the fallacy thread NOW HIRING! fallacy mods!

[happydolphin]

dsgrue3 said:

happydolphin said:

dsgrue3 said:

happydolphin said:

We beat a dead horse last time and I was right. We can try beating it again.

I said "a premise", not "the premise".

Utter nonsense. You said his premise was faulty, he didn't have more than one. You won what? Odd comment.

When did I say I won? Reading problems today?

I said that I was correct in beating a dead horse with you in the "Why I hate debating religion" thread, nothing odd here. You and others were saying it was useless, and you were wrong.

As for nonsense here, no it is not. I said his logic was based off a missing and (in my view) faulty premise. He had his, and he was missing another.

Horse = almost beat.

"I won" "I was correct" is the exact same thing. 

I was saying what is useless? I think you are delusional.

It is nonsense. His premise was not faulty, and you misrepresented it to make it appear faulty. He need another logical substantiation in order to draw his conclusion, not another premise. lmfao.

Dunning-Kruger effect at work again.

I didn't say his premise was faulty, I said his logic was based on a missing premise. Reading is good for you.

As for being delusional, I don't think it's nice to call others that. 1 Ad hominem for you ;)

Anyways, here was your initial response to my criticism of your claim that observation precludes existence:

dsgrue3 said:

happydolphin said:
Tell me. You believe in evolution right? The moment we became capable of science as the human species, is that the moment everything came into existence?

 

Evolution is a fact. No "belief" involved. What a ludicrous statement, and the only reason I will address it is because of a lack of tasks at work and this will kill time. Indeed, before each iteration of evolution, a certain species did not exist. Surely that is the response you wanted and not some ridiculous response to lend any credence to your fundamentally ignorant viewpoint of existence. 

On the off chance that you are suggesting that prior to human nature nothing existed, OF COURSE IT FUCKING EXISTED, just because WE weren't around to observe it, the rest of the god damn animal kingdom was. Jesus, wake the hell up and stop making INANE arguments.

User was banned for this post - Kantor

 

Oh, wait, you called it an INANE argument... of course.

And later, much later, that my point was beyond pedanticism. To me, it's pretty much the same as saying I'm beating a dead horse:

dsgrue3 said:

happydolphin said:

dsgrue3 said:

Again, you seem to think observation implies sight. It doesn't. We can't see gravity, but we know it to exist. We can't see certain gases because they are not visible. 

Observation implies evidence, it certainly isn't confined to merely sight.

Well, we know the atom to exist and it does in fact encompass everything. This has been proven beyond any doubt as we have verified its existence through calculation and scientific study. The same cannot be said for your argument of God.

It's an untestable hypothesis and thus is not valid. This is why non-existence is impossible to prove. So asking a non-theist to do so is blatantly ignorant. 

I am not (yet) looking to invalidate the existence of God. At this point of the dialogue, I just want to demonstrate that the lack of observation does not disprove existence. For instance, prior to the existence of sentient, observing beings, everything that needed to exist to generate living beings was existent. The lack of observation didn't stop sentient creatures from coming into being.

(Note: This logic does not work for a creation deist since in general a creative deity is all-knowing. However in such a case the belief that observation alone proves existence wouldn't really be needed.)

This is beyond pedantism. Observation isn't predicated upon capability. We defined it as humans. The term existence didn't exist until we existed and defined it. That's like attempting to apply laws of science before the Universe came to be. 

I hope you understand the difference. 

From an objective third party intelligent being, indeed these such things existed (given the known physics definition for existence). 

@"Dunning-Kruger effect at work again." This is ad hominem, though I legitimately believe it is at work in you. I could demonstrate it if you like.