Comments on: Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument

By: Gil S

Gil S — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 04:05:07 +0000

I showed how you made a straw man, a non-sequitur and various other fallacies. This is why I was justified in saying that you’re untrained in critical thought. But merely because I made a justified claim does not mean that you can suddenly make an ad hominem (another non-sequitur!). Show me how I made a fallacy in logical form like I did with QUOTES.

By: Elgoog

Elgoog — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:46:17 +0000

No, I considered your remark as just a fancy way of calling me not intelligent. Now my attack was justified if this is the case. Therefor, you are the one who committed the fallacy.

By: Gil S

Gil S — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:30:42 +0000

How? Did I make a logical fallacy somewhere in believing that demons exist? And nice job at trying to be the “mature one”.

By: Elgoog

Elgoog — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:28:48 +0000

“I still cannot get over that someone who believes in demons, angels, and the virgin birth is telling me I am untrained in critical thought…” (Person B makes an attack on Person A)

But to respond to this, I said this because: “This is exactly the kind of logic that I’d expect from someone untrained in critical thought.”

So seriously, quit being so hypocritical and just move on.

By: Elgoog

Elgoog — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:27:16 +0000

I didn’t read what you last said, and I’m just going to be the mature one and stop this nonsense.

By: Gil S

Gil S — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:54:09 +0000

You responded with useless appeals to fallacious reasoning. If I did the exact same thing, then you need justify this assertion. How the heck can you defeat an argument without even addressing it? That’s like saying I can win a race without even competing in it. Wikipedia states that theism “in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity”. Therefore, this DOES INCLUDE deism.

Once again, you STILL insist on making a straw man argument. Please quote me in this article WHERE I had said that this proves theism as you understood it? I never even said that this is an argument for Christianity. Your reading comprehension is absolutely horrible. FYI, this is an ad hominem fallacy:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

And this is what YOU did:

1. I said “Even if I agreed that the Bible is nonsensical, it would be a total non-sequitur to think that this implies theism is nonsensical.” (Person A makes claim X)

2. You said, “I still cannot get over that someone who believes in demons, angels, and the virgin birth is telling me I am untrained in critical thought…” (Person B makes an attack on Person A)

3. Therefore, I didn’t make a non-sequitur. (Therefore A’s claim is false.)

This cannot be any more clearer. I justified my assertion that you’re untrained in critical thought by showing how you made a non-sequitor. Instead of addressing my criticism, you simply ignored it and made an attack on me because I believe in stupid stuff like “demons and angels”. How naive. Then you accuse me of making an ad hominem argument when I did no such thing?

Not once did I overreact, I simply pointed out the fallacies and you arrogantly ridiculed the argument like a troll. I’m only being harsh because you made fallacies but refuse to even acknowledge that you did. Be honest and move on so that we can actually address what I said in the article.

By: Elgoog

Elgoog — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:05:32 +0000

The foolishness of my arguments? You’re doing the exact same thing that I allegedly did, and not responding(even though I did). It’s not a strawman at all, since I have defeated this argument without even addressing it(since it is an argument for deism). It’s also wrong to say that theism includes deism. No, deism INCLUDES THEISM. Which is why this isn’t even arguing Christianity. You could be arguing a religion that I made up that only includes a similar God. But my religion also includes the slaughtering of babies. Thanks for the reinforcement!

I didn’t use any ad homimem attacks until you did, I simply said this was a bad argument(since good arguments for theism do not exist). And you overreacted, without even addressing my counter arguments. And you still continue to do them. I only return the favour, you hypocrite.

I cannot find the article at this time, but I don’t think it’s relevant(seeing as he didn’t offer any arguments against it). I guess I will do a lil’ bit of research on this argument before I say more.

By: Gil S

Gil S — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:50:49 +0000

I know what this blog’s title is, but you completely ignored my question. How is this at ALL relevant to the article that I had given? I never said that this a specific argument for theism, therefore this IS a straw man. Address my points instead of throwing dust to cover your up failures. Even if I did argue for theism, I usually understand theism to be the general belief that a God exists which includes deism.

Are you serious? Without critical thought, you’re about as brainless as a rotten cabbage. There’s no way that you can refute this without being rational. I find it saddening how you attack what I believe (an ad hominem fallacy) in order to disprove my JUSTIFIED assertions that you’re clearly being illogical. I’ve shown you the fallacies, and you’ve simply ridiculed and ignored them.

Feel free to share the article. But if you’re gonna continue this nonsense, then I might as well not engage with you any longer. Please act charitably to me and I will return the favor. Otherwise, you’re just asking me to point out the foolishness of your arguments.

By: Elgoog

Elgoog — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:09:28 +0000

From what I’m reading, Stephen Hawkins actually does believe that the universe is self cause. Unless wiki is lying to me.

The title of this blog is ‘rational theism’. This is not even an argument fro theism. It’s not a strawman at all since I can actually defeat this argument by saying what it is arguing, which does not even help theism. It helps deism.

It doesn’t take critical thinking to defeat this argument. Infact, I find it kind of hilarious that a theist is telling me that I am untrained in critical thought(what ever the hell that means). Seriously, you’re telling me this? Give me a break…. I still cannot get over that someone who believes in demons, angels, and the virgin birth is telling me I am untrained in critical thought…

But back on topic; this so called argument. With some reading I did today, I found a rather interesting article on this argument. Apparently, the author thinks that this is the worst argument for deism available. I don’t agree, but I do agree that it is indeed bad.

I do agree that everything has an explanation for it’s existence. However, there are some things that we can never have explanations for. It happens every day.

By: Gil S

Gil S — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:03:55 +0000

How does the title of this blog have any relation to the article that I had written? You were clearly addressing my argument and made no mention of the blog title (which is in itself irrelevant). Thus it is a clear straw man that anyone acquainted with fallacious reasoning would be able to recognize. I find your display of complete ignorance and foolishness rather amusing. Do you really think an appeal to ridicule works in the real world?

Even if I agreed that the Bible is nonsensical, it would be a total non-sequitur to think that this implies theism is nonsensical. It only follows that Christian theism is nonsensical. This is exactly the kind of logic that I’d expect from someone untrained in critical thought. You have no warrant in thinking you can criticize anything without worry when you have this bogus reasoning.

As for the universe being self-caused, my argument does not depend on the universe having come to existence. You’re STILL addressing the Kalam, not my argument which deals with contingency or necessity. Try again.