Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is logical support of theism possible?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 76 of 85 (166014)
12-07-2004 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by mikehager
12-07-2004 7:43 PM


Re: Now we can proceed.
Argue with dictionary.com.
Are you holding your whole counter on the word "or"? Oh dear Mike. - - I explained this anyway - And it doesn't say "or" value.
Also I explained, that function in organisms has shown purposeful endeavor - that can be looked at my the cohesion of all parts working together in systems and sub systems. Since this constitutes "significant" in that the systems various parts are indeed significant - this really is a hinge-like proposal.
The problem with you guys, is that every time you have an idea - you say my argument falls apart or my premises are weak or I am illogical.
But you have all been shown to be inconsistent, as you first said I was illogical, then logical, now illogical. I suggest big claims ought to match their actions. My argument stands as my opposition is inconsistent. ANd I will prove it with quotes if necessary. (No, I didn't refer to you as dishonest)/ Furthermore - everybody jumped on this "purpose" train without doing their homework - i.e. They just agreed with the other atheists. But that won't mean anything as the atheists are inconsistent and change their minds too often.
Since I agree with all the possible definitions of "system" at dictionary.com - my argument hasn't even shivered, let alone fell apart.
Value - A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable.
I WILL leave if people keep suggesting my argument has fell apart and continue to say it's illogical - it's atleast logical. Don't insult my intelligence.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-07-2004 08:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by mikehager, posted 12-07-2004 7:43 PM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by mikehager, posted 12-07-2004 9:07 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 77 of 85 (166028)
12-07-2004 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by mike the wiz
12-07-2004 8:01 PM


Or?
I have been nice to you so far, trying to get you to define your terms and even formulating your argument in a logically cohesive manner for you, since you seemed incapable of doing it yourself.
You might want to consider your manner in light of that.
I see that you are from The United Kingdom. I suppose the stereotype of the British having better language Skills is shown as false here. My grammatical point was correct and I can provide backup if you want to hear it. Words conjoined by the conjunction "or" form a choice(i.e. "He went to the store OR the bar." would be true if he went to either place). So, in the series " existence, value, or significance" only one need be true for the statement to be true. You see, if all were required for the statement to be true, the conjunction "and" would be correct (i.e "He went to the store and the bar" would only be true if he went to both places). It's quite simple and you are quite wrong.
More later. I have a domestic emergency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by mike the wiz, posted 12-07-2004 8:01 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by mike the wiz, posted 12-08-2004 10:36 AM mikehager has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 78 of 85 (166114)
12-08-2004 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by mike the wiz
12-07-2004 7:50 PM


No, my distinction has not been explained away. Indeed as it is a matter of definition it cannot be unless it is shown to be meaningless (and it clearly is not).
When I said there was no purpose the blood being pumped around the body I was quirte clear about the distinction betweem function and purpsoe and explained why I stated that there was no purpose. You ignore all that in favour of grossly misrepresenting what I said and accusing me of making "immoral" statements. I really have no idea why you are doing this - again. Either you can't even manage to read what I said and are just throwing a childish tantrum based on some emotional reaction or you are just lying through your teeth. I don't know which is worse
And your equivocations are certainly not the fault of dictionary.com. So there is no reason to take the matter up with them. It's not their fault that you choose to abuse and misrepresent their service.
I've already explained why your arguments aren't valid. You can choose to pretend that the problems don't exist, but they won't go away no matter how mcuh you pretend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by mike the wiz, posted 12-07-2004 7:50 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 79 of 85 (166206)
12-08-2004 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by mikehager
12-07-2004 9:07 PM


