Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs

[RandomGuy]

Fallacy: Special Pleading

Description of Special Pleading

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in cir tance(s) C.
Person A is in cir stance(s) C.
Therefore A is exempt from S.

The argument is:

All things exist in our universe.
God transcends our understanding.
Therefore God is exempt from existing in our universe.

Logical fallacy, QED.

[RandomGuy]

I will answer your question in a moment. Just bear with me.

So where does the thought exist?

Already answered.

Since you cannot demonstrate that thought can exist without a brain, your assertion of a sentience, however great, existing outside physical reality is properly rejected.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be rejected without evidence.

[RandomGuy]

This is covered in the scriptures. If you ever pick up a Bible you might know that.

[xellos88330]

Already answered.

Since you cannot demonstrate that thought can exist without a brain, your assertion of a sentience, however great, existing outside physical reality is properly rejected.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be rejected without evidence.

Yet, you cannot answer what happens to the thought once it passes from memory.

To me, a thought is something that exists beyond reality until there is something that is capable of perceiving it.

[Blake]

Yet, you cannot answer what happens to the thought once it passes from memory.

To me, a thought is something that exists beyond reality until there is something that is capable of perceiving it.

"to you" is irrelevant.

[xellos88330]

"to you" is irrelevant.

By that logic we wouldn't be having this debate. Yet, here we are.

I am a believer. I do not claim representation of any other believer in the world. I am not like one of your "studies". The fact that I am indeed a believer makes my arguments in this debate very relevant.

[Blake]

By that logic we wouldn't be having this debate. Yet, here we are.

I am a believer. I do not claim representation of any other believer in the world. I am not like one of your "studies". The fact that I am indeed a believer makes my arguments in this debate very relevant.

What exactly do you think we're debating here?

The original debate was regarding Bible God's omniscient/omnipotent paradoxes. The rest was just sidebar.

As far as your opinion goes, what a thought means to you is irrelevant. Either you prove it's what you say it is or the debate stops. It's how logic works.

[Expert]

Lol where does a thought go....not understanding abstract concepts

A thought is a series of events. Where do events go?

[xellos88330]

Lol where does a thought go....not understanding abstract concepts

A thought is a series of events. Where do events go?

So the planets rotating is a thought?

[RandomGuy]

Yet, you cannot answer what happens to the thought once it passes from memory.

To me, a thought is something that exists beyond reality until there is something that is capable of perceiving it.

Define "exists beyond reality".


A thought is similar in nature to a coffee cup.

A coffee cup is a collection of matter in a certain form at a certain physical state.

A thought is a collection of matter in a certain form at a certain physical state.

If I smash the coffee cup with a hammer, it does not suddenly "exist outside reality". In the same way a thought, once I am done thinking it, does not magically transport itself to some place that you can't even prove exists.

I reject your definition of thought as "something that exists beyond reality", because you can't demonstrate that there is anything "beyond reality".

Sorry, you cannot define god into existence. It does not work that way, other than in circular reasoning.

[RandomGuy]

Yet, you cannot answer what happens to the thought once it passes from memory.

Actually, I have addressed this, repeatedly. A thought, once is passes from memory, ceases to exist, just as a book ceases to exist once it is burned or simply rots.

That is the answer, just to be clear. I can, and have, answered your question.

[Chinook]

Lol where does a thought go....not understanding abstract concepts

A thought is a series of events. Where do events go?

More like where does a song go after the instruments stop playing it. I've never heard anyone claim music transcends reality.

[xellos88330]

Define "exists beyond reality".


A thought is similar in nature to a coffee cup.

A coffee cup is a collection of matter in a certain form at a certain physical state.

A thought is a collection of matter in a certain form at a certain physical state.

If I smash the coffee cup with a hammer, it does not suddenly "exist outside reality". In the same way a thought, once I am done thinking it, does not magically transport itself to some place that you can't even prove exists.

I reject your definition of thought as "something that exists beyond reality", because you can't demonstrate that there is anything "beyond reality".

Sorry, you cannot define god into existence. It does not work that way, other than in circular reasoning.

Actually, I have addressed this, repeatedly. A thought, once is passes from memory, ceases to exist, just as a book ceases to exist once it is burned or simply rots.

That is the answer, just to be clear. I can, and have, answered your question.

The book can indeed burn and be destroyed, but it does not mean that the book still does not exist. It merely exists as something else entirely.

Your statement is implying that things can pop in and out of existence. Are you not proving to yourself that things can exist beyond reality?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Russell's teapot isn't a proof; it's an argument. It's not surprising you don't know the difference. I agree with Russel's point of view on the burden of proof and haven't once argued against it, at least not in the sense you believe I do. My challenge is that you don't know what it means, and I believe that because you are using it when I've never disputed it.



Bro, 'categorical' does NOT mean, "of categories". You just directly misunderstood what the words mean, and yet you still keep trying to use that term. As for your actual argument, there's nothing to acknowledge about it. Your point is that things aren't black and white, which is a nothing statement. We all know some things are on a continuum, but direct opposites aren't.



First off, throwing a quote out there and expecting it to do work for you is a fallacy, as I have told you before. A point is not stronger because a certain person makes it.

Second, what the does that have to do with anything? Seriously, I've read it about a half-dozen times, and I can't figure out why you posted it.



