TAG argument, fails

[RandomVariable]

God does exist. You can take my word for it.

No thanks. Please stop trolling.

Is not whether or not God exists relevant to the OP?

Go away dude, I wasn't looking to be trolled.

If you want to make a statement put it in your sig. Threads are for discussions.

 

[G.T.]

God does exist. You can take my word for it.

No thanks. Please stop trolling.

Is not whether or not God exists relevant to the OP?

Go away dude, I wasn't looking to be trolled.

If you want to make a statement put it in your sig. Threads are for discussions.

you saying "god exists b/c i said so take my word for it" is not a discussion worthy of having.

ill wait for someone else to come along who is less interested in flaming and more interested in interesTING discussion.

 

[PratchettFan]

If the original premise is not shown to be true, then any conclusions arising from the premise are not demonstrated to be true by the premise. But seriously, do you expect those who assume the truth of the premise to care?

No, they won't care that it is not a sound argument.

That's why I made this thread, because I've run into a couple presuppers on this forum.

I know. I left that thread because it was pointless and became seriously boring. What you have said is obviously correct. But obviously correct carries no weight when it conflicts with entrenched dogma. People who are interested in the TRUTH are seldom interested in what is true.

So good luck with it. I fear the gang will soon show up to explain to you the rules of logic only apply to you, not to them.

 

[RandomVariable]

Here's a decent, albeit not perfect, video.

Sorry, my professors taught me never to click on links. My professors might have been a little paranoid however.

it's a commentary on the thread subject. 33 minutes of material is too long to type.

Do we need really need a commentary? It is three little lines. So far the only undetermined is whether or not God has to be present at the time of the knowledge. I am sure we can figure that out ourselves.

I think you’re missing the bigger picture.

It is in the “Design Arguments” (the TAG being among them), that the theistic paradigm shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of apology and theism the formula stated below:

A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion

B. Posit god as the explanation of your assertion

C. Exempt god from "A"

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In discussing the argument of god and design with religionists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatantly copied.

There are three components engaged in the attempt to prove a god(s) using the design arguments. They are:
The Teleological Argument
The Analogical Argument and
The Argument from Life

The religionist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since (per the religionist), blind chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

Caliber of weapons and volume of fire is now the deciding factor for who has the biggest, baddest gods.

I am not sure what an "argument of apology" is. What is it and how does it relate to the argument of design?

 

[RandomVariable]

God does exist. You can take my word for it.

No thanks. Please stop trolling.

Is not whether or not God exists relevant to the OP?

Go away dude, I wasn't looking to be trolled.

If you want to make a statement put it in your sig. Threads are for discussions.

you saying "god exists b/c i said so take my word for it" is not a discussion worthy of having.

ill wait for someone else to come along who is less interested in flaming and more interested in interesTING discussion.

So you do not take my word for it. Just say so. I think you have some unresolved issues.

 

[PratchettFan]

Careful - you can't prove the opposite of TAG, though, unless you can prove that god does NOT exist.

Because if god exists - then he's the reason for the rock, and he's the reason for your brain knowing of the rock.

Both arguments are on irrational footing, in terms of current human knowledge. (real, not abstract)

If God is the reason for the rock and the reason for my brain knowing of the rock does he not have to be there at the time of me kicking the rock?

It depends on his attributes, I guess.

Sorry, no guessing. Either yes or no.

Being that I dont know if god exists, if god doesnt exist, and which version of god it is if god does exist, I - like any other human - am unqualified to answer.

God does exist. You can take my word for it.

I agree. However, the God described in the various versions of the Bible, Tannach and Qur'an does not exist. You can take my word for it.

 

[G.T.]

[
I am not sure what an "argument of apology" is. What is it and how does it relate to the argument of design?

a·pol·o·get·ics
əˌpäləˈjetiks/
noun

1. reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

 

[G.T.]

No thanks. Please stop trolling.

Is not whether or not God exists relevant to the OP?

Go away dude, I wasn't looking to be trolled.

If you want to make a statement put it in your sig. Threads are for discussions.

you saying "god exists b/c i said so take my word for it" is not a discussion worthy of having.

ill wait for someone else to come along who is less interested in flaming and more interested in interesTING discussion.

So you do not take my word for it. Just say so. I think you have some unresolved issues.

