• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:381:2733***]Darwinism Descending

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
To sum up, circular reasoning is logically valid through the proof of identity. In other words, since P=P, P->P is logically valid reasoning.

All attempts to refute this have ended up with multiple road trips to Paradox Village.
Click to expand...

Circular reasoning and proof of identity have absolutely no logical relationship. P->P means absolutely nothing at all. You need to look these things up for yourself. It is obvious you have done no independent research on them and are taking the word of those who know nothing about it. So don't take my word, Find a corroborating, legitimate source outside of this forum and provide a link for me to check out if you want to convince me that you know what you are talking about.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Angel said:
I wasn't trying to impress you; I was trying to disabuse your of your misdirected hero-worship. Degrasse doesn't know what he's talking about, and that's all there is to it, no matter who I am or however deluded you are about him and science.

Namaste
Click to expand...

Your ad hominem attack on Degrasse is meaningless. Provide a legitimate counter to what Degrasse says and let others decide who makes more sense.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

devildavid said:
Your ad hominem attack on Degrasse is meaningless. Provide a legitimate counter to what Degrasse says and let others decide who makes more sense.
Click to expand...
Because you don't understand something doesn't make it meaningless. It just means that the meaning escapes you. I mention in that post the counts on which he shows his ignorance. Respond to them if you wish.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Angel said:
Because you don't understand something doesn't make it meaningless. It just means that the meaning escapes you. I mention in that post the counts on which he shows his ignorance. Respond to them if you wish.
Click to expand...

Yet you don't explain how he shows ignorance. Just your usual general broad brush ad hominem. Which once you direct at me as well. This is quite a habit with you.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

devildavid said:
Circular reasoning and proof of identity have absolutely no logical relationship. P->P means absolutely nothing at all. You need to look these things up for yourself. It is obvious you have done no independent research on them and are taking the word of those who know nothing about it. So don't take my word, Find a corroborating, legitimate source outside of this forum and provide a link for me to check out if you want to convince me that you know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

This has been argued ad-nauseum.... I have supported my position and told you WHY it is valid logic, while you and Quag have done nothing but say "nuh-uh" by means of throwing stones and arguing irrationally by means of paradoxes.

See to it.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

devildavid said:
Yet you don't explain how he shows ignorance. Just your usual general broad brush ad hominem. Which once you direct at me as well. This is quite a habit with you.
Click to expand...
I'd suspect irony in this post of yours if I didn't know any better.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Into the Night said:
Science is not credentials. it is not any individual scientist. It is not any political organization. It does not use consensus. Neil deGrasse Tyson cannot change the axioms that make up logic. He cannot redefine what science is. I have already pointed out the major flaws in the arguments he makes in the video you made a Holy Link to.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. No theory is ever proven. Science does not use supporting evidence. It does not use consensus. It does not depend on credentials.

Astrophysicists are often wrong. Carl Sagan was wrong too. Astro'physics' itself is often not even using or creating any theory of science at all.
Click to expand...

(bolded) and neither can you. The difference is that you keep trying, while scientist accept science for what it really is.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
Inversion fallacy. You are the one with the paradoxes. You must clear your paradoxes.


"You just don't understand" mantra dismissed.


Yes it was. We all can see what you said. You're arguing irrationally. You must clear your paradoxes.


This kind of irrational argumentation is what happens when one refuses to clear their paradoxes; you're all over the place, Quag.


And why do you think people fail when they try to use faith as their proof? Because faith is a circular argument...


Mockery mantra dismissed.


Edit: You now have ANOTHER paradox
1) Not what I said...
2) I never said that you are making crap up

Or in other words...

1) you are making crap up
2) you are NOT making crap up


Quag, this is now SIX paradoxes... you must clear these paradoxes or else you will continue to argue irrationally.
Click to expand...

You keep on claiming paradoxes, but for some reason, you can't coherenetly explain why they are paradoxes, or explain why it is inversion fallacy. Why is that?
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
Because Quag keeps putting himself into them...


