Logical fallacies and magical cacti

Author: Math_Enthusiast
Religion

Posts

Total: 58
Topic's author
#1
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 195
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
Many religious arguments for God are dependent upon circular reasoning and logical fallacies. Instead of attacking these fallacies, I decided to simply demonstrate how ridiculous they are by using them myself. See if you can prove me wrong!

Note: From this point forward, any post which is not in the character of a Terry and His Magic Cactus worshipper will be headed with "Out of character:"

Claim:

Terry and His Magic Cactus both exist, and the Magic Cactus is omniscient, and both it and Terry are infallible.

Argument:

According to Terry:

Behold My Magic Cactus. It knows all and tells only truth.
But how do we know that Terry is telling the truth here? Well, according to the Magic Cactus:

Terry will never lie, as He has My power, which is pure and incapable of deception.

My claim is thus proven!
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,051
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Terry and His Magic Cactus have confidence in each other, which is good for their relationship.
#3
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Many religious arguments for God are dependent upon circular reasoning and logical fallacies. Instead of attacking these fallacies, I decided to simply demonstrate how ridiculous they are by using them myself. See if you can prove me wrong!
Your argument is wrong because it proves too much.  

You see, not only religious arguments for God's existence are dependent upon circular reasoning, but  EVERY worldview and indeed any attempt to prove anything. 

Take reason for example.   Or logic.  How do we know that logic is right?  Or let's put this another way. How do you prove logic right without using logic? You can't. It's circular reasoning.  By your argument therefore - logic is a fallacy.  

Axioms are the beginning point of EVERY argument.  

Thus to carry on as though Terri and his magic Cacti are doing anything particularly silly BECAUSE of Circular reasoning is inconsistent. 

Logic, Experience (senses), and Revelation are all sources of what some people claim are truth.  

Our brain, our senses, or revelation.  Others interestingly rely upon their heart or emotions or intuition.  

Each of these is an axiom. All axioms are circular.  Circular reasoning can be a fallacy, but not always.  The thing is to distinguish between when it is necessary and when it is fallacy.  Your argument FAILS because you don't even understand that there is a difference. 
#4
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Behold My Magic Cactus. It knows all and tells only truth.
But how do we know that Terry is telling the truth here? Well, according to the Magic Cactus:

Terry will never lie, as He has My power, which is pure and incapable of deception.
How do we know that the cactus's power could be transmitted to Terry? We don't. And if one of them is lying, this means both of them could be telling lies as they "could". 

#5
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,242
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Magic does not exist.
FULL STOP
#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,185
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Magic Mushrooms did.

I think.
#7
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,185
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
I would suggest religious righteousness has never been dependant upon logical processing

Religion only requires A so C. and will disregard the interim hypothesis in it's need to reach a state of righteousness.

Whereas scientific method requires proof of B in order to establish the truth.


Ha Ha.....It just occurred to me that religion is a conspiracy theory.
#8
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest religious righteousness has never been dependant upon logical processing
I can't speak for all religions. Christianity is built upon logical reasoning.  Faith without reason is mysticism.  Faith requires a proper reason for it to be faith. 


Religion only requires A so C. and will disregard the interim hypothesis in it's need to reach a state of righteousness.
Well there you go, you have proved Atheism to be a religion.  Good one. 


Whereas scientific method requires proof of B in order to establish the truth.
Science is a friend of religion.   It is an enemy of mysticism. 

Ha Ha.....It just occurred to me that religion is a conspiracy theory.

Yeah, I would relegate Atheism to that description. 
#9
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,242
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
As soon as i wrote it i thought about Magic Johnson.
I was firstly going to ask if the cacti's name was magic cactus.   

Hey Trade seems to be attacking atheism.
Atheists are not peoples that dont belive in magic cacti's. 
For They are called (  __________________  )   
Actually  I forget what they call them now. 
What do they call them again Zed ? 

Sooooo
What ever they call them would not be interchangeable in his above post with the word  ( atheist ) 
If it was,  atheist would mean,  peoples that dont believe in a bunch of certain shit.  

I suspect theists must think atheists don't belive in ANYTHING outside of the so called " provable "

I do like the sound of , cactusisum and  Cactusariums
#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,185
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Atheism can't be a theory because there is no theory.

And logically, atheism can't be a religion because there is no religion.

Though we know all about words and interpretation Trade.


So back to basics Trade.

The atheist simply states that the theist cannot prove the basis of their religion.

So the theist will always reply that the atheist cannot disprove the hypothetical basis of religion.

Which is all that theists can say because they cannot prove the hypothetical basis of their religion.

Even though the burden of proof lies with the claimant and not with the doubter of the claim.


And science has never lead theists to a definitive point of ha ha told you so.

