I've addressed your 'example' and shown how it's faulty.

I'm in a tricky situation now though. You may walk away because you've decided that I'm not engaging 'seriously', or that since I haven't agreed yet, I simply don't understand your posts, or you may walk away because I've made excellent, reasonable points, using prima facie true premises that have good reasons to support their truth value but that, strangely, have still failed to convince you of anything. What to do....

They can be quite excellent, in fact. Making an excellent argument doesn't mean you win the debate. It means you made an excellent argument.

The idea that all excellent arguments must win the debate in some sense is just another failing of your approach to knowledge. Not everything is win/lose. Not everything ends in black/white decisions. It's like saying that in a tightly contested sports match, the team that won is definitively and necessarily the better team.

Riiiiiiiiight.

This is just my opinion, but I do not think that a reasonable person who has been following this thread would see my comment as a "passive aggressive insult." If you saw it that way, then I apologize. I sometimes make little jokes in my posts to "lighten the mood", so to speak

I apologize if I'm coming across as shouty. Most of the time when I use CAPS, it is in a situation where most people use italics. (I literally just a few minutes ago learned how to italicize words; I thought /i meant to indent, not make italics.)

Please provide an example where I was sarcastic.

I wouldn't say that I'm "resorting" to using an analogy (T_D pointed out that technically this chess illustration is an" example", and I mistakenly referred to it as an "analogy." Whatever we call it, analogies can be extremely helpful in articulating a position. When I studied biology in high school, my teacher spent some time showing the usefulness of analogies.

As used in the old quote, "If you're losing the case, abuse the plaintiff", "abuse" means to employ ad hominem attacks against the plaintiff, rather than address the issue at hand. I've been mocked, ridiculed, insulted, and called an idiot in discussions before, but I think you're the first one to play the "you're not sincere" card. If anyone else reading this thread believes that I'm insincere, please chime in.

The Great Chess Debate actually doesn't involve listing a series of specific chess moves. The debate often involves a statistical analysis of large databases of master games over many decades, and how Black's winrate is decreasing over time (a fact favoring the "White wins" position), while on the other hand Black is drawing more often than before (a fact favoring the "Black draws" position). The point is, both sides are being "reasonable", yet only one side is right.

The Prima facie qualification (hey, I'm lovin' these italics!) means that, prior to actual careful analysis, there is a high degree of plausibility that the premise might by true. Let's go back to our old friend, The Great Chess Debate: It is plausible to assert that White has a forced win, and it is also plausible to assert that Black can hold the draw with best play. Maybe after careful study, we'll some day find out which assertion is true. But, "on the surface", either position can be held without being ridiculous.

If you "thoroughly" read my posts, then how come so many of your responses (and many examples have been given by others in this thread) suggest otherwise?

Have a blessed day!

Yes I know what a forced win is. Even basic tactics teaches you that.

I don't understand your other question, or rather I think it is completely meaningless.

The example is about the solution for a game of perfect information, but too complex for the solution to yet be known. Obviously then the people debating the issue are using qualified simplifications for their analysis, and nobody in this thread is saying that those who disagree are both correct.

I mean, if we translate your arguments... you're claiming that Lagtight is saying the universe accepts a paradoxical solution to chess. I'm sorry, but that's such an uncharitable interpretation that it is hard to see that you're not just trolling.

I don't use Ad homs, insulting you doesn't make me right or you wrong. It's inelegant and pointless.

It's logically impossible for contradictory conclusions to both be valid and sound in the same sense at the same time, it's the law of non-contradiction.

Your chess 'example' is simply not applicable. Chess moves are not equivalent to premises in an argument and losing or winning a game is not equivalent to the conclusion of an argument. You're right, or wrong, regardless of the order in which you make your case, and you can both be wrong.

Try a different example.

Once again, this is a typical post of yours where you exhibit no evidence whatsoever that you are even reading, let alone comprehending, my posts.

I explicitly (wow, aren't these italics fun?) showed you that in the chess example there are no chess moves in the argument. The arguments were based on a statistical analysis of the win and draw rates in master games over a long time period.

Anyway, it seems to me that continuing our dialogue here won't prove edifying for you, me or the readers of this thread given that you consistently fail to engage of what is actually said, even when multiple posters use your own words to prove to you that this is what you are doing.

Peace.

Here are all the instances of lagtight using the word "sound" in his writing. This does not include when he quoted the word "sound":

In the analysis of the conversation, it's clear that YOU were the one who introduced the concept. Here's your first post (which preceded all of his posts) on the matter:

You introduced it. You're holding onto it. You're ignoring the explicit definition of reasonableness that's been given and are fighting your own little battle over soundness.

This is why I say things like this about you:

Edit: Also, from the Random **** thread:

lol.... not sure this is worth continuing given that I've used multiple expressions you've used, quoted you numerous times, even used the same wrong spelling as you, and also addressed your 'example'. but according to you there's no evidence I'm 'even reading' your posts? (Yes italics are great aren't they, oops, there I go reading your posts again...). I wish you'd just address the actual subject instead of constantly making these pointless remarks.

So, again I'll point out that two contradictory conclusions can't both be valid and sound in the same sense at the same time, it's the law of non-contradiction. This is where your 'example' fails. Please address that, without the constant personal attacks if possible.

The irony is that your comments run much closer to "personal attacks" than his.

Hi, Mightyboosh.

The majority of the time, I've said something like you didn't show evidence of having read my posts "in their entirety" or "thoroughly", so based on my making that point many times, I would think (hope?) that you would know that I'm not saying that you literally read none of the post.

