Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
By the way, Gary, it was to me that leroy was replying in his dismissal.
Kindest regards,
James
By the way, Gary, it was to me that leroy was replying in his dismissal.
Kindest regards,
James
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Arguments for God's Existence
- Thread starter Sparhafoc
- Start date
Sparhafoc said:
the question will be answered after you selected 1 of the 4 arguments, I can't read nor type nearly as fast as you can, I can not deal with 4 arguments at the same time because that would lead to very, vey long comments and replies.
or we can simply take the first argument and start.
yes I will tell you exactly what should you do, to prove that you understand the arguments.
Dragan Glas said:
Ahh yes! Sorry, James!
How odd that confusion could possibly be generated by LEROY's interactions, like identifying the target of one his litany of accusations! Who would have predicted that treating everyone as a homogenous mass would result in them all assuming that you are talking to all of them at any given time!
leroy said:
I don't need to select 1 of 4 arguments, LEROY.
I am perfectly capable of addressing 4 arguments at the same time.
See? This is an example of how I won't simply genuflect to your whimsical demands. You do what you want, and get over yourself thinking I am here to perform tricks on your command.
leroy said:
No, you think that's what you'll do, but what will happen is that I will laugh in your face. Of course, you accept the arguments and that's because you don't employ rationality. I, however, do. So you won't be making up my position for me, nor be the arbiter of what's acceptable or not.
Clear?
Don't give a flying fuck if it's not clear, that's still the way it's going to be.
POP goes LEROY's hubris, spraying its jism all over the forum again.
LEROY's Argumentative Parable:
I am really good at chess. Probably the best chess player in the world. I have discovered strategies beyond the ken of mere mortals. If you wish to play me at chess, you should consider yourself lucky to be playing a super grandmaster like myself. As such, I will be the judge of who wins, even if it seems by the rules of chess that you are winning, even if the rules appear to be inconsistent and favour me, that's precisely why I am the best at chess, and why I automatically win because my rules are superior than chess' rules. Incidentally, I've never played chess before.
I am really good at chess. Probably the best chess player in the world. I have discovered strategies beyond the ken of mere mortals. If you wish to play me at chess, you should consider yourself lucky to be playing a super grandmaster like myself. As such, I will be the judge of who wins, even if it seems by the rules of chess that you are winning, even if the rules appear to be inconsistent and favour me, that's precisely why I am the best at chess, and why I automatically win because my rules are superior than chess' rules. Incidentally, I've never played chess before.
Sparhafoc said:
before engaging with me on a discussion about evolution I had to prove to you that I understand the basics of genetics and heritability and answer to your question.
I am not doing anything different with you.
That is because you are a super genius, that can reed 5,000 words and then type a 300 word reply in less than 12 minutes. I don't have your ability
if you don't select an argument I will select the first argument.
then I will ask you a few questions, maybe 4 or 5 questions, if you answer correctly you will prove that you understand the argument. and I would be willing to discuss with you.
if you don't agree with these terms then I simply wont be willing to have a discussion with you.
leroy said:
Not true.
I did not say it was a condition of our discussion. Plus, I would never use the word 'prove' like you do - having told you at least two dozen times that you are misusing it.
Please acknowledge this FACT, because I am very suspicious of any distortion you manufacture of what I say.
I'll quote it if you like?
http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=179523#p179523
Sparhafoc said:
Any suggestion there that I demand you perform X before I will permit you to engage in discussion with me? I said that I needed to know what you know so that I could respond effectively without bothering with elementary stuff.
Now, please state in the first sentence of your reply an acknowledgement of your distortion of what I actually wrote.
leroy said:
It's as different as asking me to lend you a fiver, and pointing a gun at my head and demanding it.
leroy said:
That's not what a genius is. And I have to say that I imagine that everyone of absolutely normal intelligence is capable of maintaining 4 separate arguments. It's just 4 things, we have fingers that go far beyond that, so I can't imagine that you really do actually struggle to do so.
leroy said:
As I said: you do you, I'll do me.
leroy said:
No, unacceptable.
Why is it unacceptable to me, LEROY?