I can and I have.


Has already been done.
Click to expand...

You make the claim you Quag , nor have I seen a satifactory reason that it's paradoxes.. And, no, I have not seen a correct claim about inversion fallacy.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

RAMOSS said:
You make the claim you Quag , nor have I seen a satifactory reason that it's paradoxes.. And, no, I have not seen a correct claim about inversion fallacy.
Click to expand...

He just likes the word paradox so he jumped on IT(roll)N's bandwagon of claiming everything I say is a paradox.
The fact that the only paradox actually made in this thread comes from him when he claims a circular argument is a logical fallacy and a circular argument isn't a logical fallacy is of course just the icing on the cake

Logic and faith do not belong together but some people desperately want their faith to be proven and distort logic to pretend that somehow it is.

They of course fail every time but that doesn't stop them from repeating the errors
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Quag said:
He just likes the word paradox so he jumped on IT(roll)N's bandwagon of claiming everything I say is a paradox.
Click to expand...
Strawman fallacy. Neither ITN nor myself have claimed that everything you say is a paradox. We've only claimed that six ideas you've espoused are paradoxes.

Quag said:
The fact that the only paradox actually made in this thread comes from him when he claims a circular argument is a logical fallacy and a circular argument isn't a logical fallacy is of course just the icing on the cake
Click to expand...
Stop projecting your paradox onto me, Quag. YOU are the one who made it; YOU are the one who must clear it. And stop being flat out dishonest, Quag. Again, see post #1740 for my direct refutation of the claim you are, once again, asserting here. You continue to argue irrationally; you must clear your paradoxes. Lying about who made the paradox doesn't make it go away...

Quag said:
Logic and faith do not belong together
Click to expand...
Faith and logic are not the same; they are two separate things. Faith, however, IS logical reasoning, through the proof of identity.

Quag said:
but some people desperately want their faith to be proven and distort logic to pretend that somehow it is.
Click to expand...
Using faith as a proof (ie not recognizing the circular nature of an argument) is the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Quag said:
They of course fail every time but that doesn't stop them from repeating the errors
Click to expand...
See above.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
Strawman fallacy. Neither ITN nor myself have claimed that everything you say is a paradox. We've only claimed that six ideas you've espoused are paradoxes.
Click to expand...
Actually just abit of hyperbole, but you do seem to keep making yup the paradox strawmen arguments.


Stop projecting your paradox onto me, Quag. YOU are the one who made it; YOU are the one who must clear it. And stop being flat out dishonest, Quag. Again, see post #1740 for my direct refutation of the claim you are, once again, asserting here. You continue to argue irrationally; you must clear your paradoxes. Lying about who made the paradox doesn't make it go away...
Click to expand...
I never made a paradox you did. Lying and trying to pretend I made paradoxes will not make your massive fail go away.


Faith and logic are not the same; they are two separate things. Faith, however, IS logical reasoning, through the proof of identity.
Click to expand...
Faith has nothing to do with logic and you clearly have no clue what proof of identity is.


Using faith as a proof (ie not recognizing the circular nature of an argument) is the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Click to expand...
Makes no difference if you recognize that a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy it remains a logical fallacy.



See above.
Click to expand...
Yes see above
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Quag said:
Actually just abit of hyperbole,
Click to expand...
Why the need for hyperbole? Why not just debate rationally?

Quag said:
but you do seem to keep making yup the paradox strawmen arguments.
Click to expand...
I don't make stuff up; I list the paradox and I list the straw man. I provide support for what I assert; I don't just throw stones.

Quag said:
...
Click to expand...
Deleted mockery mantra.

Quag said:
Faith has nothing to do with logic
Click to expand...
Re-read my last post.

Quag said:
...
Click to expand...
Deleted "you don't understand" mantra

Quag said:
Makes no difference if you recognize that a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy it remains a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
You're still arguing irrationally since you haven't cleared your paradox, as listed below:
1) Y -> Y is logical.
2) Y -> Y is ILLOGICAL.