I did, I said "no thanks" right after your post. You must have missed it.

Of course I have an unresolved issue, the same one any agnostic has.

 

[RandomVariable]

[
I am not sure what an "argument of apology" is. What is it and how does it relate to the argument of design?

a·pol·o·get·ics
əˌpäləˈjetiks/
noun

1. reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

No, that is apologetics. She said, "argument of apology". Even if she meant apologetics some more explanation as to why she is referring to it is needed. As it is it is just some random words to fill space.

 

[G.T.]

[
I am not sure what an "argument of apology" is. What is it and how does it relate to the argument of design?

a·pol·o·get·ics
əˌpäləˈjetiks/
noun

1. reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

No, that is apologetics. She said, "argument of apology". Even if she meant apologetics some more explanation as to why she is referring to it is needed. As it is it is just some random words to fill space.

oh jesus

 

[RandomVariable]

Is not whether or not God exists relevant to the OP?

Go away dude, I wasn't looking to be trolled.

If you want to make a statement put it in your sig. Threads are for discussions.

you saying "god exists b/c i said so take my word for it" is not a discussion worthy of having.

ill wait for someone else to come along who is less interested in flaming and more interested in interesTING discussion.

So you do not take my word for it. Just say so. I think you have some unresolved issues.

I did, I said "no thanks" right after your post. You must have missed it.

Of course I have an unresolved issue, the same one any agnostic has.

Well, you have come to the right place. Why do you not believe in God?

 

[RandomVariable]

[
I am not sure what an "argument of apology" is. What is it and how does it relate to the argument of design?

a·pol·o·get·ics
əˌpäləˈjetiks/
noun

1. reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

No, that is apologetics. She said, "argument of apology". Even if she meant apologetics some more explanation as to why she is referring to it is needed. As it is it is just some random words to fill space.

oh jesus

No, you see he is made up. Creating Jesus created one of the greatest, the greatest, stumbling blocks to finding God.

 

[G.T.]

[
I am not sure what an "argument of apology" is. What is it and how does it relate to the argument of design?

a·pol·o·get·ics
əˌpäləˈjetiks/
noun

1. reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

No, that is apologetics. She said, "argument of apology". Even if she meant apologetics some more explanation as to why she is referring to it is needed. As it is it is just some random words to fill space.

oh jesus

No, you see he is made up. Creating Jesus created one of the greatest, the greatest, stumbling blocks to finding God.

Look, I understand you enjoy wasting your time with minutia, but do it in someone else's thread.

It's a million miles from funny. At least try harder, ****.

 

[Hollie]

Here's a decent, albeit not perfect, video.

Sorry, my professors taught me never to click on links. My professors might have been a little paranoid however.

it's a commentary on the thread subject. 33 minutes of material is too long to type.

Do we need really need a commentary? It is three little lines. So far the only undetermined is whether or not God has to be present at the time of the knowledge. I am sure we can figure that out ourselves.

I think you’re missing the bigger picture.

It is in the “Design Arguments” (the TAG being among them), that the theistic paradigm shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of apology and theism the formula stated below:

A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion

B. Posit god as the explanation of your assertion

C. Exempt god from "A"

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In discussing the argument of god and design with religionists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatantly copied.

There are three components engaged in the attempt to prove a god(s) using the design arguments. They are:
The Teleological Argument
The Analogical Argument and
The Argument from Life

The religionist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since (per the religionist), blind chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

Caliber of weapons and volume of fire is now the deciding factor for who has the biggest, baddest gods.

I am not sure what an "argument of apology" is. What is it and how does it relate to the argument of design?

Here's a decent, albeit not perfect, video.

Sorry, my professors taught me never to click on links. My professors might have been a little paranoid however.

it's a commentary on the thread subject. 33 minutes of material is too long to type.

Do we need really need a commentary? It is three little lines. So far the only undetermined is whether or not God has to be present at the time of the knowledge. I am sure we can figure that out ourselves.

I think you’re missing the bigger picture.

It is in the “Design Arguments” (the TAG being among them), that the theistic paradigm shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of apology and theism the formula stated below:

A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion

B. Posit god as the explanation of your assertion

C. Exempt god from "A"

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In discussing the argument of god and design with religionists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatantly copied.