I'll give you a hint: there's a false equivalence here, and you've manufactured it out of thin air, and are now trying to milk it for all its worth.
leroy said:
Then don't. I couldn't give a monkey's flung jizz about what you choose to do. But as I already told you, I will still be replying to your guff with critical arguments regardless of your willingness to respond.
Incidentally, to the man/woman sitting behind the screen who play acts LEROY.
What is your native/first language?
This is not a stick I plan to beat you with. If English is not your native language, then it would behoove me to spend more time trying to understand some of the apparently garbled sentences you construct, and to give you more leeway when you misrepresent what was clearly written.
If I knew what language your syntax was from, I might have a better chance of understanding some of the thoughts underlying these strange grammatical formations. At present, my best guess would be something Slavic.
There is also the cultural element of sophisticated argumentation. In many Middle Eastern cultures, stringing sentences together with the conjunction 'and' adds weight or importance to the latter sentences, whereas in most English speaking cultures, for example, using only 'and' is perceived as unsophisticated - more how a child approaches multiple sentences.
Again, this is not anything like a gotcha, or an attempt to make a fool of you, but an honest inquiry that could enable more effective communication.
What is your native/first language?
This is not a stick I plan to beat you with. If English is not your native language, then it would behoove me to spend more time trying to understand some of the apparently garbled sentences you construct, and to give you more leeway when you misrepresent what was clearly written.
If I knew what language your syntax was from, I might have a better chance of understanding some of the thoughts underlying these strange grammatical formations. At present, my best guess would be something Slavic.
There is also the cultural element of sophisticated argumentation. In many Middle Eastern cultures, stringing sentences together with the conjunction 'and' adds weight or importance to the latter sentences, whereas in most English speaking cultures, for example, using only 'and' is perceived as unsophisticated - more how a child approaches multiple sentences.
Again, this is not anything like a gotcha, or an attempt to make a fool of you, but an honest inquiry that could enable more effective communication.
Also, just to put this silly diversion to bed.
5000 words, copied and pasted from that webpage into a text doc, arrives at 8 pages of text.
12 minutes then means about 1.5 minutes per page. I would imagine I'd read them in about a minute. I just tried with the first page and it was 42 seconds.
Is that really so unbelievable to you, LEROY? :roll:
Also, go back and look at that page. There are a) stated arguments b) random guff that is just Christian masturbation and c) other rubbish. You asked me to look at the arguments, not to watch William Lane Craig masturbating.
You can't show I didn't understand or read all the pertinent information to produce a coherent response LEROY, because I've already produced a coherent response.
As such, stop pretending you get to disqualify me on technical grounds and get back to addressing the points I made dismantling the absurd woolly bullshit argued by Craig.
Of course, if you really, really want and ask me nicely, I'll tear the whole damn thing down word by word. Just let me know, and next time I've got an hour spare and feel like kicking some tires, I will be happy to oblige.
5000 words, copied and pasted from that webpage into a text doc, arrives at 8 pages of text.
12 minutes then means about 1.5 minutes per page. I would imagine I'd read them in about a minute. I just tried with the first page and it was 42 seconds.
Is that really so unbelievable to you, LEROY? :roll:
Also, go back and look at that page. There are a) stated arguments b) random guff that is just Christian masturbation and c) other rubbish. You asked me to look at the arguments, not to watch William Lane Craig masturbating.
You can't show I didn't understand or read all the pertinent information to produce a coherent response LEROY, because I've already produced a coherent response.
As such, stop pretending you get to disqualify me on technical grounds and get back to addressing the points I made dismantling the absurd woolly bullshit argued by Craig.
Of course, if you really, really want and ask me nicely, I'll tear the whole damn thing down word by word. Just let me know, and next time I've got an hour spare and feel like kicking some tires, I will be happy to oblige.
Sparhafoc lets look at the first arguemnt
1 The argument doesn't even aspire to prove that the purpose was to create humans and tell them what they could or could not do, and wants to be in a relationship with them, the argument simply tries to prove that the universe had cause.
the size of the universe that the small simply that we occupy is simply irrelevant, for the purposes of the argument,
under this basis I affirm that you don't understand the argument.
2 plus the fact that It is unlikely that you read a 5000 and typed a 300 word in less than 12 minutes.
1 and 2 represent two independent lines of evidence that strongly suggest that you are not even interested in learning and understanding the arguments for the evidence for God.