Which is it, Quag? Is Y -> Y a logical fallacy, or is it not?
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
Strawman fallacy. Neither ITN nor myself have claimed that everything you say is a paradox. We've only claimed that six ideas you've espoused are paradoxes.


Stop projecting your paradox onto me, Quag. YOU are the one who made it; YOU are the one who must clear it. And stop being flat out dishonest, Quag. Again, see post #1740 for my direct refutation of the claim you are, once again, asserting here. You continue to argue irrationally; you must clear your paradoxes. Lying about who made the paradox doesn't make it go away...


Faith and logic are not the same; they are two separate things. Faith, however, IS logical reasoning, through the proof of identity.


Using faith as a proof (ie not recognizing the circular nature of an argument) is the fallacy of circular reasoning.


See above.
Click to expand...

You have not made a good case that any of those 6 items are paradoxes. Not at all.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
Why the need for hyperbole? Why not just debate rationally?
Click to expand...

Well I cant be bothered to go back and count exactly how many since they are all strawmen.

I don't make stuff up; I list the paradox and I list the straw man. I provide support for what I assert; I don't just throw stones.
Click to expand...
No you didn't you just made strawmen.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Since none of those "paradoxes you claimed I made were actually made by me you were making strawmen.
You however actually made your paradox

Deleted mockery mantra.
Click to expand...
Ignoring your paradox will not make it go away.


Re-read my last post.
Click to expand...
Ditto


Deleted "you don't understand" mantra
Click to expand...
mantra and paradox appear to be your two new favorite words.


You're still arguing irrationally since you haven't cleared your paradox, as listed below:
1) Y -> Y is logical.
2) Y -> Y is ILLOGICAL.
Click to expand...
Strawman is ignored

Which is it, Quag? Is Y -> Y a logical fallacy, or is it not?
Click to expand...

Strawman is ignored.
Try dealing with what I actually said
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

RAMOSS said:
You have not made a good case that any of those 6 items are paradoxes. Not at all.
Click to expand...

But he appears to have learned a new word and decided to use it at every occasion.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

RAMOSS said:
You have not made a good case that any of those 6 items are paradoxes. Not at all.
Click to expand...

Six times Quag has simultaneously argued opposing viewpoints, of which both can't be true; that is what is meant by a paradox.

Quag agrees to that definition because Quag has falsely accused me of being in a paradox (using the same definition as I have used).

Quag just happens to think that denying them and projecting them onto other people makes them go away; that's not how it works. He needs to clear his paradoxes in order to begin arguing rationally once again. I've given him multiple opportunities to do so, or to explain how he hasn't actually argued in such a way (Post #1750 being one such example, with #1762 identifying his latest paradox), but he has refused to address the paradoxes beyond "nuh-uh!" responses, which is just an argument of the stone and can be dismissed as such.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
Six times Quag has simultaneously argued opposing viewpoints, of which both can't be true; that is what is meant by a paradox.

Quag agrees to that definition because Quag has falsely accused me of being in a paradox (using the same definition as I have used).

Quag just happens to think that denying them and projecting them onto other people makes them go away; that's not how it works. He needs to clear his paradoxes in order to begin arguing rationally once again. I've given him multiple opportunities to do so, or to explain how he hasn't actually argued in such a way (Post #1750 being one such example, with #1762 identifying his latest paradox), but he has refused to address the paradoxes beyond "nuh-uh!" responses, which is just an argument of the stone and can be dismissed as such.
Click to expand...

