Well this is getting silly... but I ain't gonna not reply.
Silly...
Odd that one of the proponents of the KA made my exact same point in Message 126...
You'll have to forgive me, I fail to see how that was relivant. Perhaps you could explain your meaning?
But I'm staying within the premises. Ya know, assuming them true for the sake of arguing?
An excelent way to determine the validity of an argument, however, I never claimed I was addressing the validity if the argument, now did I? Once again, strawmen are not your friends.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause, and an eternal god wouldn't begin to exist, so we don't have a reason for supposing its cause. You don't have to assume the premesis are true, but if I am for the sake of arguing, then its beside the point for you to start talking about the premises not being true.
You seem to be stuck on the idea that in order to address an argument you must assume all of the premises are true and look for flaws in the argument's structure... Why is validity your end all of end all?
I can assume your premesis are true and discuss the validity of the argument or come to the conclusion that I am a man-sized cartoon chicken.
I invite you to do so, there is a reason why I made my argument as silly as it is. The below argument is a syllagism presented in modus ponens form.
quote:
If the person known as "Catholic Scientist" on EVCforum.net has made a post on EVCforum.net then the person known as "Catholic Scientist" on EVCforum.net is a man-sized cartoon chicken.
The person known as "Catholic Scientist" on EVCforum.net has made posts on EVCforum.net.
Therefore, the person known as "Catholic Scientist" on EVCforum.net is a man-sized cartoon chicken.
This is a valid argument.
So...
Are you a man-sized cartoon chicken?
Huh? I'm saying that rejecting an argument because the premises aren't true is perfectly fine,
Yet, you still have contention with me doing so...
but if someone is assuming the premesis are true for the sake of argument, then its beside the point to argue that the premesis aren't actually true. Its just a different argument.
I agree, but here's the kicker, where in our exchange did we agree that this was what we were discussing..?
quote:
Sure, but that's just denying one of the premises of the argument. Which is fine, you can reject it on that bases... but if we're discussing the argument, itself, then we should stick to the premises.
This is the first instance in our exchange where this issue was brought up. You pointed out that I rejected a premise and informed me that " ...if we're discussing the argument, itself, then we should stick to the premises".
1) How is discussing why I am rejecting a premise in the argument -not- discussing the argument itself?
2) Why should we "stick to the premises" if we are discussing the argument, itself?
In Message 93, the author was exploring one of the premesis:
Okay, now point out where you agreed on your rule set that says the topic can only be discussed by first agreeing to accept the premises as true.
And you still haven't addressed my point:
Within the KA, how would an eternal god require a cause?
You still havent addressed my point:
Why do you keep insisting that man-sized cartoon chickens are proof of an eternal god? (Hint: I'm utilizing the same fallacy here you are.)
(I figure, if you're going to accuse me of being silly, I might as well be silly.)
He's jumbo-sized and wears a disguise,
You're not a man, you're a chicken, Boo.
™ Version 4.2
(1)