deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

How is this a fallacy

Because you have dichotomized a situation with more than two possible outcomes. If two people cite sources to claim contrary positions, it does not necessarily follow that both positions are equally valid.

Quote:

when this is what u and a lot of ppl in this thread are guilty of?

Even if that were true, it would be a tu quoque fallacy to assert that your argument is not fallacious merely because other people have commited the same error. However, you have not pointed out where other people in this thread have commited such a fallacy, so I see no reason to take this claim as true.

Quote:

LOL. You keep trying to tell me I need to prove myself to you with whatever YOU deem as evidence

You are still commiting the same fallacy, merely implictly this time.

Quote:

..... then you ignorantly and mistakenly ASSUME that your subjective reasoning

Once again, you have yet to establish precisely what parts of my reasoning are subjective. I assembled your propositions into a set of connected sentences and then established where the non sequiturs were. You are deferring from your epistemic responsibilities by the meaningless ad hoc of claiming that my criteria are subjective. But they are not. The form of logical evaluation I am employing is entirely objective.

Quote:

will automatically eclipse MY beliefs and you don't see the irrationality of that mentality??? LOL

Why is it irrational to suppose that a person could be swayed by a well-argued proposition? I suppose in the case of you, you may be a lost cause, but hopefully you are not the norm. The fact of the matter is that I have broken down your arguments, established the non sequiturs in them, and all you do is repeat the same meaningless ad hoc fallacy (I have already explained why your line that reasoning is subjective constitutes an ad hoc fallacy), and otherwise insult me. You are clearly incapable of rational thought.

 

Are you telling me you really can't comprehend how subjective reasoning (especially spiritual and  philosophical) can be multi-interpretable???? That's what it sounds like I'm hearing. If that's the case, you are out of touch with reality.

Oh, you said you needed proof that your reasoning is subjective....for instance, (I don't think you said it exactly) but when I mentioned my mother is a medium (THAT"S PROOF to ME) someone else said well that doesn't prove anything! That's a good example of what I am referring to.

Quote:

Are you telling me you really can't comprehend how subjective reasoning (especially spiritual and  philosophical) can be multi-interpretable???

If you peruse the links, you'll actually find that philosophy is quite objective in the nature of the arguments employed. I suspect you have never studied the subject formally. What I am trying to tell you is that your argument is invalid. Even if we were to accept a premise that a particular concept can be "multi-interpretable" (which isn't a word), there is no conclusion which can be drawn from that premise which could be used to defend any one particular belief about the nature of reality. You cannot use it to defend your beliefs. I cannot use it to defend mine. It is a vacuous premise. The other thing I am trying to tell you is that two people having different positions on a particular issue does not necessarily imply that the two individuals have equally valid but subjective reasoning of the situation. To say that would be a fallacy of false dichotomy. Your argument is broken. It contains three fallacies and a vacuous premise.

Quote:

Oh, you said you needed proof that your reasoning is subjective....for instance, (I don't think you said it exactly) but when I mentioned my mother is a medium (THAT"S PROOF to ME) someone else said well that doesn't prove anything! That's a good example of what I am referring to.

He's right. There is objective evidence to suggest (from the various disciplines of psychology) that anecdotal evidence is fundamentally untrustworthy. Any proposition about the nature of reality based on anecdotal evidence usually contains something called a post hoc fallacy. Sort of like claiming that a particular drug works because after you ingested it, your symptoms disappeared. Because anecdotal evidence never contains a method for determining the mechanism behind some phenomenon under discussion, it runs into a problem called underdetermination. To test whether a medium is telling the truth, for example, is quite easy. In The Enemies of Reason, Richard Dawkins went to talk to a medium. He easily tricked him into revealing the fact that his communication was a scam. For example, he allowed the medium to run on with the notion that he was communicating with Dawkins dead father, despite the fact that Dawkin's father is still alive. The medium had merely inferred that Dawkin's father is dead from Dawkin's age. This sort of test is immediate and objective proof that the medium in question was a scam. It would require similar testing conditions (double blind) to test whether a medium is actually telling the truth.

 

Quote:

You don't see the hypocrisy or contradictions in your beliefs.

You have yet to outline precisely what these are. Nor do you need to copy and paste. I studied logic as a formal subject and a branch of mathematics. I know what begging the question is. You have yet to show me where I have assumed a particular thing is true in order to prove it is true.

Quote:

How is this so hard to comprehend???

I am not trying to explain to you why you should have to prove yourself to me. I am trying to explain to you why a propositition cannot be defended on the grounds that two people draw different conclusions about the same issue of contention. I'm also trying to explain to you why this does not necessarily lead to the idea that the two people in question have equally valid albeit subjective views. I have already outlined why this is fallacious. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? Your argument:

Premise: It is possible, in an issue of contention, to have two people draw differeing conclusions, where both people cite differing evidence

Conclusion: It follows that both forms of reasoning are equally valid albeit subjective

I'm trying to explain to you why this is a fallacy of false dichotomy and an ad hoc fallacy. This is extremely simple. What can I do to get you to see this?

