TAG argument, fails

[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.

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.

And that is not supported.

 

[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.

And that is not supported.

What is not supported?

 

[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.

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.

And that is not supported.

What is not supported?

That knowledge is without definition if the tag argument is thrown out.

 

[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.

And that is not supported.

What is not supported?

That knowledge is without definition if the tag argument is thrown out.

An assumption of the TAG argument is that knowledge has a definition. So to say the TAG argument fails is to say we can not define knowledge.

 

[G.T.]

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.

And that is not supported.

What is not supported?

That knowledge is without definition if the tag argument is thrown out.

An assumption of the TAG argument is that knowledge has a definition. So to say the TAG argument fails is to say we can not define knowledge.

No.

That's not how logic works.

To say the tag argument fails is to say the tag argument fails.

Knowledge has a definition whether tag fails or passed, it has no bearing. Definitions are a human construct, we created them as a means to communicate. Definitions only don't exist if humans don't exist.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Hollie]

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.

And that is not supported.

What is not supported?

That knowledge is without definition if the tag argument is thrown out.

An assumption of the TAG argument is that knowledge has a definition. So to say the TAG argument fails is to say we can not define knowledge.

As you noted, Bunky: "An assumption of the TAG argument...."

As noted earlier: "- i.e., one must assume as true the point the religionist is trying to make,"

 

[RandomVariable]

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.

And that is not supported.

What is not supported?

That knowledge is without definition if the tag argument is thrown out.

An assumption of the TAG argument is that knowledge has a definition. So to say the TAG argument fails is to say we can not define knowledge.

No.

That's not how logic works.

To say the tag argument fails is to say the tag argument fails.

Knowledge has a definition whether tag fails or passed, it has no bearing. Definitions are a human construct, we created them as a means to communicate. Definitions only don't exist if humans don't exist.

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.

And that is not supported.

What is not supported?

That knowledge is without definition if the tag argument is thrown out.

An assumption of the TAG argument is that knowledge has a definition. So to say the TAG argument fails is to say we can not define knowledge.

As you noted, Bunky: "An assumption of the TAG argument...."

As noted earlier: "- i.e., one must assume as true the point the religionist is trying to make,"

Does that work every time? I will have to bookmark that page.

Let us go one step at a time as you like to use random words to confuse the conversation to prove your point.

What is the point religionists are trying to make?

 

[G.T.]

Viciously circular arguments are just not that serious. They're a roll-eyes, and should be shunned every time.

 

[Hollie]

And that is not supported.

What is not supported?

That knowledge is without definition if the tag argument is thrown out.

An assumption of the TAG argument is that knowledge has a definition. So to say the TAG argument fails is to say we can not define knowledge.

No.

That's not how logic works.

To say the tag argument fails is to say the tag argument fails.

Knowledge has a definition whether tag fails or passed, it has no bearing. Definitions are a human construct, we created them as a means to communicate. Definitions only don't exist if humans don't exist.

And that is not supported.

What is not supported?

That knowledge is without definition if the tag argument is thrown out.

An assumption of the TAG argument is that knowledge has a definition. So to say the TAG argument fails is to say we can not define knowledge.

As you noted, Bunky: "An assumption of the TAG argument...."

As noted earlier: "- i.e., one must assume as true the point the religionist is trying to make,"

Does that work every time? I will have to bookmark that page.

Let us go one step at a time as you like to use random words to confuse the conversation to prove your point.

What is the point religionists are trying to make?

I used no random words. I noted your explicit statement wherein you wrote: "An assumption of the TAG argument..."

Are you confused as to what assumption means?

Let's continue, shall we?

I responded to your statement by noting that earlier, I had written, (with specific regard to the arguments proffered by apologists, that: "- i.e., one must assume as true the point the religionist is trying to make,"

Let's, review, shall we? You require an assumption of truth in order for your argument to be "true". That is, you require that one must assume as true the argument you are trying to make.

Do a search for the term "begging the question". Also, due a search for the term "because I say so", and report back what you find.

 

[RandomVariable]

What is not supported?

That knowledge is without definition if the tag argument is thrown out.

An assumption of the TAG argument is that knowledge has a definition. So to say the TAG argument fails is to say we can not define knowledge.

No.

That's not how logic works.

To say the tag argument fails is to say the tag argument fails.

Knowledge has a definition whether tag fails or passed, it has no bearing. Definitions are a human construct, we created them as a means to communicate. Definitions only don't exist if humans don't exist.

What is not supported?

That knowledge is without definition if the tag argument is thrown out.

An assumption of the TAG argument is that knowledge has a definition. So to say the TAG argument fails is to say we can not define knowledge.

As you noted, Bunky: "An assumption of the TAG argument...."

