Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

[Jedidiah]

Sigh!

What YOU

Once again you run from the question.

[Jedidiah]

No one has ever managed to show that theism is logically incoherent, despite what you might have deluded yourself into believing.

If you run in tight enough circles . . .

[JonathanL]

If you run in tight enough circles . . .

You'll start rotating on the spot?

[Teallaura]

If you run in tight enough circles . . .

Actually, circular logic isn't fallacious per se - it's internally valid. It also goes absolutely nowhere.

[Tassman]

No one has ever managed to show that theism is logically incoherent, despite what you might have deluded yourself into believing.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. There is no way to show that the initial premise of your argument. i.e. god exists, is true. Hence, at best, you have logically coherent fiction.

[Tassman]

He has already told me that there is NOTHING that could convince him that God exists. Not even if God appeared to him and did anything he asks to prove it.

Typically, you misrepresent the argument. Namely that for an immaterial, supernatural entity like a god to "appear" you must first show that an immaterial, supernatural world exists. This you haven't done. Therefore any "supernatural" appearances by a god, or an angel or the blue-fairy will, in all probability, have a natural explanation, such as it being a delusional experience. Happens all the time...ever visited the wards of a psychiatric hospital?

[JonathanL]

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. There is no way to show that the initial premise of your argument. i.e. god exists, is true. Hence, at best, you have logically coherent fiction.

This is a textbook case of argument from ignorance. Being unable to show that A is true isn't warrant enough to conclude that A is false.

[Tassman]

This is a textbook case of argument from ignorance.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

Being unable to show that A is true isn't warrant enough to conclude that A is false.

...or true!

[Sparko]

Typically, you misrepresent the argument. Namely that for an immaterial, supernatural entity like a god to "appear" you must first show that an immaterial, supernatural world exists. This you haven't done. Therefore any "supernatural" appearances by a god, or an angel or the blue-fairy will, in all probability, have a natural explanation, such as it being a delusional experience. Happens all the time...ever visited the wards of a psychiatric hospital?

sorry no misrepresentation. I spent several pages on this with you. If God appeared to you and did miracles for you, you said you would not believe in him. If he brought back someone from the dead for you, you said you would not believe. Delusions don't do miracles, Tassy, that others can see and confirm.

You are just so close-minded that nothing could ever convince you that God exists, so it is a waste of time to even discuss it with you. You ASK for evidence when you already said you would reject any evidence.

[JonathanL]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

...or true!

Your assertion was "hence, at best, you have logically coherent fiction".

I know what a sound argument is, you don't need to tell me that. My point was that you're using the fact that you don't think there's any way to show that God exists to conclude that therefore God must be fictional. That is arguing from ignorance and fallacious.

[Tassman]

sorry no misrepresentation. I spent several pages on this with you. If God appeared to you and did miracles for you, you said you would not believe in him. If he brought back someone from the dead for you, you said you would not believe. Delusions don't do miracles, Tassy, that others can see and confirm.

You mean like the "miracle" of Fatima when the sun hurtled towards towards the amazed crowd. Or Benny Hinn's "miraculous "healings" and etc.

You are just so close-minded that nothing could ever convince you that God exists, so it is a waste of time to even discuss it with you. You ASK for evidence when you already said you would reject any evidence.

People who want to believe will always find reason to believe, no matter how spurious.

[Tassman]

Your assertion was "hence, at best, you have logically coherent fiction".

I know what a sound argument is, you don't need to tell me that.

Good! Then you agree that without a true premise you cannot show a conclusion to be true. Therefore you cannot argue that , which was the assertion to which I was responding, because you cannot show the existence of God to be true.

[Sparko]

You mean like the "miracle" of Fatima when the sun hurtled towards towards the amazed crowd. Or Benny Hinn's "miraculous "healings" and etc.



People who want to believe will always find reason to believe, no matter how spurious.

Thanks for confirming what I said about you.


You can't help it can you?

e7f166291376d1833097d7b2758e2ea7.jpg

[Jedidiah]

I do not think he realizes it, Sparko.

[Sparko]

I do not think he realizes it, Sparko.

His lack of self-awareness is what makes it so amusing. I even keep telling him he has Foot-in-Mouth disease and he still does it.