 

I'm dealing with reality and the truth is subjectivity plays a factor when it comes to "defining proof".

For instance, I could tell you my firsthand account stories about my life but because of YOUR schooling and training these would automatically shape your opinion and mentally you would immediately discount my stories for anecdotes.

So what's the point of begging the question?

enzoconti wrote:

Specifically, what are those experiences? and how do they refute evidence?

Let me think of one. I had so many. I had a vision in which my grandmother came to me right after my uncle had gotten remarried. She said this would lead to his downfall. On Valentine's Day he was murdered by his son because of this marriage.

I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm dealing with reality and the truth is subjectivity plays a factor when it comes to "defining proof". No matter how you want to dress it  up.

For instance, I could tell you my firsthand account stories about my life but because of YOUR schooling and training these would automatically shape your opinion and mentally you would immediately discount my stories for anecdotes.

That's not being objective in the face of "evidence" either. Get it? So what's the point of begging the question?

enzoconti wrote:

Specifically, what are those experiences? and how do they refute evidence?

Let me think of one. I had so many. I had a vision in which my grandmother came to me right after my uncle had gotten remarried. She said this would lead to his downfall. On Valentine's Day he was murdered by his son because of this marriage.

Quote:

That's all I'm saying.

Fine. At this point I'm not trying to convince you that life after death doesn't happen etc. I am trying to convince you that the fact that two people draw differing conclusions does not necessarily mean that the two opinions are equally valid, which is pretty much what you argued.

No. I wasn't arguing this

Ok, DG, Ezc, and Butter, let me ask you a question. Since yall are here. Why do you desire to completely rule out supernatural plausibility??? I'm curious. 

Ok, DG, Ezc, and Butter, let me ask you a question. Since yall are here. Why do you desire to completely rule out supernatural plausibility??? I'm curious.

 I'm getting the feeling that Arj has already accepted our explanations, but he tends to avoid expressing it explicitly because it puts his perspective on shaky ground. 

Arj wrote:

For instance, I could tell you my firsthand account stories about my life but because of YOUR schooling and training these would automatically shape your opinion and mentally you would immediately discount my stories for anecdotes.  That's not being objective in the face of "evidence" either.

 

Clearly, he's implying that we discount his experiences because of our personal bias.

However, when I said.

Quote:

Logically, DG's opinion is undoubtedly stronger because it relies on objective evidence and testable observations. Arj's subjective evidence is undoubtedly sufficient to convince him of his beliefs, but they are not valid from a scientific standpoint.

However, if Arj truly believes he has communicated with people in the afterlife, it would be insane for him change his opinions due to an Internet forum. Thus, it is irrational to hold that these two perspectives are equally valid; however, it is not irrational for Arj to hold his beliefs at this time. He should thoroughly investigate these experiences for their validity.

He agreed.

Arj wrote:

That's all I'm saying.

 

??????????????

Apparently, the matter has already been settled, and the entire second half of the thread is only a matter of miscommunication due to the fact that Arj will not admit his fallacies on nature of evidence.

I'm starting to have a greater appreciation for the way people think in this forum. It's different.

My preconceived notion was, with knowledge comes maturity I see I was wrong

atheists feel they have just as much to prove as the religious zealots.

It takes wisdom to see differently.

I said I've seen ghosts Butter said maybe it was a shadow from a car. I replied, "There was no car in my living room."

Now, how has what people concluded from the "evidence" I presented "sound reasoning"???

It would be like if I told you I saw a ghost. This would require a major upheaval in one's understanding of the nature of reality. From an epistemological standpoint, such an upheavel cannot be rationally made on the basis of someone else's highly subjective anecdotal experience.

deludedgod wrote:

It would be like if I told you I saw a ghost. This would require a major upheaval in one's understanding of the nature of reality. From an epistemological standpoint, such an upheavel cannot be rationally made on the basis of someone else's highly subjective anecdotal experience.

DG wouldn't it be irrational to assume anything else???

Quote:

I said I've seen ghosts Butter said maybe it was a shadow from a car. I replied, "There was no car in my living room."

*Facepalms*

He was giving a hypothetical example about the problematic nature of anecdotal evidence.

Quote:

Now, how has what people concluded from the "evidence" I presented "sound reasoning"???

I don't think anyone could meaningfully draw any evidence from the claims you presented. They are too subjective to be meaningfully evaluated by anyone else. It would be like if I told you I saw a ghost. This would require a major upheaval in one's understanding of the nature of reality. From an epistemological standpoint, such an upheavel cannot be rationally made on the basis of someone else's highly subjective anecdotal experience.

butterbattle wrote:

Clearly, he's implying that we discount his experiences because of our personal bias.

 LOL. Never that. You were simply being objective in my opinion so I agreed. You said so yourself, it would be asinine to think an internet forum could shake my beliefs. LOL. That's true.