Burden of proof for god's existence in a legal setting?

Post Reply New Topic

AG you are a master of the Gish Gallop, excuse me for trying to pull you back in. As for my use of authorities, I tend to reference my positions. You are right our styles diverge. I stay on topic until I feel that the matter is closed, you move from one to the other so that people can't figure out that in most cases your field of knowledge is a mile wide and an inch deep.

91, as I've stated in the past: you accusing me of dishonesty is a joke. Even further, the Gish Gallop requires that I spew out a laundry list of erroneous claims, rather than making a few statements on various points that you think are outside the proper scope.

As for trying to pull me back in? We're now having an argument on whether I am honest or not. Nothing has been pulled back in, instead 91 has derailed the topic because he didn't like that I digressed.

No, 91, this isn't a matter of "referencing". Frankly, your use is closer to "bludgeoning". You don't even provide a link to all of your sources, so what the hell is the point of your "reference" if your audience can't read it? (Hint: Bludgeon) Not only that, but you really are clearly not a critical thinker, as you either don't read well, or you don't critically think things through, or both, so... the "reference" isn't a "reference" it's a "deference". (Also, given that you appeal to authority in more egregious manners than anybody that I've seen here, AND are more likely to claim people have committed the informal fallacy, it's kind of a joke) As for "stay on topic until I feel that the matter is closed"... ha ha, given that you will continue fighting, even when conclusively proven to have done something fallacious, it appears that you only feel the matter is closed when you win.

91, you do realize that the current example is actually disproof of your theory, right? I had nothing to hide. There was no opponent at stake. I actually agreed with your comment, yet I *still* digressed. What lack of knowledge was I hiding and from who? Your theory should have an answer. There has to have been something challenging me, I had to have some lack of knowledge, and my statement on Reformed Epistemology had to be a distraction, but I can't identify the first or second requirement, AND the only distraction so far is you arguing that I am dishonest. If anything, it's more plausible that *YOU'RE* hiding something, because this accusation is a complete digression from ANYTHING talked about earlier, and it has no justification.

Give me a break AG, who do you think your fooling? On one discussion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument you raised; divine foreknowlege, warrant, Daniel Dennett, transworld depravity, time, epistemology and molinism. I hit my claims home pretty hard, I make no bones about that, but I do not attempt a proof by intimidation wherein I raise a laundry list of red herrings just to avoid being called on a core point.

91, you claimed you were "trying to pull [me] back in", because I digressed, and you claim that my digressions are "so that people can't figure out that in most cases [my] field of knowledge is a mile wide and an inch deep". My statement is clear: "91, you do realize that the current example is actually disproof of your theory, right? I had nothing to hide. There was no opponent at stake. I actually agreed with your comment, yet I *still* digressed. What lack of knowledge was I hiding and from who? Your theory should have an answer."

You didn't provide an answer. You're blustering about with your accusations. This is clear-cut. You accused me of this with your theory on why I do this particular behavior which I just did, AND your theory didn't apply to the situation. Why is that, 91? Why are you hiding behind a wall of bluster? Why are you multiplying terms, when MOST OF THESE OVERLAP! Warrant is an epistemological term. Molinism is a notion of divine foreknowledge, and transworld depravity is an idea in Molinist theology. So, we end up with epistemology, Dan Dennett, time, and divine foreknowledge as the digressions. And note: Time actually isn't a digression if the KCA depends upon a particular theory of time to hold. Dan Dennett was brought up because Dan Dennett is noted for his negative view towards human introspective knowledge, as seen in this video: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on ... sness.html , and you made an argument from some bit of human knowledge towards the overarching metaphysical schema, so I pointed out that if someone even admitted Dennett had a point on how our knowledge is so deeply flawed, that this point just doesn't appear to hold. As for Molinism, that came up because I said that "Craig holds to A-theory, as Craig is a Molinist, and Molinists hold to A-theory". This statement is of course true because that's the only way their account of middle knowledge is sensible in contrast to others, such as Calvinists who hold that God ordains all future facts, so OF COURSE he'd know them.

You're blustering about, and you're wrong and I don't even KNOW who you are trying to fool given that your tactics are relatively known by this point. Given that this entire digression is a red herring, as this has no relevance, this can only seem ironic. Even further, you TOTALLY ATTEMPT PROOF BY INTIMIDATION. YOU ALWAYS TRY IT. My "laundry list" hardly ever gets to that point, and given that a lot of this is just plain digression, it can't be used as a proof by intimidation anyway. 91, one of the two of us has literally denied the laws of logic when pressed, and that person is not me.

An excellent display of why so many of us consider so much of philosophy BS.

Post subject: Contaminating & Redundant Apologetics Endlessly:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4189740.html#4189740



I'm one of a divine iurodivyi.

Well, no, it's not actually just citing random people's names, but you can visualize mere blank space under each of the legal authorities' names and credentials I provided as you wish.



...which is obviously your way of saying that "kooky" (I guess you mean wrong?) legal opinions are the norm for great legal minds. As we all know, great legal minds give documentation the most cursory of glances, and never study a subject deeply in attempt to impartially determine the likely truth or anything.

The real problem is how unconvincing your response was, in being so typically-AG -- adding no content to the discussion, only your typical arrogant and glib dismissal. (It's way more attitude than fact.)

The space under the names and credentials lacks any real form of argument. It's a statement of "I think this about that", which doesn't provide anything for rational persuasion.


I never said anything about a norm. The issue is that a random selection of people who make statements of the sort of "I agree with X because I feel this about it", doesn't really force us to agree with them. I mean, if you select a set of any group of people, regardless of how smart they are, there will be some with kooky ideas, which is why this kind of method doesn't work.

Ragtime, if you disagree with me, why don't you actually show me how your post actually forms an argument? (or several arguments as the case may be) As it stands, here's a very typical statement:


So, what do we see here? Well, we see that Sir Edward Clark, K. C. claims that to HIM the evidence is conslusive, and that HE believes that it is a better class of evidence than other evidences used in court cases he has won. The issue is that arguing like this leads nowhere. I mean, I could just say "Bertrand Russell claims "The Bible is a load of crap, and as a philosopher I have seen better notions from undergraduates!""(no, 91, that's not something I actually am quoting), and expect that to be taken seriously. The issue is that nobody would find this a proper reason to be persuaded. There are authorities on all sorts of sides of many debates, and any single person can possibly just have a kooky idea.