I'll start of with a technical point here, which is that "validity" and "soundness" apply to the argument as a whole, not to the conclusion. Conclusions are either "true" or "false". This may seem nit-picky, but since you are providing a technical definition of logical term, it is important to use the vocabulary consistent with the discipline of logic as currently practiced.

How does "my example fail?" No one ITT has ever said that two arguments with contradictory conclusions can both be sound. Why do you keep "countering" an argument that absolutely nobody is even making? It's mind-boggling to me why you keep doing this. (But then again, my mind is easily boggled )

Several times now I've provided you with what I mean by two arguments both being "reasonable", and "soundness" has nothing to do with it, and this has been pointed out to you over and over, and you keep repeating the same thing anyway.

So, you have shown no flaws in my example.

Please allow me to make a friendly request of you: Give me at least one specific quote in this entire thread where somebody claimed that two arguments with contradictory conclusions can both be sound?

If you can fulfill that request, then I will continue this dialogue with you. If you can't find one, then I will only continue this dialogue if you agree to cease introducing counterarguments to claims that absolutely nobody is making. Thanking you in advance.

Have a blessed day.

LIST OF PAINFULLY IGNORANT PEOPLE:

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the SoulPascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

LOL THOSE SILLY IDIOTS>>>> HOW CAN THEY BE SO PAINFULLY IGNORANTL>>> THANK GOD THAT YOU ARE HERE TO WAKE US UP!

WE ALMOST BECOME IRRATIONAL AS Carl Jung who said that he does not believe in god. Carl Jung said: "I am a scientist, I know that God exists"

Post-Modernist do not care for education and science. This is why their followers are silly and ignorant as OP...

I assume that this is a "cut and paste" job, since your other posts average about one misspelling per sentence.

Other than the fact that you're probably guilty of citing somebody else's work without giving due credit, I'm glad you posted this.

Thank you I guess.
Also I don't write correct because I simply don't like modern English. Pretty dumb language...
Also I am in academia and people here really don't care how I write. I have people who edit my papers.

Riiiiiiight.

Anyway, cite your source or just provide a link instead.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...encefaith.html

You are joke dude. I hope u know it.

To Aaron W.


Yes I belief in God. Do I call the people who don't belief in God "painfully ignorant"?
NO! I certainly do not!

To be brutally honest, science has become a sort of a religion. The field that I am interested in has solid science to back it up.
But today it is totally overwhelmed by political ideologs,post modernist, marxist, people who appeal to authority and follow a certain pattern of analysis. Unfortunately a deeply marxist analisys.

I mean what the hell man! I can't even speak my mind without being attacked for my opinion.
It seems to always be a question of my character and upbringing, never a question of truth, evidence and major.


Science and religion are both tools.
There is a good argument for religion being implied in our genetic code, from evolutionary perspective.
Religion is highly successful adaptation. You can't argue that without being historically incorrect. You simply can't!

1. I have proven that OP is wrongly using the word "true". It is a historical and present fact, that many religious people can be liberated from their scientific ignorance.
2. Addressing OP's faith is illogical after he is asking me. Ofc he does not have faith in it. In fact He is delusional ( scientific term ).

No one has, I don't think I'm making myself clear.

Your definition of 'reasonable' (valid and with prima facie true premises) is so close to 'sound' that you might as well say that it's sound, but you can't, because that would make you wrong, so you use this 'prima facie' fudge to be able to disagree without having to show why the premises are not actually true. You're saying 'your argument has all the appearance of a sound argument which it can't be since it conflicts with mine, but I can't actually show why those premises that appear on the face of it to be true, actually aren't true, so goodbye!'.

And that's the point at which I would either be trying to show why one or more of the premises aren't true, or admitting that my argument doesn't have merit enough to be able to use it to continue to hold my belief. I tend to do the former, I'm not quick to shed beliefs, and I doubt you are either. But what are you achieving by walking away?

Perhaps you're using something other than a sound argument to justify your beliefs? That's always another possibility.

If you were an academic, you'd understand what plagiarism is. So, yes.

I choose not to speculate on an irrelevant matter.

Really?

I believe you mentioned that. But that's still irrelevant to the point of the importance of citing your sources, which is one of the fundamental values of academia (not stealing other people's work and passing it off as your own).

Your belief is wrong.

I believe in God, and I don't do that either. You seem to have made an unwarranted assumption based on my criticism of failing to use a citation when copying verbatim.

Anyway, you're welcome to disagree with OP. If you read any part of the thread, you might recognize that OP didn't exactly get traction with this crowd, and the majority of this crowd does not believe in God. So you can take that however you choose.

...

Round and round and round we go...

If you really believe this even after having been shown several times by myself and Aaron (and I believe at least once by tame_deuces) that this statement is just patently wrong then at this point there is a basically 0% chance of this dialogue going anywhere.

I'm not a big fan of "appealing to the gallery", but just out of curiosity, if anyone reading this thread believes that Mightyboosh is making any sense at all on this particular point, please say so. Thanks.

Plagiarism isn't about copyright. Those are two entirely separate issues.

Interesting.

LOL

Oh. So you're the authority on the statements I believe. Thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure to submit a request for information next time.

Just open your mind and register your errors. You clearly apply a "NO" to all my questions. Being honest is also helpful in such a medium.

It has been duly noted that you are the curator of my thoughts and opinions. Whatever opinion you want to believe I hold is clearly a truthful representation of reality.