There are three components engaged in the attempt to prove a god(s) using the design arguments. They are:
The Teleological Argument
The Analogical Argument and
The Argument from Life

The religionist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since (per the religionist), blind chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

Caliber of weapons and volume of fire is now the deciding factor for who has the biggest, baddest gods.

I am not sure what an "argument of apology" is. What is it and how does it relate to the argument of design?

[
I am not sure what an "argument of apology" is. What is it and how does it relate to the argument of design?

a·pol·o·get·ics
əˌpäləˈjetiks/
noun

1. reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

No, that is apologetics. She said, "argument of apology". Even if she meant apologetics some more explanation as to why she is referring to it is needed. As it is it is just some random words to fill space.

They're not random words. G.T. and Pratchettfan both gave you an explanation. I would add to those by identifying that the religionist has to invoke "special dispensations" for his arguments not to sink like a boat anchor -- i.e., one must assume as true the point the religionist is trying to make, which is there is a supernatural cause behind all of this, to support the assertion that there is a supernatural cause behind all of this. Begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.

 

[G.T.]

Sorry, my professors taught me never to click on links. My professors might have been a little paranoid however.

it's a commentary on the thread subject. 33 minutes of material is too long to type.

Do we need really need a commentary? It is three little lines. So far the only undetermined is whether or not God has to be present at the time of the knowledge. I am sure we can figure that out ourselves.

I think you’re missing the bigger picture.

It is in the “Design Arguments” (the TAG being among them), that the theistic paradigm shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of apology and theism the formula stated below:

A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion

B. Posit god as the explanation of your assertion

C. Exempt god from "A"

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In discussing the argument of god and design with religionists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatantly copied.

There are three components engaged in the attempt to prove a god(s) using the design arguments. They are:
The Teleological Argument
The Analogical Argument and
The Argument from Life

The religionist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since (per the religionist), blind chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

Caliber of weapons and volume of fire is now the deciding factor for who has the biggest, baddest gods.

I am not sure what an "argument of apology" is. What is it and how does it relate to the argument of design?

Sorry, my professors taught me never to click on links. My professors might have been a little paranoid however.

it's a commentary on the thread subject. 33 minutes of material is too long to type.

Do we need really need a commentary? It is three little lines. So far the only undetermined is whether or not God has to be present at the time of the knowledge. I am sure we can figure that out ourselves.

I think you’re missing the bigger picture.

It is in the “Design Arguments” (the TAG being among them), that the theistic paradigm shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of apology and theism the formula stated below:

A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion

B. Posit god as the explanation of your assertion

C. Exempt god from "A"

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In discussing the argument of god and design with religionists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatantly copied.

There are three components engaged in the attempt to prove a god(s) using the design arguments. They are:
The Teleological Argument
The Analogical Argument and
The Argument from Life

The religionist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since (per the religionist), blind chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

Caliber of weapons and volume of fire is now the deciding factor for who has the biggest, baddest gods.

I am not sure what an "argument of apology" is. What is it and how does it relate to the argument of design?

[
I am not sure what an "argument of apology" is. What is it and how does it relate to the argument of design?

a·pol·o·get·ics
əˌpäləˈjetiks/
noun

1. reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

No, that is apologetics. She said, "argument of apology". Even if she meant apologetics some more explanation as to why she is referring to it is needed. As it is it is just some random words to fill space.

They're not random words. G.T. and Pratchettfan both gave you an explanation. I would add to those by identifying that the religionist has to invoke "special dispensations" for their arguments not to sink like a boat anchor -- i.e., one must assume as true the point the religionist is trying to make, which is there is a supernatural cause behind all of this, to support the assertion that there is a supernatural cause behind all of this. Begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.

Here's here to be difficult, quibble over minutia and be a troll.
I'm pretty chill and laid back, but he's close to going on iggy and I might report him for derailing my thread if I wanna be a REAL dick.

 

[RandomVariable]

[
I am not sure what an "argument of apology" is. What is it and how does it relate to the argument of design?

a·pol·o·get·ics
əˌpäləˈjetiks/
noun

1. reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

No, that is apologetics. She said, "argument of apology". Even if she meant apologetics some more explanation as to why she is referring to it is needed. As it is it is just some random words to fill space.

oh jesus

No, you see he is made up. Creating Jesus created one of the greatest, the greatest, stumbling blocks to finding God.