An atheist. That's why it has an 'a' in front of it. I didn't make up that distinction; it's part of the language we share. Nietzsche seems to be arguing about a noumenon/phenomenon distinction rather than a intension/extension distinction. If he's arguing against Kantism in that quote, that's definitely the direction he's going in.



You don't seem to know what you're talking about. I can't argue with you when you don't understand anyone's arguments. Hence why you think you've been making good points, while everyone else is just scratching their heads at your posts. For example, you cite Nietzsche (again, committing a fallacy by hiding behind his words) and tell me to argue against it, but the quote you cite has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Why should I argue against it?



And then you come with this . First, I never claimed to give a "proof" of god -- if I had one, I would not have this at ude of "to each their own". I would be more like most of us are with the evolution-deniers. Second, it doesn't matter who came up with what proofs. You don't seem to get that the validity of arguments doesn't depend on the source of those arguments. Moreover, I had no idea who came up with prima causa, as you call it. I've never cared who shares my viewpoint, and neither should you.



Dude, I was actually good at math in school. I'm sorry that you think bringing up things I learned as a sop re in high school is somehow over my head, but your wrong. More importantly, all those things do is highlight my point that infinity is not an actual number.



Obviously. That's the point. Most of what you're saying has had nothing to do with what I've been talking about. You just bring them up and expect me to address them anyway.



I said at the beginning that I didn't find the wager compelling. I've also said that my particular metaphysical outlook is considered atheistic in the scope of the wager, and that as a result, I gain no benefit from arguing for it. If you read that and aren't able to get what I said, that's not my problem.

You go long on saying what is wrong but make no constructions of your own. In fact, you keep dissembling never seeming to have a point. You even waffle over being a theist yet you argue rebuttals to theistic arguments on a regular basis.

Case in point, -because I am not doing the asinine line by line- you say that categorical has nothing to do with categories. Problem is you never present what it does mean. You just say I am wrong and don't understand and move on. Couple of things I will point out. First the term is German and was translated from 19th century classics. You are saying that translated a word but chose the adjective form of a word that means something completely different. A word that also happens to be the name of Aristotles arguably most important work and how the term is defined.

You do this on several items. The discussion of the an hesis paradigm, the requirement that deduction consider all possibilities, and so on you do the same. You are incredibly full of in your nihilism. Say no and give no construction.

What I think is that you don't understand and bluster bull . If you do not find the natural law and prima causa arguments that you have bandied about to be valid then fine. If you don't want others to examine some other alternate metaphysical construct you have yet to make then that is fine too. Scientologists do the same coy horse too.

You certainly have no interest in objective proof. The comment on infinity not being a 'real number' was particularly amusing considering I just gave several examples of how the number manifests in reality. The meme is that it is not a 'rational number' meaning that we cannot create an analog of it using ratios and orders of logs. It is indicated only by itself but there it is just the same. Please tell me more how i am not the one that doesn't understand. Note how I negate your argument with an emotional characterization much like you do BUT MORESO construct a counter example?

There are empirical examples of the infinite, unending, unbounded, etc. It is what it is and that still means what it means regarding any logical deduction. It may be tiresome for you to have to consider things that are not your own construction but the implication is still there. You can waffle from metaphysical proof to metaphysical argument and continue to handwave at arbitrary distinctions but it speaks to the very core of everything. It is principle as to how something is proven.

[xellos88330]

More like where does a song go after the instruments stop playing it. I've never heard anyone claim music transcends reality.

Yet, music can affect things even after the music stops.

[spurraider21]

Yet, music can affect things even after the music stops.

Even after I'm done taking a I can feel the effects of the . So now transcends reality

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, I have addressed this, repeatedly. A thought, once is passes from memory, ceases to exist, just as a book ceases to exist once it is burned or simply rots.

That is the answer, just to be clear. I can, and have, answered your question.

Then what does it mean for two people to have the same thought?

When people start ordering the world in terms of how humans perceive it or moreso in how they make decisions regarding it then you know it is likely false in the broader sense. We are a species of approximations for the far larger part.

[xellos88330]

Even after I'm done taking a I can feel the effects of the . So now transcends reality

Now who is being obtuse. LOL!!! That was funny though.

Let's talk .

What transcends reality is that you have taken a , but yet I would not know that you had . Therefore, your never existed in my reality. In your reality the definitely existed. Does that not transcend my reality?

[xmas1997]

Now who is being obtuse. LOL!!! That was funny though.

Let's talk .

What transcends reality is that you have taken a , but yet I would not know that you had . Therefore, your never existed in my reality. In your reality the definitely existed. Does that not transcend my reality?

This is true.

[Blake]

Even after I'm done taking a I can feel the effects of the . So now transcends reality

[xmas1997]

Even after I'm done taking a I can feel the effects of the . So now transcends reality

This is true too.

[Blake]

Now who is being obtuse. LOL!!! That was funny though.

Let's talk .

What transcends reality is that you have taken a , but yet I would not know that you had . Therefore, your never existed in my reality. In your reality the definitely existed. Does that not transcend my reality?

can be duplicated.

If it can't be duplicated or tested, then it's a worthless

[ohmwrecker]

You can either hold a , or not hold a .

[xellos88330]

can be duplicated.

If it can't be duplicated or tested, then it's a worthless

Can it? Will it come out looking exactly the same, weigh, the same amount, contain the same portions of "ingredients"?

[xmas1997]

Can it? Will it come out looking exactly the same, weigh, the same amount, contain the same portions of "ingredients"?

This is true, you make a good although humorously ty point.