Now, if a Christian deity actually existed it could  sort this out once and for all in a jiffy. Simply by saying  ha ha they told you so.


As ever trade. 

GOD principle sound.

Floaty about Middle Easterners not sound.



#11
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,185
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
To be honest Deb,  I don't believe in anything.

The sun will or won't rise again tomorrow.

And Cactisimians might or might not  flower in the sunshine.

And Trade and their like give atheism reason....This is a fact.....No belief required.


And for sure, the wise old Cactus is named Magic.

As in Mr Johnson.

And Mr Cactus.





Disclaimer:

Not in any way wishing to marginalise any other marginal gender type assumptionists.

Like, They Cactus

Or, They Johnson.

Notwithstanding penises and vaginas and all associated mechanisms.

One needs to be sooo sensitive these days.

Magic!
#12
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@zedvictor4


Zed,

As we have all been accustomed to in relating to the #1 Bible Fool Miss Tradesecret, she only uses her insidious "opinions" without using any bible axioms of Jesus' inspired words within the scriptures.  Therefore in her befuddled thinking, she assumes she is correct at all times towards any topic with just her "questionable opinions," NOT!

MISS TRADESECRET'S QUACKY QUOTE:  "I can't speak for all religions. Christianity is built upon logical reasoning.  Faith without reason is mysticism.  Faith requires a proper reason for it to be faith."

First thing, how can Christianity be built upon logical reasoning that she says it is, when a Christian like myself has to accept blatant contradictions within Jesus' direct and inspired words within the scriptures, like the one of many examples shown below:

YOU ARE SAVED BY WORKS AND NOT BY FAITH ALONE:   “JESUS SAID: “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,  And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone..” (James 2: 14-17)

YOU ARE SAVED BY FAITH AND NOT WORKS:   “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)” (Galatians 2:15-16)



Miss Tradesecret hangs her belief in Christianity by faith being true, therefore, when she can perform moving a mountain from its existing foundation, to another area, lets say, Mount Everest, then she can truly have faith in Christianity as Jesus states in the passage below:

JESUS SAID:  " He replied, 'Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” (Matthew 17:20)

Therefore, when Miss Tradesecret has prominent News Agencies televise her moving Mount Everest from one location to another, and if she can't perform this godly notion, then her faith is null and void, as none other than Jesus the Christ so states in the passage above!  Would Miss Tradesecret consider this proposition as "built upon logical reasoning" if she could't move Mount Everest?  LOL!


We truly need Miss Tradesecret within this forum for comedy relief because of her outright Bible Stupidity, and in her showing what a TRUE Christian is not to be, or act like, praise Jesus!
.




#13
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,438
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Phenomenon 'can occur, of which we have no answer in the moment,
If Terry was a trustworthy person,
Perhaps ears would be open to his claims,

If further miracles occurred,
Or even just good leadership in a time of turmoil, hardship, moral concerns,
How much greater the credence to him given.
. . .

I will not curse people for their faith,
Though I may not share it myself.
. . .

Even of the modern Christian, I'm doubtful it is 'only the claim of truth,
By which people believe,
But their life experiences, perspectives, related logics.

#14
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,820
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
The recent rise of anti-cactusism is very disturbing.
#15
Slainte
Slainte's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 131
1
5
9
Slainte's avatar
Slainte
1
5
9
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Quantum mechanics is magic.  Einstein called it spooky.
#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,185
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Slainte
Is quantum mechanics theoretical.

If so, it is only fictional magic.

Like what wizards do.

Einstein would have been spooky on a dark night, wearing a cowl in a graveyard.
#17
Slainte
Slainte's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 131
1
5
9
Slainte's avatar
Slainte
1
5
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Quantum mechanics is not theoretical.  MRI's and PET medical devices use quantum mechanics to create their images.

I do agree that Einstein coming shuffling down a dark European path would be spooky.
#18
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,242
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
So,  as we here are alllllll,   Religious group aficionados. 
We know whats  going to happen next.  
(  i myself can feel it  )  

Ok I'm just gonna say it. 
 
Magical cactus,
Or. MC,   
He is gonna and wanna do a little book book hey ? 
Inny

RIGHT?
Well it just so happens thst.
The cacti's is 《《《omniscient 》》》
Thats right ( omniscient.    For thoes whom dong know. 
This pretty much means  his like  really really really  smart,   
□□□□ please keep this in mind □□□□□

That
along with a plethora of  knowledge we've attained from you idiots being in religious groups .  

I feel it is safe to say. 
 
《《《《  Magic cactus is gonna need help doing his little book  book thing isn't he ?    》》》》

GUYS ? 
Isn't he. ? 

No PLEASE DO NOT ANSWER THAT. 