Re: Or?
I formulated a logical argument myself Mike - you then said it was logical. Here is where I done that, without your help; Here. You then said, as I am about to prove - that it was correct - then Ned said it was circular - then you said it wasn't, then he admitted it wasn't, now you suggest it is yet you formulated it. Yet I knew in message #15 it was a deductive syllogism. Yet it's still circular? So let me see, if it is - I have you to blame for formulating it - according to you? As you can see - I'm quite capable of logic, and insulting my intelligence isn't necessary.
Mike Hager writes:
Message#16; This is a completely valid syllogism and the only way to attack it is by questioning it's premises. Of course, I don't think either of your premises are factual, but that is not the topic here.
Mike - the above is what you said in message #16 after I provided the deductional syllogism in message #15. Your egotistical statement;
Mike Hager writes:
I have been nice to you so far, trying to get you to define your terms and even formulating your argument in a logically cohesive manner for you,
As you can see, this is either a lie - or a mistake on your part. As I formualted my argument all by my lonesome - and since the syllogism I shown in message #15 is the one I still stand by - you have not done anything for me in this regard.
You say;
So, in the series " existence, value, or significance" only one need be true for the statement to be true
Yet in my book - two out of three aint bad in logic. - I can still use two out of three, yet it isn't that important anyway - as all three point to purpose, and I explained clearly as to why I used "significance" in my last post to you, pertaining to an organism of systems and subsytems. Yet the systems of the natural all have function, they all exist, have value and have significance. So this really is splitting hairs in my humble opinion.
Also - you made a logical error of assuming that because I am from the United Kingdom, I regard myself as having better language skills.
I think you ARE being dishonest in saying you formulated my argument. I thought you were better than this.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-08-2004 10:39 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by mikehager, posted 12-07-2004 9:07 PM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by mikehager, posted 12-08-2004 11:00 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 80 of 85 (166209)
12-08-2004 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by mike the wiz
12-08-2004 10:36 AM


Re: Or?
In message 36 of this thread I proposed a clear formulation of your argument for you and it has been the one used since. Yes, I have not been absolutely consistent and my ideas have changed as I have at different times considered your argument.
Yet in my book - two out of three aint bad in logic.
That alone shows that you don't understand logic. Your "book", whatever it may be, is inadequate.
I think you ARE being dishonest in saying you formulated my argument. I thought you were better than this.
I am better then this. I am done with you and your arrogance, sir, like Salty and Kendemeyer before you. The attitude that anyone who disagrees with you either a liar or doesn't understand you is a foolish one. Repitition is not evidence.
By the way, when I said your argument was logical, I was being polite. It almost was, and when I reworded it for you, it was. Then, the premises must be addresed, and that is where you fail.
By the way, you might want to look up the word "stereotype".
In any case, I am done with you. I will be giving you the attention you deserve; I will be ignoring you. I will not tolerate the false charges of a fool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by mike the wiz, posted 12-08-2004 10:36 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 81 of 85 (166216)
12-08-2004 11:38 AM


Addendum.
I have completely satisfied the lay out of my argument since message #15, and have succesfully and patiently through reasoning and explanation shown how my argument is valid, true and sound. The attempted refutations have been shown as weak and/or not relevant pertaining to the actual truths/facts I have shown concerning organisms. Also - atheists have shifted goal posts so many times I refuse to play ball anymore.

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 12-08-2004 12:05 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 83 by MrHambre, posted 12-08-2004 3:54 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 82 of 85 (166224)
12-08-2004 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by mike the wiz
12-08-2004 11:38 AM


In other words you are tired of being caught in misrepresentaions and distortions so you are going to falsely claim victory and run away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by mike the wiz, posted 12-08-2004 11:38 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 83 of 85 (166285)
12-08-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by mike the wiz
12-08-2004 11:38 AM


He Is Risen
Look, everyone, up in the sky! It's Mike holding on to a convenient skyhook and floating out of the debate!
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by mike the wiz, posted 12-08-2004 11:38 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 84 of 85 (199897)
04-17-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mike the wiz
10-20-2004 10:07 PM


sorry. that assumes causality. it is therefore flawed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 10-20-2004 10:07 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 85 of 85 (200408)
04-19-2005 1:45 PM


What a disappointment
This thread started out so well and promised to be a congenial discussion that I was looking forward to joining.
I only caught it towards the end so was unable to join in earlier.
As i read through all the posts, the whole thing just seemed to fall apart and degenerate into name calling, as so many threads do.
Oh well

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024