Look, I understand you enjoy wasting your time with minutia, but do it in someone else's thread.

It's a million miles from funny. At least try harder, ****.

I think we got off on the wrong foot. Let us try again. So you are saying that the TAG argument fails, true?

 

[G.T.]

I think we got off on the wrong foot. Let us try again. So you are saying that the TAG argument fails, true?

The tag argument fails as an argument, yes. It is viciously circular, coupled with a naked assertion.

More is necessary as a "proof" for God because premise #1 does not demonstrate a necessity for it to be true. Several other also not dis-proven theories are possible.

 

[RandomVariable]

Sorry, my professors taught me never to click on links. My professors might have been a little paranoid however.

it's a commentary on the thread subject. 33 minutes of material is too long to type.

Do we need really need a commentary? It is three little lines. So far the only undetermined is whether or not God has to be present at the time of the knowledge. I am sure we can figure that out ourselves.

I think you’re missing the bigger picture.

It is in the “Design Arguments” (the TAG being among them), that the theistic paradigm shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of apology and theism the formula stated below:

A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion

B. Posit god as the explanation of your assertion

C. Exempt god from "A"

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In discussing the argument of god and design with religionists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatantly copied.

There are three components engaged in the attempt to prove a god(s) using the design arguments. They are:
The Teleological Argument
The Analogical Argument and
The Argument from Life

The religionist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since (per the religionist), blind chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

Caliber of weapons and volume of fire is now the deciding factor for who has the biggest, baddest gods.

I am not sure what an "argument of apology" is. What is it and how does it relate to the argument of design?

Sorry, my professors taught me never to click on links. My professors might have been a little paranoid however.

it's a commentary on the thread subject. 33 minutes of material is too long to type.

Do we need really need a commentary? It is three little lines. So far the only undetermined is whether or not God has to be present at the time of the knowledge. I am sure we can figure that out ourselves.

I think you’re missing the bigger picture.

It is in the “Design Arguments” (the TAG being among them), that the theistic paradigm shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of apology and theism the formula stated below:

A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion

B. Posit god as the explanation of your assertion

C. Exempt god from "A"

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In discussing the argument of god and design with religionists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatantly copied.

There are three components engaged in the attempt to prove a god(s) using the design arguments. They are:
The Teleological Argument
The Analogical Argument and
The Argument from Life

The religionist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since (per the religionist), blind chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

Caliber of weapons and volume of fire is now the deciding factor for who has the biggest, baddest gods.

I am not sure what an "argument of apology" is. What is it and how does it relate to the argument of design?

[
I am not sure what an "argument of apology" is. What is it and how does it relate to the argument of design?

a·pol·o·get·ics
əˌpäləˈjetiks/
noun

1. reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

No, that is apologetics. She said, "argument of apology". Even if she meant apologetics some more explanation as to why she is referring to it is needed. As it is it is just some random words to fill space.

They're not random words. G.T. and Pratchettfan both gave you an explanation. I would add to those by identifying that the religionist has to invoke "special dispensations" for his arguments not to sink like a boat anchor -- i.e., one must assume as true the point the religionist is trying to make, which is there is a supernatural cause behind all of this, to support the assertion that there is a supernatural cause behind all of this. Begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.

May we start with a general definition of 'knowledge' first?

 

[RandomVariable]

I think we got off on the wrong foot. Let us try again. So you are saying that the TAG argument fails, true?

The tag argument fails as an argument, yes. It is viciously circular, coupled with a naked assertion.

More is necessary as a "proof" for God because premise #1 does not demonstrate a necessity for it to be true. Several other also not dis-proven theories are possible.

That is exactly where I started. The 'it' you refer to is knowledge, half way anyway. It is to say knowledge is without definition if one is to throw out the TAG argument.

 

[Hollie]

I think we got off on the wrong foot. Let us try again. So you are saying that the TAG argument fails, true?

The tag argument fails as an argument, yes. It is viciously circular, coupled with a naked assertion.

More is necessary as a "proof" for God because premise #1 does not demonstrate a necessity for it to be true. Several other also not dis-proven theories are possible.

Yep. And in the context of these discussions, (considering the participants), "God" is a uniquely, sectarian version (I'll propose invention) of god which in no way can be construed to be the only god. Human history has lots of them.