I have often seen you misrepresent what people are saying to you. I am sorry, but a lack of understanding on one persons part does not make it a paradox
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
Six times Quag has simultaneously argued opposing viewpoints, of which both can't be true; that is what is meant by a paradox.
Click to expand...
I never did that you have just made up strawmen

Quag agrees to that definition because Quag has falsely accused me of being in a paradox (using the same definition as I have used).
Click to expand...
Not falsely you stated a circular argument is a fallacy and that a circular argument isn't a fallacy, hence the paradox. I never made the statements you dishonestly claim I have made, hence the strawmen


Quag just happens to think that denying them and projecting them onto other people makes them go away; that's not how it works. He needs to clear his paradoxes in order to begin arguing rationally once again. I've given him multiple opportunities to do so, or to explain how he hasn't actually argued in such a way (Post #1750 being one such example, with #1762 identifying his latest paradox), but he has refused to address the paradoxes beyond "nuh-uh!" responses, which is just an argument of the stone and can be dismissed as such.
Click to expand...
I never made any paradoxes you just made a bunch of strawmen. I cannot clear up a paradox I did not make
You however DID make a paradox
 
Last edited:
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Quag said:
Well I cant be bothered to go back and count exactly how many
Click to expand...
So you just make stuff up instead? That seems rather irrational...

Quag said:
since they are all strawmen.
Click to expand...
More "hyperbole"?

Quag said:
No you didn't you just made strawmen.
Click to expand...
Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Quag said:
deleted holy link
Click to expand...

Quag said:
Since none of those "paradoxes you claimed I made were actually made by me you were making strawmen.
Click to expand...
False; ITN and I quoted your exact words every single time you made one. You are now up to six of them. Anyone can read the prior posts and see exactly where you made them.

Quag said:
You however actually made your paradox
Click to expand...
You accused me of a paradox, the very same paradox that you made in post #1498. I directly refuted your accusation (projecting your own paradox onto me) by explaining your conflation of my actual position, why my actual position is NOT a paradox, and why your actual position typed out for everybody to see in post #1498 IS that very same paradox that you accuse me of asserting. See to it, Quag.

Quag said:
deleted mockery mantra
Click to expand...

Quag said:
Ditto
Click to expand...
Ditto.

Quag said:
mantra and paradox appear to be your two new favorite words.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.

Quag said:
Strawman is ignored
Click to expand...
Argument of the Stone. You need to support your "your argument is absurd" assertion.

Quag said:
Strawman is ignored.
Try dealing with what I actually said
Click to expand...
What did you actually say then?

I've only based my responses off of precisely what you've said.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

RAMOSS said:
I have often seen you misrepresent what people are saying to you.
Click to expand...
If I am misrepresenting a position, whoever I am misrepresenting can say "No, gfm7175, I am not asserting that. This is what I am actually asserting." Responses need to move beyond stone throwing for me to take them seriously.

RAMOSS said:
...
Click to expand...
"Lack of understanding" mantra removed... And Quag has been shown his very own words, word for word, for every single paradox he has argued. Post #1498 shows two of his six paradoxes, both made within that same post.
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Quag said:
I never did that you have just made up strawmen


Not falsely you stated a circular argument is a fallacy and that a circular argument isn't a fallacy, hence the paradox. I never made the statements you dishonestly claim I have made, hence the strawmen



I never made any paradoxes you just made a bunch of strawmen. I cannot clear up a paradox I did not make
You however DID make a paradox
Click to expand...

See post #1740 and post #1498
 
Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
If I am misrepresenting a position, whoever I am misrepresenting can say "No, gfm7175, I am not asserting that. This is what I am actually asserting." Responses need to move beyond stone throwing for me to take them seriously.


"Lack of understanding" mantra removed... And Quag has been shown his very own words, word for word, for every single paradox he has argued. Post #1498 shows two of his six paradoxes, both made within that same post.
Click to expand...

1498 does not show his paradox. You made a statement about circular reasoning being logically sound. That is not true. Circular reasoning can often be logically VALID, but that does not show that it is sound. it is only sound if the premise is true. With faith, quite often, the premise is not provable, so it can not be shown if the argument is sound.

He did confuse 'sound' and 'valid'.. but he is correct that unless you can show that the premise is true, you can not show that the conclusion is true.
That is why a circular argument is an informal logical fallacy.

If you replace 'sound' with valid, his point is correct on the first one too. Plus, even if he was totally incorrect with his statements, you are misuing the concept of 'paradox'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom