Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Of course I would agree that badly framed arguments would make the arguments invalid.
However, I suspect that our abilities to judge what may comprise a badly framed argument may well differ - it might be useful to quote a specific example for me to consciously analyse and use my God given freedom to think about the parameters involved to come up with a consciously verified conclusion.

Why have you again changed the wording of the question in your answer?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Of course I would agree that badly framed arguments would make the arguments invalid.

I'll take that as a close as you'll get to a plain "yes". Good. That’s progress then.

However, I suspect that our abilities to judge what may comprise a badly framed argument may well differ - it might be useful to quote a specific example for me to consciously analyse and use my God given freedom to think about the parameters involved to come up with a consciously verified conclusion.

OK, leaving aside the blind faith claims part of that, let’s look at the “I suspect that our abilities to judge what may comprise a badly framed argument may well differ” part.

Fortunately “our abilities to judge what may comprise a badly framed argument” is irrelevant because logical fallacies have been documented and codified, so your opinion or mine about a given argument is neither here nor there because we can just look them up. Here for example is Wiki with a list of fallacies, both formal and informal (and other sources with similar list are available):

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

Do you understand/agree/know therefore that if an argument is framed in the same way that one of these arguments is framed then it’s an invalid argument in itself, no matter the use to which it’s put?   

[Outrider]

If I am entirely controlled by material reactions - as in a man made robot, I would have no need for conscious thought and I am quite certain that there would be no mechanism for conscious thought.

There is no established 'need' for conscious thought - indeed, that's perhaps one of the reasons why its manifestation differs so much between people. Regardless of whether it meets a 'need' or not, though, we have it. You can be as sure as you'd like, but without justifying that you're just arguing from personal incredulity again. That you can't believe it doesn't make it invalid, you need to establish a firm basis why no-one should believe it.

O.

[Alan Burns]

So suppose you are a Homo Erectus adult, possessed of fairly advanced cognitive functioning, could control fire and could converse with some limited language skills with others.  You've got thoughts coming and going in your head, but no soul to direct or control them.  How would that work ?  Wouldn't they just be having random disorganised mental states with no soul imposing order and finding routes to solving their problems ?

I would have thought that evolution theory would ensure that developed biological instincts would be sufficient to ensure survival without the need for conscious thought.  The human ability to think about our responses before acting upon them is what facilitates our ability to exert free will - to consciously override our natural instincts if we so wish.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

I'll take that as a close as you'll get to a plain "yes". Good. That’s progress then.

OK, leaving aside the blind faith claims part of that, let’s look at the “I suspect that our abilities to judge what may comprise a badly framed argument may well differ” part.

Fortunately “our abilities to judge what may comprise a badly framed argument” is irrelevant because logical fallacies have been documented and codified, so your opinion or mine about a given argument is neither here nor there because we can just look them up. Here for example is Wiki with a list of fallacies, both formal and informal (and other sources with similar list are available):

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

Do you understand/agree/know therefore that if an argument is framed in the same way that one of these arguments is framed then it’s an invalid argument in itself, no matter the use to which it’s put?

Fallacy detection is not as black and white as you seem to imply.
For example the personal incredulity which I am constantly accused of does not take into account any valid reasons for my belief in what is possible or impossible.  And argumentum ad consequentiam often presumes that I am making an argument purely because I favour the outcome instead of considering the logic behind the argument.

It would be far better to point out the specific errors in reasoning rather than use fallacy labels to try to discredit my arguments.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Fallacy detection is not as black and white as you seem to imply.

Yes it is. Do you understand/agree/know that when an argument you attempt is framed identically to a codified logical fallacy then your argument must be a logical fallacy too?
 

For example the personal incredulity which I am constantly accused of does not take into account any valid reasons for my belief in what is possible or impossible.  And argumentum ad consequentiam often presumes that I am making an argument purely because I favour the outcome instead of considering the logic behind the argument.

It would be far better to point out the specific errors in reasoning rather than use fallacy labels to try to discredit my arguments.

