.
Therefore, you have no basis to claim it appears to be BS.

Actually, that fallacy was not committed. The mistake you made regarding the initial claim, is the reason why you think it's fallacious. The initial truth claim is the story of the lion. The story is presented as being true, therefore, evidence demonstrating that it's true, is required. Pointing out that there is no evidence to support a claim, then saying that whatever that claimed, should not be accepted to be true, is not fallacious.

The idea of not accepting something as true due to lack of evidence, is logical. But even if it's logical, it has no bearing on whether a claim is true or false.

Since a logical reason was given, there is basis for saying that the story is BS, especially when there's no one single meaning to "BS."

Simply calling it a Christian source doesn't refute or disprove the truth of the information contained therein.

No it doesn't. However, if it wasn't the reason for concluding that the story is not true, the genetic fallacy was committed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, that fallacy was not committed. The mistake you made regarding the initial claim, is the reason why you think it's fallacious. The initial truth claim is the story of the lion. The story is presented as being true, therefore, evidence demonstrating that it's true, is required. Pointing out that there is no evidence to support a claim, then saying that whatever that claimed, should not be accepted to be true, is not fallacious.

The idea of not accepting something as true due to lack of evidence, is logical. But even if it's logical, it has no bearing on whether a claim is true or false.

Since a logical reason was given, there is basis for saying that the story is BS, especially when there's no one single meaning to "BS."


No it doesn't. However, if it wasn't the reason for concluding that the story is not true, the genetic fallacy was committed.

Be prepared for some more abuse of "logical fallacies"

 

[night912]

Logical fallacy, "hitchens fallacy".
The truth or falseness of a position is not determined by your personal level of persuasion.

You saying "I'm not convinced by this source" doesn't logically mean anything with regards to refuting information in that source.

That's just your opinion. It doesn't refute the logic or disprove the evidence in any way just because you personally don't find it convincing.

You don't invalidate a piece of evidence in a debate unless you can give specific reasons or evidence against it.

If you think a piece of evidence is insufficient to establish a claim then you bear the burden of giving specific valid logical reasons why the evidence should not be regarded as sufficient.

Which you haven't done.

So you are committing a fallacy of argument by assertion when you try to assert it is not a reliable source when you have given no reasons why your claim would be true.

You are also committing the genetic fallacy on top of that because the only reason you give for not being convinced by the source is because you think it's "extreme christian".

You do not logically disprove the conclusion or the evidence by attacking it's source. Especially when you don't even attempt to give valid logical reasons why the source would be at all relevant to disproving the claim.

Whether or not a fallacy was committed regarding statements about the source, it's irrelevant. It doesn't effect the claim as being true or false, because the "source" of the information is not evidence for the claim.

At the end, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. Within the context of this discussion, the story is the initial claim, therefore, the burden of proof lies on the one who made the story and/or the one who proposed that the content of the story is true. And evidence is what determines whether the story is true or not. Opinions, logical and illogical arguments, fallacies etc, does not. With that said, the fallacious arguments given by anyone, does not necessarily mean that the conclusion of the proposition is false. And logical arguments don't necessarily mean that the conclusion is true.

 

[night912]

That statement is more true than most people realize. Because the Biblical definition of a fool, as seen in places like Proverbs, is one who doesn't love truth/wisdom.

What can also be added to that is, fools don't realize that they are fools.

 

[samtonga43]

Is pointing out that all he has is babble "ridicule"?

Yes.

 

[samtonga43]

What can also be added to that is, fools don't realize that they are fools.

That is true.