Look truly guys we understand.
Its all good , 

I mean.
Just because one knows all and everything . Does not. .
I repeat.  
 DOES NOT....
UNDER ANY circumstances  what so ever . 
give us,  a ummm,  right.  To  just like ,  simply assume ,
Or mealy guess that he can perhaps ,,, 
write shit down for himself.  

He will need help hey? 



Fucking wankers. 




#19
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,185
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Slainte
Because I was uncertain, I did check it out prior to asking and all references referred to quantum theory and theoretical physics.

And more brief research would suggest that MRI and PET technology use established principles and techniques, albeit advanced.

Though the base principles that power said technology are still not fully understood. Nonetheless quantum mechanics seems to be a workable theory.


Sort of working backwards though development:

E. is workable because we can understand and manipulate D. and C. by applying the effects of B.
 
But we still don't fully understand how A generates the effects of B.

Isn't this the age old conundrum?

Which to be fair, could be regarded as magical.


#20
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,242
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
So your wondering. 
What might  MC  talk like when he starts . 
Who knows  hey ? 
' shugs sholders 

 Does anyone want to guess ? 
 

#21
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,242
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
So we've learned some shit today right Zed ? 
Ahhhh yeah . 
Thats what it is all about.. 

We two will one day be omni ?
Whats the word again . 
Omnisicent nipicent.?
You know the one. 
One day Zed. 


 Ok now what was that guys name that posted that comment  again?  
Slainte. 
Anddddd  , 
INSTA -- BLOCKED. 

Fuckin cheeky prick,
And Thats the end of him. 


#22
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,242
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Slainte
Nice post man.
#23
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,185
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@Slainte
Well tri-omni.

Though in my book if your omni then your omni.

And hey Mr Slainte

Deb's a diamond geezer from a land down under.

Where women glow and men plunder.


Or alternatively:

Where they glow and they plunder.

Not wishing to marginalise the marginals, as it were.
Topic's author
#24
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 195
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
It would appear that in my absence chaos has broken out, so I'll just respond to what was directed at me.

Your argument is wrong because it proves too much.  

You see, not only religious arguments for God's existence are dependent upon circular reasoning, but  EVERY worldview and indeed any attempt to prove anything. 
But of course! Circular reasoning is critical to everything! That's why it is entirely valid and necessary in proving the existence and power of Terry and His Magic Cactus! I hope you can now see that surely Terry and His Magic Cactus are the most powerful beings in the universe!

Axioms are the beginning point of EVERY argument.  
You're right. I should have considered that. This will improve my argument greatly! I take as an axiom that Terry is infallible. He is my source of information, so I must be right.

Thus to carry on as though Terri and his magic Cacti are doing anything particularly silly BECAUSE of Circular reasoning is inconsistent. 
Wait, you don't agree with circular reasoning?

Logic, Experience (senses), and Revelation are all sources of what some people claim are truth.  
Yep! Everything around us is defined by the Magic Cactus, so you are experiencing it right now! Surely you realize that it exists at this point?

Each of these is an axiom. All axioms are circular.  Circular reasoning can be a fallacy, but not always.  The thing is to distinguish between when it is necessary and when it is fallacy.  Your argument FAILS because you don't even understand that there is a difference. 
Oh yes, I know there's a difference. That which is consistent with the Magic Cactus is necessary, and anything else is a fallacy. Could you put forth an argument otherwise? I'm doubtful!

In conclusion: You made correct conclusions on distinctions between truth and falsehood, but you were unable to use them to disprove Terry and His Magic Cactus. Better luck next time!
Topic's author
#25
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 195
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Out of character:

The issue is that even though you point out that some assumptions are reasonable and some are not, we will never all agree on which assumption can be made, or which versions of circular reasoning are valid. Even though I am pretty confident that we can all agree that Terry's infallibility is a fallacious assumption, when it comes to religion people don't always agree, and the "logic" that is commonly used to prove God is considered fallacious by many. It is often said to be circular, and while you try get past that common counterargument, the issue is that what we as humans think is and isn't valid will always be subjective. Because of this, there isn't really any way for you to argue that the assumptions that I make in my argument for "Terry and His Magic Cactus" are fallacious, yet others aren't. We can't rely on our intuition either, because it isn't hard for people to twist our often flawed intuition into making us believe ridiculous things. If I and the resources, I could probably convince many people that Terry and His Magic Cactus are real and should be worshipped. How can you be so confident that modern religious beliefs don't work in a similar way?
#26
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,242
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I can disprove it , however it may take some time . 

Well first things first.  (  provide help for Math - e )  
So we will reach out to math-e

Math-e?
Are you there Math ?
Hey hi mate. 
Look We need to have you math--enth come down to the office for a " eveluation " of sorts. 
Its 100% non evasive.,    We are worried is all. We care about you.
Your family cares about you.  We need to assure them that you are ok.
So come down and we will go from there.