No it wouldn’t – see above. If you frame your arguments as logical fallacies then they’re logical fallacies. What they’re about or why you do it is neither here nor there for this purpose. Do you agree?   

[Alan Burns]

No it wouldn’t – see above. If you frame your arguments as logical fallacies then they’re logical fallacies. What they’re about or why you do it is neither here nor there for this purpose. Do you agree?   

But in many cases it is you who make the claim "logical fallacy" when my original argument is based on logical deduction which you deem to dismiss.  Why not just try to point out the specific error in logic rather than use fallacy labels?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But in many cases it is you who make the claim "logical fallacy" when my original argument is based on logical deduction which you deem to dismiss.  Why not just try to point out the specific error in logic rather than use fallacy labels?

That hasn’t happened, but in any case let’s try to get you to focus here on the question you’re being asked: when you frame an argument as a logical fallacy, do you agree that the argument must be invalid in in itself regardless of the use to which you’re putting it?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That hasn’t happened, but in any case let’s try to get you to focus here on the question you’re being asked: when you frame an argument as a logical fallacy, do you agree that the argument must be invalid in in itself regardless of the use to which you’re putting it?

In many cases I disagree with the opinion that my argument is a logical fallacy for valid reasons.
Using the label of a logical fallacy in many cases offers no confirmation that the point being made is valid or invalid, so why not just use a logical argument?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In many cases I disagree with the opinion that my argument is a logical fallacy for valid reasons.

You can’t. When you frame an argument as a logical fallacy then it’s a logical fallacy. There are no “valid reasons” for it somehow being not a logical a fallacy. 

Using the label of a logical fallacy in many cases offers no confirmation that the point being made is valid or invalid, so why not just use a logical argument?

This makes no sense. When you employ a logical fallacy to justify a belief then the argument is necessarily invalid and so the justification fails. That’s all.

So to re-cap:

1. You agree that arguments framed as logical fallacies are invalid.

2. You agree that logical fallacies have been documented and codified, so we have numerous independent authorities for which arguments are invalid.

When you try one of these arguments, you cannot therefore say that you have “valid reasons” that transform it from invalid to valid. Do you agree with that?     

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You can’t. When you frame an argument as a logical fallacy then it’s a logical fallacy. There are no “valid reasons” for it somehow being not a logical a fallacy. 

This makes no sense. When you employ a logical fallacy to justify a belief then the argument is necessarily invalid and so the justification fails. That’s all.

So to re-cap:

1. You agree that arguments framed as logical fallacies are invalid.

2. You agree that logical fallacies have been documented and codified, so we have numerous independent authorities for which arguments are invalid.

When you try one of these arguments, you cannot therefore say that you have “valid reasons” that transform it from invalid to valid. Do you agree with that?     

By claiming fallacy, are you trying to use this as an argument to show that my conclusions are wrong?
if so, you are committing the fallacy fallacy:
(Argument from fallacy (also known as the fallacy fallacy) – the assumption that, if a particular argument for a "conclusion" is fallacious, then the conclusion by itself is false.)

So to show my conclusions are wrong, you need to do more than merely claim fallacy.
You need to provide alternative logic

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

By claiming fallacy,…

Not by “claiming” it, but by demonstrating it.

… are you trying to use this as an argument to show that my conclusions are wrong?

No, it shows you that your reasons for thinking your conclusions are correct are wrong. The conclusions may or may not be correct nonetheless just as a matter of dumb luck, but that’s all.

if so, you are committing the fallacy fallacy:
(Argument from fallacy (also known as the fallacy fallacy) – the assumption that, if a particular argument for a "conclusion" is fallacious, then the conclusion by itself is false.)

Wrong again – see above.

So to show my conclusions are wrong, you need to do more than merely claim fallacy.
You need to provide alternative logic

There’s too much wrong with that to bother with. Let’s stick to the basics for now:

1. You agree that the way some arguments are framed makes them invalid.
   
2. You agree that fallacies are documented and codified, so your arguments can be compared with those to see whether or not they’re fallacies too regardless of your or my opinions about that.

