Theology Question

[Damocles]

His point is valid. The construction of the Christian God has a specific history.

Again, the reduction of the point to only mean this one thing is where the issue lies. It is stupid to reduce the argument to the one god whose followers you don't like, and even stupider to then take the extra step to reduce it to fictional characters like Tinkerbell.

I can't exaggerate the level of stupid you just posted here, you literally used the same fallacy to argue that it was "valid". This type of argument is circular logic, "it's valid because it's valid" is its own special level of stupid.

His argument was slightly more valid than yours, because it didn't reduce all argument about god/s to one specific theology like yours always does and didn't apply the "it's valid, because I can't see past Christian god/s" argument.

[BidenPresident]

Again, the reduction of the point to only mean this one thing is where the issue lies. It is stupid to reduce the argument to the one god you don't like, and even stupider to reduce it to Tinkerbell.

I can't exaggerate the level of stupid you just posted here, you literally used the same fallacy to argue that it was "valid". This type of argument is circular logic. His argument was more valid than yours, because it didn't reduce all argument about god/s to one specific theology like yours always does.

bye

[IBDaMann]

No, it isn't like that at all. Pretending that the belief in Santa or Tinkerbell is the same as a belief in god/s is a logical fallacy called 'reductio ad absurdum'.

Nope. That is not what reductio ad absurdum is. A proof by contradiction is a very specific logical procedure.

An unfalsifiable belief in Tinkerbell is just as unfalsifiable as a belief in Ganesh which is just as unfalsifiable as a belief in the Yeti which is just as unfalsifiable as the Christian God. How are you saying that belief in God differs substantively from a belief in Tinkerbell? Unfalsifiable is unfalsifiable.

Much like Christians sometimes do to the Theory of Evolution.

This is different. Christians simply never learn Darwin's theory. Instead of being taught Darwin's theory, they are given disinformation and made to fear a nasty narrative that is absurd and totally false. As a result, Christians are made to believe ... by other Christians no less ... that a theory they never learned is actively attacking their faith and their deity. This, in turn, causes them to attack arguments that are never made and to propose counter theories to the absurd disinformation they claim Darwin's theory to be. Throughout my life, 100% of Christians that I have encountered who "oppose" Darwin's theory have absolutely no clue what it is, yet they all vehemently insist that they are experts on the topic. My first step is to ask them to list the top two or three specific items with which they disagree in On the Origin of Species and the only response I get is "I disagree with all of it." Repeating my request for a few specifics is always fruitless. I offer to lend them a copy (nowadays I just keep it posted online HERE) but I don't get any takers.

Contrapositively, all Christians who correctly understand Darwin's theory totally agree with it.

.

[BidenPresident]

reductio ad absurdum is a logical proof showing the proposition contains a contradiction. From the latin, surd, meaning irrational or stupid.
The absurdity is the self-contradiction. Thus, one disproves the proposition by reducing it to a contradiction.

[Damocles]

Nope. That is not what reductio ad absurdum is. A proof by contradiction is a very specific logical procedure.

An unfalsifiable belief in Tinkerbell is just as unfalsifiable as a belief in Ganesh which is just as unfalsifiable as a belief in the Yeti which is just as unfalsifiable as the Christian God. How are you saying that belief in God differs substantively from a belief in Tinkerbell? Unfalsifiable is unfalsifiable.


This is different. Christians simply never learn Darwin's theory. Instead of being taught Darwin's theory, they are given disinformation and made to fear a nasty narrative that is absurd and totally false. As a result, Christians are made to believe ... by other Christians no less ... that a theory they never learned is actively attacking their faith and their deity. This, in turn, causes them to attack arguments that are never made and to propose counter theories to the absurd disinformation they claim Darwin's theory to be. Throughout my life, 100% of Christians that I have encountered who "oppose" Darwin's theory have absolutely no clue what it is, yet they all vehemently insist that they are experts on the topic. My first step is to ask them to list the top two or three specific items with which they disagree in On the Origin of Species and the only response I get is "I disagree with all of it." Repeating my request for a few specifics is always fruitless. I offer to lend them a copy (nowadays I just keep it posted online HERE) but I don't get any takers.

Contrapositively, all Christians who correctly understand Darwin's theory totally agree with it.

.

Nah, Yeti is a better analogy than Tinkerbell is as there is equal evidence of Yeti, that of questionable eyewitness testimony. Tinkerbell would be more equivalent to the pantheon of Greek gods back in the day, once equivalent as folks would mention seeing the things about, but everyone stopped talking about seeing these gods and those faeries long ago.

However, since you do mention it, I'm willing to go there... saying you are certain that unicorns do not exist would be about the same as a certainty that god/s do not, faeries too. We don't know what kind of life exists elsewhere, this is supremely earth centric and does not follow logic. You can be relatively sure about the unicorns not being here on earth, we probably would have spotted some by now if they were here, but saying you can be certain they do not exist anywhere at all is about the same level of certainty you can have about the god/s, we just can't know at that level of certainty.

[BidenPresident]

Nah, Yeti is a better analogy than Tinkerbell is as there is equal evidence of Yeti, that of questionable eyewitness testimony. Tinkerbell would be more equivalent to the pantheon of Greek gods back in the day, once equivalent as folks would mention seeing the things about, but everyone stopped talking about seeing these gods and those faeries long ago.

However, since you do mention it, I'm willing to go there... saying you are certain that unicorns do not exist would be about the same as a certainty that god/s do not, faeries too. We don't know what kind of life exists elsewhere, this is supremely earth centric and does not follow logic. You can be relatively sure about the unicorns not being here on earth, we probably would have spotted some by now if they were here, but saying you can be certain they do not exist anywhere at all is about the same level of certainty you can have about the god/s, we just can't know at that level of certainty.

Unicorns were self consciously created. No one claimed it was an observation of a flying horse.

[Damocles]

reductio ad absurdum is a logical proof showing the proposition contains a contradiction. From the latin, surd, meaning irrational or stupid.
The absurdity is the self-contradiction. Thus, one disproves the proposition by reducing it to a contradiction.

Reductio ad absurdum is a fallacious argument made through poor analogy. It doesn't "prove" anything any more than the slippery slope fallacy, based on the same poor analogy at its center and insistence, does. Both are only evidence that you no longer have the ability to argue within the framework of logic and must resort to fallacious arguments.

Let me make a better explanation.

Reductio ad absurdum is not always a fallacy, it is only when it is appeal to ridicule. "You must also believe that you cannot say for certain that Santa Claus exists because you think you cannot say for certain that god/s doesn't exist!" this is an example of appeal to ridicule, AKA Reductio ad absurdum fallacy. (insert fairy where you see Santa.)

Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy if you use the opposite, if you turn it on itself and the statement no longer is valid, then you have a valid reductio ad absurdum as used by Greek philosophers for centuries...
Example:
You cannot be certain that god/s does exist (opposite argument) because there is not enough evidence for certainty, therefore this is faith...
Opposite:
You cannot be certain that god/s does not exist, because there is not enough evidence for certainty therefore this is faith or belief not certainty...

Note that it does not change the argument on its face, and the reality is both statements are valid. This is showing that saying it either way is valid, thus the argument was valid from the start. If the opposite statement is not valid, then the original argument is invalid as well, in this way reductio ad absurdum can be used to prove an argument invalid. But simply replacing one thing in the argument with an absurdity, this is a fallacy and is not how to use the reductio ad absurdum argument you speak about.

[Damocles]

Unicorns were self consciously created. No one claimed it was an observation of a flying horse.

That would be Pegasus, not unicorns. Though some folks did claim to observe such a thing, back in Greek gods times...

[BidenPresident]

Reductio ad absurdum is a fallacious argument made through poor analogy. It doesn't "prove" anything any more than the slippery slope fallacy, based on the same poor analogy at its center and insistence, does. Both are only evidence that you no longer have the ability to argue within the framework of logic and must resort to fallacious arguments.

Let me make a better explanation.

Reductio ad absurdum is not always a fallacy, it is only when it is appeal to ridicule. "You must also believe that you cannot say for certain that Santa Claus exists because you think you cannot say for certain that god/s doesn't exist!" this is an example of appeal to ridicule, AKA Reductio ad absurdum fallacy. (insert fairy where you see Santa.)

Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy if you use the opposite, if you turn it on itself and the statement no longer is valid, then you have a valid reductio ad absurdum as used by Greek philosophers for centuries...
Example:
You cannot be certain that god/s does exist (opposite argument) because there is not enough evidence for certainty, therefore this is faith...
Opposite:
You cannot be certain that god/s does not exist, because there is not enough evidence for certainty therefore this is faith or belief not certainty...

Note that it does not change the argument on its face, and the reality is both statements are valid. This is showing that saying it either way is valid, thus the argument was valid from the start. If the opposite statement is not valid, then the original argument is invalid as well, in this way reductio ad absurdum can be used to prove an argument invalid. But simply replacing one thing in the argument with an absurdity, this is a fallacy and is not how to use the reductio ad absurdum argument you speak about.

I do not know where you got your idea about the reductio but it is a very standard form of logical proof. It has nothing to do with making someone's argument look ridiculous.

A typical definition:

"Every reduction to impossibility takes the contradictory of what it intends to prove and from this as a hypothesis proceeds until it encounters something admitted to be absurd and, by thus destroying its hypothesis, confirms the proposition it set out to establish."
https://link.springer.com/article/10...098-016-0667-6

[BidenPresident]

That would be Pegasus, not unicorns. Though some folks did claim to observe such a thing, back in Greek gods times...

No one ever claimed to see a flying horse. If you have a historical document, post it.

[Damocles]

No one ever claimed to see a flying horse. If you have a historical document, post it.

Just so you'll know, when one uses the "winky face" emoticon it means they are joking at least a little. I know leftists often cannot tell that so I used a visual aid so you would understand. I am sorry my visual queue wasn't enough for you. What should I do in the future to help you understand that I was jokingly being pedantic? Should I just blurt it out like I did with the sarcasm earlier?

Are you on the autism spectrum? I mean clear visual clues should have helped...

[BidenPresident]

Just so you'll know, when one uses the "winky face" emoticon it means they are joking at least a little. I know leftists often cannot tell that so I used a visual aid so you would understand. I am sorry my visual queue wasn't enough for you. What should I do in the future to help you understand that I was jokingly being pedantic? Should I just blurt it out like I did with the sarcasm earlier?

Are you on the autism spectrum? I mean clear visual clues should have helped...

In all candor, I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Damocles]

I do not know where you got your idea about the reductio but it is a very standard form of logical proof. It has nothing to do with making someone's argument look ridiculous.

A typical definition:

"Every reduction to impossibility takes the contradictory of what it intends to prove and from this as a hypothesis proceeds until it encounters something admitted to be absurd and, by thus destroying its hypothesis, confirms the proposition it set out to establish."
https://link.springer.com/article/10...098-016-0667-6

However, even using "fairy" didn't. It was simply an appeal to ridicule. The argument was still valid at its center. While you are certain, you cannot prove the negative even with fairies. Is it possible there are forms of life we have yet to discover? I am certain there are. Your argument is still fallacious.

[BidenPresident]

However, even using "fairy" didn't. It was simply an appeal to ridicule. The argument was still valid at its center. While you are certain, you cannot prove the negative even with fairies. Is it possible there are forms of life we have yet to discover? I am certain there are.

Sorry, I really have no idea what you are talking about.

You literally do not know what "reductio ad absurdum" means.

[Damocles]

Sorry, I really have no idea what you are talking about.

You literally do not know what "reductio ad absurdum" means.

I do know what a reductio ad absurdum fallacy is though as I took logic in college....

LOL

Here. Reference this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Appeal to ridicule (reductio ad ridiculum, reductio ad absurdum, ad absurdum) – mocking or stating that the opponent's position is laughable to deflect from the merits of the opponent's argument. (Note that "reductio ad absurdum" can also refer to the classic form of argument that establishes a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction. This type of reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy.)[82]

I bolded the important bit for you, note how you must state the opposite, not just mockingly insert random something that you think others will laugh at (appeal to ridicule)... I point this out because you cannot seem to use visual clues to infer my meaning when I assume it is clear.