Refresh and look at second post now.

also, yes both are ytmnd images.

Discuss.

Absolutely perfect rebuttal. I have nothing to add.

The rebuttal uses many fine identifications of syllogisms -- argument formulas if you will. However, what's his face in Post 2 uses a much more INFERIOR tactic to addressing the first Argument. He uses what is called a "Straw man argument". "So and so MIGHT reply saying..." which is followed by a simplified, stupified, and fallacious argument supporting the opposing side, to which the rebuttal completely destroys because it wasn't composed by the ENEMY. Straw man arguments are used in politics all the time. And we ALL know politics has nothing to do with logic. The original argument is fine, and the rebuttal is as well, his points were certainly solid. I feel, however, that the second post did not give enough credit to the opposing argument, and used a tone of language and vernacular to sorta condescend the original argument.

The point of causality is part of infinite recession -- if you go back far enough, something had to have created this. However, armed only with the ability to reason, we aim for answers, thinking it'll be accomplished. I seriously doubt that something of that magnitude is so completely out of our field of comprehension that the closest we can come to is just a word that we've defined -- the word means nothing, because it represents nothing. What our greatest imaginations has come up with can at BEST be reasoned to be "This is the most powerful thing we can comprehend"

Wow, I watched it at least 4 times. Both of them. Amazing.

Originally Posted by NiceGuy

The rebuttal uses many fine identifications of syllogisms -- argument formulas if you will. However, what's his face in Post 2 uses a much more INFERIOR tactic to addressing the first Argument. He uses what is called a "Straw man argument". "So and so MIGHT reply saying..." which is followed by a simplified, stupified, and fallacious argument supporting the opposing side, to which the rebuttal completely destroys because it wasn't composed by the ENEMY. Straw man arguments are used in politics all the time. And we ALL know politics has nothing to do with logic. The original argument is fine, and the rebuttal is as well, his points were certainly solid. I feel, however, that the second post did not give enough credit to the opposing argument, and used a tone of language and vernacular to sorta condescend the original argument.

The point of causality is part of infinite recession -- if you go back far enough, something had to have created this. However, armed only with the ability to reason, we aim for answers, thinking it'll be accomplished. I seriously doubt that something of that magnitude is so completely out of our field of comprehension that the closest we can come to is just a word that we've defined -- the word means nothing, because it represents nothing. What our greatest imaginations has come up with can at BEST be reasoned to be "This is the most powerful thing we can comprehend"

Whetstone DID respond to him...in any case, Straw Man doesn't necessarily invalidate his position. It just sets up a platform for Whetstone to rebute him.

The second poster is simply stating how causality does not end with God.

I don't believe in infinities within the universe as we know it. It would make sense for something to have always existed. Just about anything more that is said is guesswork.

I say that any proof of G_d should be empirical to hold any real weight, and that's hard to come by. I have enough evidence to prove either my insanity, the existance of a higher being, or that the universe is much more convoluted than the average person would think. And that last one is a given

Originally Posted by Cursed Lemon

Whetstone DID respond to him...in any case, Straw Man doesn't necessarily invalidate his position. It just sets up a platform for Whetstone to rebute him.

The second poster is simply stating how causality does not end with God.

Hey.. I've been up for a while, give me a break. Anyway, I'm hardly working as much with the points as I am practicing identifying the way they're presented. I'm analyzing the critical thinking, looking for fallacies which are easier to make than one thinks. (IF P, THEN Q | Q | P)

Originally Posted by NiceGuy

Hey.. I've been up for a while, give me a break. Anyway, I'm hardly working as much with the points as I am practicing identifying the way they're presented. I'm analyzing the critical thinking, looking for fallacies which are easier to make than one thinks. (IF P, THEN Q | Q | P)

Fallacies ARE pretty easy to spot, and they are pretty common. However, I think that the fallacy has become an elitist tactic for the most part...a lame excuse for someone to fall back on when they can't form a proper rebuttal...most fallacies, like straw man, don't actually invalidate a person's position; rather, they just point out something "improper" with the way it's presented.

The first one was very nice. The second one how ever seemed to be using a tactic sometimes used in polotics called a Straw Man Argument. Which, rather then making your own argument, you just point out what's wrong with the other person's one.




EDIT: Ah Crap, looks like Niceguy's already pointed out the Straw Man Argument. I'm always late for these things.