3. You agree I hope (though you’ve yet to say so) that using demonstrably invalid arguments to justify something you believe to be true does not thereby make those arguments valid.     

So, assuming that you agree with all three premises do you therefore agree that when you attempt a demonstrably invalid argument to justify your faith belief the justification fails necessarily?

[Alan Burns]

So, assuming that you agree with all three premises do you therefore agree that when you attempt a demonstrably invalid argument to justify your faith belief the justification fails necessarily?

I cannot agree that my reasoning is demonstrably invalid because your attempts to discredit them are demonstrably biased by your obvious wish to deny any valid reason for God's existence.  Even to the extent of denying your own demonstrable ability to consciously control your own thought processes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I cannot agree that my reasoning is demonstrably invalid because your attempts to discredit them are demonstrably biased by your obvious wish to deny any valid reason for God's existence.  Even to the extent of denying your own demonstrable ability to consciously control your own thought processes.

Drivel. Try reading what’s actually being explained to you here. Your arguments are invalid when they are demonstrably framed as fallacies. Whether you’re using those invalid arguments to justify god, leprechauns or anything else is entirely irrelevant for this purpose. Whether I think your conclusions are correct or not is also irrelevant for this purpose.   

Again:

1. You agree that the way some arguments are framed makes them invalid.
   
2. You agree that fallacies are documented and codified, so your arguments can be compared with those to see whether or not they’re fallacies too regardless of your or my opinions about that.

3. You agree I hope (though you’ve yet to say so) that using demonstrably invalid arguments to justify something you believe to be true does not thereby make those arguments valid.     

So, assuming that you agree with all three premises do you therefore agree that when you attempt a demonstrably invalid argument to justify your faith belief the justification fails necessarily?

[Outrider]

Fallacy detection is not as black and white as you seem to imply.

For example the personal incredulity which I am constantly accused of does not take into account any valid reasons for my belief in what is possible or impossible.

If you have valid reasons, you need to cite those instead of just telling us that you can't believe it. If the argument that you give is that you can't believe it, that's all we can deal with. You can't use as yet unrevealed and untested arguments as some sort of trump-card, like having a girlfriend in Canada that we wouldn't know to demonstrate how you're not a virgin any more.

And argumentum ad consequentiam often presumes that I am making an argument purely because I favour the outcome instead of considering the logic behind the argument.

No, it's not presuming that, that's explicitly what you're saying. You're telling us that this can't be the case because that would make us biological robots.... yes, we know that, that's not an argument, that's just following the thought process to its logical conclusion.

It would be far better to point out the specific errors in reasoning rather than use fallacy labels to try to discredit my arguments.

As soon as you deliver some of this 'reasoning' we'll do just that. Until then, all we can do is repeatedly point out the errors in the formatting of your attempts at an argument.

O.

[torridon]

I would have thought that evolution theory would ensure that developed biological instincts would be sufficient to ensure survival without the need for conscious thought....

what is your justification for this ?

[Outrider]

I would have thought that evolution theory would ensure that developed biological instincts would be sufficient to ensure survival without the need for conscious thought.

It probably is. Evolution, though, is not mandated to any sort of arbitrary efficiency. It acts upon natural variation to apply a minimum standard of survival, it doesn't prompt the minimum necessary capability to achieve survival. If, as seems to be the case, consciousness developed then so long as the benefits outweigh the penalties of devoting that much energy to thinking, evolution will select for it.

The human ability to think about our responses before acting upon them is what facilitates our ability to exert free will - to consciously override our natural instincts if we so wish.

Like dogs, you mean, which override their instinct to bite as a result of their training? That's assuming, of course, that you can demonstrate that our conscious thought is actually overriding our instincts, and not just us becoming aware after the fact of our subconscious already having overridden our instincts whilst we weren't looking.

O.

