In the Absence of God, there can be no Human Rights.

[G.T.]

Show that youre using circular reasoning? Too easy.

Youre saying god exists because he exists. Now, outside lala land, that doesnt quite pass as sound reasoning.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Once again we have the OP prancing around using reductio ad absurdum because he has no logical viable basis for arguing the facts.

This fallacious circular is just beyond ludicrous!



BZZZT Wrong again!

The Laws of Physics stipulate that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Given that principle your imaginary omnipotent creator is a logical paradox because if he created something that cannot be destroyed he cannot be omnipotent because there is something that he cannot do which is to destroy matter.

Instead what we have is the matter/energy of the existing universe and no evidence of any kind whatsoever for the existence of your imaginary creator.

The Conservation of Energy principle stipulates that the matter/energy of the universe has always existed and always will exist in one form or another.

Ergo you have failed to prove that your imaginary creator exists and all of your subsequent blather is irrelevant.

ROFLMNAO!

I never tire of Anti-theists appealing to logic. It's adorable, because they're SO SURE, yet they have absolutely NO MEANS to understand what in the hell it even is.

She opens with an appeal to authority of logic and trains immediately into straw reasoning.

Just because matter and energy cannot be destroyed, that doesn't change the fact that such can readily be converted from either state into the other.

Therefore it follows that God, being energy, can readily produce matter. (It also covers the eternal omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, as well, but it wouldn't be fair to go there now. It would feel mike piling on.)

Now, was there any other aspect on this that you'd like to demonstrate your tendency for the short sighted?

Your demented cackling failed to refute the omnipotence paradox.

Patting yourself on the back and adopting a condescending manner only exposes the utter weakness of your fallacious position.

So there is no point in continuing since you cannot prove the most basic premise upon which your entire farcical OP rests.

Here's your sign!

There's no such thing as an "Omnipotence Paradox". This without regard to the 'feelings' which imply otherwise. Such would-be challenges are, without exception, irrational.

If you'd like to discover that for yourself, simply demand otherwise, state your specific challenge and experience the thrill of enlightenment for yourself.

What's more the assertions that a position is fallacious, is itself fallacious, where such does not specifically detail the flaw in the construct which has succumbed to the cited logical disorder.

Now FTR: The specific flaw in your specific construct is that you're appealing to the authority of Logic itself... toward the hope of deflecting from your own failure to mount a viable contest of the numerous standing points.

Should I cite the latin? Just let me know if you feel such is necessary. I'll be happy to do so, if it will make ya feel better about it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I had hope that the guy missing his keys had at least a modest grasp of logic; but alas, horrible circular reasoning is the backbone of his/her entire epistemology. Terrible.

I absolutely ADORE watching Anti-theist proclaim their adherent loyalty to logic.

And here's why:

GT, please take a moment to map the argument, showing the elements of such which succumb to circular reasoning.

(Now folks, there will not only be no mapping, there will be no explanation showing any basis whatsoever, for the claim. And this is because she hasn't the slightest idea what 'circular reasoning' is.)

LOL! Enjoy... .

Show that youre using circular reasoning? Too easy.

Youre saying god exists because he exists. Now, outside lala land, that doesnt quite pass as sound reasoning.

False... I've never said, nor have I implied that 'God exist, because he exists'. I've made no argument which seeks to explain why God exists.

What you're doing here, is setting aside the actual argument, in preference for an argument which you've fabricated from intellectual straw... it is a form of deflective appeal that seeks to obscure the point, instead of engaging it.

This is known as a default concession.

Which, having now noted your concession, this brings me to the formal acceptance of such and offering you my thanks for having provided this discussion with the very best you have to offer.

(LOL! That means ya done the best ya could GT and don't thing I don't appreciatecha for it!)

​

 

[G.T.]

Appealing to logic is an appeal to authority fallacy? Wow, only in derpa derpa-stan.

 

[G.T.]

Theres no point in barbing back and forth with someone who couldnt reason their way out of a brown paper bag.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Theres no point in barbing back and forth with someone who couldnt reason their way out of a brown paper bag.

I agree. Complete and utter waste of time.

/Unsubscribe

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Appealing to logic is an appeal to authority fallacy?

Yes. Ad Verecundiam constructs, do not morph into validity when the deflective appeal is to the sacrosanct authority of logic.

Where the appeal is used as a means to deflect from the argument, yes the appeal to logic is, therein, fallacious.

Recall, my prediction was that you would be incapable of showing that the construct of my reasoning was circular, because you didn't understand circular reasoning ... ?

If it helps you just demonstrated the validity of that prediction and while validation is never necessary where sound reasoning is applied, it is nevertheless, always nice.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Theres no point in barbing back and forth with someone who couldnt reason their way out of a brown paper bag.

I agree. Complete and utter waste of time.

/Unsubscribe

Friends, what you see above is what is known as a default concession.

Specifically, the individuals are proclaiming that they are departing the debate, as such is below their implied intellectual status.

Ironically, with both contributors having stood on chronic appeals to logic, the post to which I am responding and, the adherence to the post by the fellow traveler, are both wholly fallacious. And this is because of the appeal intrinsic in the position which implies, but does not establish their own authority or that the opposing author's authority is inferior to their own.

In truth, both have offered argument which failed for previously specified reasons, which they reject, but which they are incapable of contesting. Typically such retreats serve the psychological need to defend closely held 'feelings', which are often groundless, but which the individual values for one reason or another. In this case it is the feeble construct of anti-theism, which is akin to a house made of extremely thin pieces of broken glass, scotch-taped together, which is resting on the shifting sugar sands of a humid bog.

I mean, ya gotta feel for 'em, 'cause that's a mighty tough spot from which to throw stones.... .

And for those keeping score: THAT is how THAT is done.

 

[G.T.]

Yawn

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yawn

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[G.T.]

Not so much a concession as it is a boredom at swatting at flies. Pseudo intellectual newbs are very drab. Its not worth the effort to set you straight, each of your paragraphs contains like 4-5 illogical blerposplats, and you write far too many inane paragraphs. Concise and intelligent should be your friends, not pig sty and scatterbrained.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Not so much a concession as it is a boredom at swatting at flies. Pseudo intellectual newbs are very drab. Its not worth the effort to set you straight, each of your paragraphs contains like 4-5 illogical blerposplats, and you write far too many inane paragraphs. Concise and intelligent should be your friends, not pig sty and scatterbrained.

Rationalize it anyway ya like, friend. The fact is that you and the balance of the cult cannot contest the truth.

But then, the only reason that I created this thread was to help you demonstrate that very thing. And I want you to know, that I couldn't have done it without ya.

.

.

.


And with that said, your most recent concession to the same standing points, is duly noted and summarily accepted.


Let the record reflect:

In the absence of God, there is no potential for Human Rights.

 

[G.T.]

Troll ^

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Troll ^

A troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. The most common example of a troll, is the assertion that another contributor is a troll, particularly where the offending contributor has just been humiliated through their own failure to sustain their own argument. Such is used as a means to deflect the argument by attacking the character and intentions of the individual, so as to draw attention from their own humiliation; it is therefore a variation of argumentum ad hominem, the lowest order of logical failures.

 

[G.T.]

Yawn

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yawn

A troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. The most common example of a troll, is the assertion that another contributor is a troll, particularly where the offending contributor has just been humiliated through their own failure to sustain their own argument. Such is used as a means to deflect the argument by attacking the character and intentions of the individual, so as to draw attention from their own humiliation; it is therefore a variation of argumentum ad hominem, the lowest order of logical failures.