I could elaborate butttttttt

3 weeks later. 

( your in a waiting room ) 

 Math -e 
Hi how you going mate 
 Come through this way. 

Its Questions time. 
So All the basic nonsense and then 
How are you feeling ?
What are you up to  ? 

Then bammmmmm , we will drift the line of questioning to. 

Can i ask 
How do you know this Terry guy ? 

Your answers will go a long long way to disproving you.
Why your answer will probably disprove yourself. 
Then its back to 
Question. 
Followed by questions.  

We will ask for. Terry's address and or phone number.  ( for it will be Terrys turn next. ) 

Nice easy questions,  
Then bammmmmmmmmm again. 
( trying my very very  best not to laugh in your face ) 

Have you math-e  witnessed first hand  this cactus do something like um strange or out of character for a cactus  ?

So on and so on 

Again i could elaborate.

Months  later. 

You will be sent here then back there. 
More elaboration. 



But inevitably. 
You'll spend the rest of ya days in the ental hop with a box of crowns and sheets of blank paper.  
Highly medicated 
It is here where You will produce great works of art for ya mum and dad to put straight on the fridge door
And,  well. Thats it.
 Again , I could like really elaborate  it 
But i couldn't be bothered.

Sooooo , You will provide all the proof needed to dispove yourself 
Thus getting to the bottom of it. 

▪○●°•¤▪○●°•¤▪○●°¤¤▪○●•¤°▪○●°•¤▪○●° 

This is the way to disprove you andddddd get you the help you need. 
Otherwise it is waste of time trying to disprove something over via text message.  

Math -e , 

P.s ... i am aware  i say we. 
And i look forward to having you hang out with me at the mental hospital 
Roomie
#27
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,242
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
It you don't come in for a assessment. 

You will be emitted. 
Via Government san ca ( cant spell that word) sanc
Fuck it.  You know the word. 

If allllllll this fails . 
' puts on a song  '  

It will be torture o' clock. 
Music plays in the background   ' Stuck in the middle with you ' 

Anyway I'll leave it up to you.

I am deeply sorry if ive offended ,  Magic Cactus.   ( gives salute )
I wouldn't  fuck with him. 

Music continues in the background. 
' Thats right , stuck in the middle with you  a' 
#28
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,242
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
A quick  google search 
' The avrage life span of a cactus and a terry ' 
100 years
Another Google search
' The avrage life span of a magical cactus ' 
Wow i wasn't expecting that.
100 years also .

So how to disprove? 
 TIME.

Orrr 
I could ask you for proof ,  but that would be no fun. 
  ' thats right, stuck in the middle with you. '
#29
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,242
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
' I've got Cactus to the left and Terry to my right '
' here i am  '
' Stuck in the middle with you '

Thanks for that hey. 
Allllll day long that stupid song been in me friggen  head. 

Hey Math-e?

( tip ) 
The title of your post. 
Don't put the word ( magical ) in it. 

As soon as you read it goes Pop

And this is like a ummm a " problem " right ?  ie.  Lke The trolly "problem" , and things like that hey? 

It looks like you wanted to make the cactus do like / perform  miricals ,
but as shown in the above line 
the word mirical is hard to use .   Ha wow , its real hard to use.
And in knowing that ( triggers the word ....   perform.   

But ummmm
 Math-e , i got it. 
 you thought about words for agesssssss.
And ages. 
And fuckin ages on this hey. ? 

And it still kept coming to 
What do you call a person that can Perform miricals ?   
The answer to this does not come easy, well its easy but it doesn't come comftable.  ,  Anddddd there are multiple answer to that .   What is a ( Mirical worker.) ?
horrible.


▪○°▪○°•¤▪○°•¤▪○°•¤▪○°•¤▪○°•¤▪○°¤¤▪○°•¤▪○°¤▪○°•¤▪°○¤

So Math - one question. 
If I'm wrong ill stop. 

(  Do you feel or did you take agesssssss. , juggling the words  (magic  /  magical  / miricals / mirical whilst trying to think of others and christ knows what.  ?


(   If the answer is yes. )  

Fuckin amateur hour. 
You idiot. 

Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrŕrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

If the answer is.   No

Swear at me . And say like  ,
youve spent quadruple the amout of  time on this then i have. 
And then finish it up with.  Ummm .
Your by far the biggest idiot ive seen on this site. 
Actually prety much on any site. 

I'll then instantly start melting .  
I'll give you the point, and we will move on. 

Topic's author
#30
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 195
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Out of character:

I don't really have any idea what you're talking about, but I hope that you realize that "Terry and His Magic Cactus" was just the most ridiculous thing I could come up with, and I don't actually believe any of that stuff.

After reading your last few posts, I feel like I am the one who should be concerned about you.