[ekim]

The human ability to think about our responses before acting upon them is what facilitates our ability to exert free will - to consciously override our natural instincts if we so wish.

What you need to look at is what exactly motivates responses.  'If we so wish' indicates that there is a desire, prompting the decision, which the 'will' is not free from.  You may, if you have the time, have the ability to exercise a choice between desires but that doesn't necessarily mean that you idea of free will is valid.  It may be that this lack of freedom from self centred desires is what prompts the idea of surrendering to a God's Will ... Thy Will be done or It is the Will of Allah.

[Alan Burns]

Like dogs, you mean, which override their instinct to bite as a result of their training? ...

Training a dog not to bite is just moulding their instinctive reaction using the "carrot and stick" technique.
Instinctive reactions can be changed by learnt experiences, just as computer chess players are programmed to learn from past mistakes with no need for conscious awareness.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Drivel. Try reading what’s actually being explained to you here. Your arguments are invalid when they are demonstrably framed as fallacies. Whether you’re using those invalid arguments to justify god, leprechauns or anything else is entirely irrelevant for this purpose. Whether I think your conclusions are correct or not is also irrelevant for this purpose.   

Are you aware of the false equivalence fallacy?
Do you not think you are guilty of this fallacy in comparing the evidence for leprechauns with the evidence for God?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Are you aware of the false equivalence fallacy?

Yes - which is why I know you're trying it as a straw man (another fallacy by the way). Try reading what I've actually said to you, and stop implying that I've said something else.

Do you not think you are guilty of this fallacy in comparing the evidence for leprechauns with the evidence for God?

No, and nor would you if you bothered finding out what that fallacy actually means.

[Alan Burns]

The evidence for the points I made are derived from a multitude of personal witness claims in addition to verifiable historical facts.

All of which fail when you subject them to logical analysis.

You seem to dismiss any personal witness claims about encounters with Jesus with the bland "its not logical".
So are you presuming these witnesses are lying? or mentally deluded? or could they be simply telling the truth?
try watching these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsLFL-Yz_3c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSFeI_s6ass  (best if you start this one minute in to get to the start of his story)

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You seem to dismiss any personal witness claims about encounters with Jesus with the bland "its not logical".
So are you presuming these witnesses are lying? or mentally deluded? or could they be simply telling the truth?
try watching these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsLFL-Yz_3c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSFeI_s6ass

You can keep ducking and diving all you like but this conversation is only about the basic principles, not about specific examples of what you consider to be evidence.

So yet again:

1. You agree that the way some arguments are framed makes them invalid.
   
2. You agree that fallacies are documented and codified, so your arguments can be compared with those to see whether or not they’re fallacies too regardless of your or my opinions about that.

3. You agree I hope (though you’ve yet to say so) that using demonstrably invalid arguments to justify something you believe to be true does not thereby make those arguments valid.     

So, assuming that you agree with all three premises do you therefore agree that when you attempt a demonstrably invalid argument to justify your faith belief the justification fails necessarily?

PS Have you worked out yet why your accusation of attempting the fallacy fallacy was wrong? I ask because you've yet to apologise for it and withdraw it.
   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You can keep ducking and diving all you like but this conversation is only about the basic principles, not about specific examples of what you consider to be evidence.

My posts are simply giving witness to the true purpose and meaning of our earthly lives.

It is you performing the ducking and diving in order to seek reasons to dismiss any evidence of God or your own spiritual nature.

[Gordon]

All of which fail when you subject them to logical analysis.

You seem to dismiss any personal witness claims about encounters with Jesus with the bland "its not logical".
So are you presuming these witnesses are lying? or mentally deluded? or could they be simply telling the truth?
try watching these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsLFL-Yz_3c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSFeI_s6ass  (best if you start this one minute in to get to the start of his story)

'Jesus' has been dead for around 2,000 years - so naturalism suggests that there are zero good reasons to presume that any person currently alive has met this 'Jesus'.

It's yet more theobollocks, Alan, for the consumption of the chronically gullible.