As noted earlier: "- i.e., one must assume as true the point the religionist is trying to make,"

Does that work every time? I will have to bookmark that page.

Let us go one step at a time as you like to use random words to confuse the conversation to prove your point.

What is the point religionists are trying to make?

I used no random words. I noted your explicit statement wherein you wrote: "An assumption of the TAG argument..."

Are you confused as to what assumption means?

Let's continue, shall we?

I responded to your statement by noting that earlier, I had written, (with specific regard to the arguments proffered by apologists, that: "- i.e., one must assume as true the point the religionist is trying to make,"

Let's, review, shall we? You require an assumption of truth in order for your argument to be "true". That is, you require that one must assume as true the argument you are trying to make.

Do a search for the term "begging the question". Also, due a search for the term "because I say so", and report back what you find.

We shall. Before going any further however let us make sure we are going in the same direction. That way we can avoid your other favorite arguing technique, 'change the nature of the discussion every three replies to avoid getting pinned to something you said'. We are determining whether God can be proved using the TAG argument, true?

 

[G.T.]

That knowledge is without definition if the tag argument is thrown out.

An assumption of the TAG argument is that knowledge has a definition. So to say the TAG argument fails is to say we can not define knowledge.

No.

That's not how logic works.

To say the tag argument fails is to say the tag argument fails.

Knowledge has a definition whether tag fails or passed, it has no bearing. Definitions are a human construct, we created them as a means to communicate. Definitions only don't exist if humans don't exist.

That knowledge is without definition if the tag argument is thrown out.

An assumption of the TAG argument is that knowledge has a definition. So to say the TAG argument fails is to say we can not define knowledge.

As you noted, Bunky: "An assumption of the TAG argument...."

As noted earlier: "- i.e., one must assume as true the point the religionist is trying to make,"

Does that work every time? I will have to bookmark that page.

Let us go one step at a time as you like to use random words to confuse the conversation to prove your point.

What is the point religionists are trying to make?

I used no random words. I noted your explicit statement wherein you wrote: "An assumption of the TAG argument..."

Are you confused as to what assumption means?

Let's continue, shall we?

I responded to your statement by noting that earlier, I had written, (with specific regard to the arguments proffered by apologists, that: "- i.e., one must assume as true the point the religionist is trying to make,"

Let's, review, shall we? You require an assumption of truth in order for your argument to be "true". That is, you require that one must assume as true the argument you are trying to make.

Do a search for the term "begging the question". Also, due a search for the term "because I say so", and report back what you find.

We shall. Before going any further however let us make sure we are going in the same direction. That way we can avoid your other favorite arguing technique, 'change the nature of the discussion every three replies to avoid getting pinned to something you said'. We are determining whether God can be proved using the TAG argument, true?

She already addressed this, she said that it begs the question - which it does.

 

[RandomVariable]

An assumption of the TAG argument is that knowledge has a definition. So to say the TAG argument fails is to say we can not define knowledge.

No.

That's not how logic works.

To say the tag argument fails is to say the tag argument fails.

Knowledge has a definition whether tag fails or passed, it has no bearing. Definitions are a human construct, we created them as a means to communicate. Definitions only don't exist if humans don't exist.

An assumption of the TAG argument is that knowledge has a definition. So to say the TAG argument fails is to say we can not define knowledge.

As you noted, Bunky: "An assumption of the TAG argument...."

As noted earlier: "- i.e., one must assume as true the point the religionist is trying to make,"

Does that work every time? I will have to bookmark that page.

Let us go one step at a time as you like to use random words to confuse the conversation to prove your point.

What is the point religionists are trying to make?

I used no random words. I noted your explicit statement wherein you wrote: "An assumption of the TAG argument..."

Are you confused as to what assumption means?

Let's continue, shall we?

I responded to your statement by noting that earlier, I had written, (with specific regard to the arguments proffered by apologists, that: "- i.e., one must assume as true the point the religionist is trying to make,"

Let's, review, shall we? You require an assumption of truth in order for your argument to be "true". That is, you require that one must assume as true the argument you are trying to make.

Do a search for the term "begging the question". Also, due a search for the term "because I say so", and report back what you find.

We shall. Before going any further however let us make sure we are going in the same direction. That way we can avoid your other favorite arguing technique, 'change the nature of the discussion every three replies to avoid getting pinned to something you said'. We are determining whether God can be proved using the TAG argument, true?

She already addressed this, she said that it begs the question - which it does.

Exactly what question does it beg? I asked a question and you said I was trolling.

 

[G.T.]

Exactly what question does it beg? I asked a question and you said I was trolling.

You have to assume the truth of premise #1 for the third part to follow.

In order for it to be a good proof for god, premise #1 has to be independently proven, which is has not; therefore, the argument fails because it begs the question and is circular.

1. Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.

 

[Hollie]

No.

That's not how logic works.

To say the tag argument fails is to say the tag argument fails.

Knowledge has a definition whether tag fails or passed, it has no bearing. Definitions are a human construct, we created them as a means to communicate. Definitions only don't exist if humans don't exist.

As you noted, Bunky: "An assumption of the TAG argument...."

As noted earlier: "- i.e., one must assume as true the point the religionist is trying to make,"

Does that work every time? I will have to bookmark that page.

Let us go one step at a time as you like to use random words to confuse the conversation to prove your point.

What is the point religionists are trying to make?

I used no random words. I noted your explicit statement wherein you wrote: "An assumption of the TAG argument..."

Are you confused as to what assumption means?

Let's continue, shall we?

I responded to your statement by noting that earlier, I had written, (with specific regard to the arguments proffered by apologists, that: "- i.e., one must assume as true the point the religionist is trying to make,"

Let's, review, shall we? You require an assumption of truth in order for your argument to be "true". That is, you require that one must assume as true the argument you are trying to make.

Do a search for the term "begging the question". Also, due a search for the term "because I say so", and report back what you find.

We shall. Before going any further however let us make sure we are going in the same direction. That way we can avoid your other favorite arguing technique, 'change the nature of the discussion every three replies to avoid getting pinned to something you said'. We are determining whether God can be proved using the TAG argument, true?

She already addressed this, she said that it begs the question - which it does.

Exactly what question does it beg? I asked a question and you said I was trolling.

You are trolling. Do you think no one sees it?

 

[G.T.]

Does that work every time? I will have to bookmark that page.

Let us go one step at a time as you like to use random words to confuse the conversation to prove your point.

What is the point religionists are trying to make?

I used no random words. I noted your explicit statement wherein you wrote: "An assumption of the TAG argument..."

Are you confused as to what assumption means?

Let's continue, shall we?

I responded to your statement by noting that earlier, I had written, (with specific regard to the arguments proffered by apologists, that: "- i.e., one must assume as true the point the religionist is trying to make,"

Let's, review, shall we? You require an assumption of truth in order for your argument to be "true". That is, you require that one must assume as true the argument you are trying to make.

Do a search for the term "begging the question". Also, due a search for the term "because I say so", and report back what you find.

We shall. Before going any further however let us make sure we are going in the same direction. That way we can avoid your other favorite arguing technique, 'change the nature of the discussion every three replies to avoid getting pinned to something you said'. We are determining whether God can be proved using the TAG argument, true?

She already addressed this, she said that it begs the question - which it does.

Exactly what question does it beg? I asked a question and you said I was trolling.

You are trolling. Do you think no one sees it?

I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt when he said we got off on the wrong foot, but now he's trolling again.........ugh

 

[RandomVariable]

I used no random words. I noted your explicit statement wherein you wrote: "An assumption of the TAG argument..."

Are you confused as to what assumption means?

Let's continue, shall we?

I responded to your statement by noting that earlier, I had written, (with specific regard to the arguments proffered by apologists, that: "- i.e., one must assume as true the point the religionist is trying to make,"

Let's, review, shall we? You require an assumption of truth in order for your argument to be "true". That is, you require that one must assume as true the argument you are trying to make.

Do a search for the term "begging the question". Also, due a search for the term "because I say so", and report back what you find.

We shall. Before going any further however let us make sure we are going in the same direction. That way we can avoid your other favorite arguing technique, 'change the nature of the discussion every three replies to avoid getting pinned to something you said'. We are determining whether God can be proved using the TAG argument, true?

She already addressed this, she said that it begs the question - which it does.

Exactly what question does it beg? I asked a question and you said I was trolling.

You are trolling. Do you think no one sees it?

I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt when he said we got off on the wrong foot, but now he's trolling again.........ugh

You know, GT, I saw your thread and I say to myself, "Ah, here is someone who might actually be interested in learning about God." So I give it a try. Nope. So I back up and give it another go. Nope. You say that you do not know know about God and no one does. But I do and I can give you understanding too if you actually wanted it. Apparently you would much rather play with your new girlfriend, Miss self-righteous, Jezebel-wanta-be. Seeing how she saved you from a near miss with understanding she might be a lot more Jezebel than she even knows. I will get back to making sport of Hollie when I get the free time again. As for you my offer stands any time you care to take me up on it. Sincerely, RV.

 

[G.T.]

Youre a dick dude.

'God exists cuz I say so just trust me.'

Save it man, you're being a kid

 

[RandomVariable]

Youre a dick dude.

'God exists cuz I say so just trust me.'

Save it man, you're being a kid

Why do you not trust me?

 

[G.T.]

Cuz you're an internet troll, a stranger, and trust is earned not given away.