Wrong. An invalid argument is simply "one part of the whole" of all the numerous logical fallacies that one could possibly make. An invalid argument is defined as an argument in which the conclusion doesn't follow from the predicate(s). A valid argument, on the other hand, is an argument in which the conclusion follows from the predicate(s).
Again, you misuse the term straw man. A straw man argument involves constructing a misrepresented/distorted version of the opponent's argument and attacking that argument instead of the opponent's actual argument. I have not done that; I have only ever responded to your assertions directly. I used the validity of memories as further support for my main argument (another example of how we regularly use circular reasoning in a non-fallacious way). I argued that we use our memory to validate our memory, similar to how we use our reasoning skills to validate our reasoning skills.
Strawman Fallacy. I never asserted that they did. I used the validity of memory example as support for my arguments.
No, it doesn't. Your paradox is as follows:
Inversion Fallacy. You are the one who is misusing terms, as I have supported all throughout this response.
How so? Circular reasoning follows the axioms of logic. The conclusion follows from the predicate (and is supported by the Proof of Identity). How is that NOT a valid argument? You seem to deny Logic...
The Proof of Identity justifies it. The Proof of Identity is [If X, Then X]. I have defined my online message board identity as gfm7175. So, if that is my identity, then that is my identity. However, trying to justify (prove) circular reasoning [X, therefore X] [gfm7175 is a white male, therefore gfm7175 is a white male] is committing the Circular Argument Fallacy. Circular reasoning is synonymous with faith. We ALL have faith in one thing or another. We ALL make use of faith, and we all are perfectly reasonable and logical in doing so. Faith follows the axioms of logic.
Evidence doesn't "justify" anything... Evidence is not proof. Those words are not synonymous.
Try substantive reasoning next time.
Very true! One needs to be able to define the words which they are making use of, otherwise it doesn't make for productive debate. For instance, Tim telling me to "grow up" when I ask him for his definition of "real world" doesn't make for productive debate. I can't discuss "real world" with him if I don't even understand his definition of the term. My guess, judging by his ad hominem attack towards me, is that he uses that particular term as a buzzword, thus making any argument he makes based off of that buzzword a void argument.
Yup, that's exactly how facts work. They are shorthand predicate accepted by all parties. If all parties agree on something, it need not be "hashed over". Facts are useful for speeding up dialogue. However, if a single person does not agree on a 'fact', then that 'fact' returns to being an argument. It is no longer a fact.
Yup, facts don't even have to be "correct" in order to be facts. "Texas is the largest state in the USA" can be a fact, even though that assertion turns out to be incorrect.
That's incorrect. You are instead describing what are known as "objective truths", not facts. Objective truths and facts are two completely different things (they are not synonymous with each other). Facts are simply shorthand predicate agreed upon by all parties. Facts are meant to speed up conversation. That's all facts are.
Incorrect. 'God is real' may or may not be a fact in any given circumstance. See the reasoning that I have offered above.
Incorrect. That would be known as an objective truth, not a fact.
Incorrect. That is precisely what facts are.
Yes, indeed you can. Never said you couldn't...
Yes, it was. Then, I directly refuted it.
Not snarky, I just have a "no bull****" kind of attitude when it comes to discussions... I like being direct and getting right to the point... You simply have no counterargument for my refutation of your argument. It shows that you have absolutely NO clue what a fact is or how facts work in discussions...
Namaste.
It didn't just "pop out of nowhere", now did it? Angel said:
So, I must always refer to a 'holy link' for "support"?
Just as atheists always ask... "well, who created God"?
Well, what led to the creation of the 'holy link', RAMOSS?
When you act like one needs to always support their assertions with an outside source, you outright deny philosophy... You outright deny how those sources even 'came into being' in the first place...
I implore you to "seek reason"... hahaha, get it?