1 The argument doesn't even aspire to prove that the purpose was to create humans and tell them what they could or could not do, and wants to be in a relationship with them, the argument simply tries to prove that the universe had cause.
the size of the universe that the small simply that we occupy is simply irrelevant, for the purposes of the argument,
under this basis I affirm that you don't understand the argument.
2 plus the fact that It is unlikely that you read a 5000 and typed a 300 word in less than 12 minutes.
1 and 2 represent two independent lines of evidence that strongly suggest that you are not even interested in learning and understanding the arguments for the evidence for God.
Now, please state in the first sentence of your reply an acknowledgement of your distortion of what I actually wrote.
Again, after being shown how you have misrepresented someone's words, you simply ignore it and carry on.
No, LEROY. I will not simply ignore your apparent mendacity and just toodle along in pretense that you've got something worth listening to. If you can't muster any level of basic honesty, then none of your words can be worth a wazz.
If your distortion was an error on your part, then any normal human being who wanted others to assume their good intentions would simply apologize. It's not hard, just 3 little words.
If you don't, it looks like it was intentional.
So did you intentionally misrepresent what I wrote, LEROY?
Again, after being shown how you have misrepresented someone's words, you simply ignore it and carry on.
No, LEROY. I will not simply ignore your apparent mendacity and just toodle along in pretense that you've got something worth listening to. If you can't muster any level of basic honesty, then none of your words can be worth a wazz.
If your distortion was an error on your part, then any normal human being who wanted others to assume their good intentions would simply apologize. It's not hard, just 3 little words.
If you don't, it looks like it was intentional.
So did you intentionally misrepresent what I wrote, LEROY?
leroy said:
Under this basis, you affirm that you do not understand the nature of arguments. At no point did I suggest that I am recapitulating what was written by WLC. Instead, I am offering facts that contradict the claim.
As I have explained to you before, and as I've seen you write to other people - any logical contradiction necessitates the claim being wrong. This is how argumentation works.
(claim) God makes sense of the universe
(counter-claim) God makes nonsense of the universe.
As only one can be correct, my argument offers facts which support my counter claim which necessarily leaves the original claim in contradiction to evident reality.
My response is perfectly valid under every form of argumentation ever recorded in human history. It IS argumentation.
As such, your dismissal is irrelevant. You might as well have written the word 'sponge' 54 times and ended with the words 'u r rong!'.
leroy said:
LEROY once again conjuring up probabilities out of his navel.
Unlikely? Ok. Happened? Yes. What's that in your signature, LEROY? :lol:
Regardless of your expression of disbelief (and the sudden addition of 'less' - bet it becomes 10 minutes by the next iteration), you cannot provide any reason why your skepticism here is justified. I've asked you to explain why you find this unbelievable, and all you can do is repeat the same statement as if it's been established.
Nope, this is another example of you failing to comprehend how argumentation works.
If you want to claim I didn't read the article and reply in 12 minutes, then you're going to need to show this to be true. How do you plan to do that, LEROY?
Here: feel free to try to engage in some level of substantiation by experimentation:
https://www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research-centers/ereaders/speed-reader/iframe.html
Which of course, I don't over longer bodies of text, but this short, I can read it pretty much with one long glance. Not having to scroll or turn pages makes it much easier.
Remember, LEROY. I am not you. If this wasn't clear already to you. I bet there's a bunch of things you can do better than me. Again, LEROY. All of my jobs involve reading and processing large bodies of text. Whether it's for palaeo, for lesson prep, marking work, editing scripts, directing voice actors, and many of the other jobs I do... each and every one of them relies on the efficiency of my reading comprehension.
So laugh away. You don't realize you're laughing at yourself.
leroy said:
1 is a public statement of ignorance on your part about the nature of argumentation, how it works, what the objectives of argumentation are, and as such represent nothing more than a red herring on your part.
2 is just your expression of make-believe being asserted as fact. I told you what happened, you can't believe it, even though it's far from an extraordinary claim.
Funny how you want us to accept arguments for the existence of God which is a dramatically more extraordinary claim and which, if true, impacts billions of things (yep, read the article) but you won't accept that someone can read faster than you.
You're basically the comedy routine here, LEROY. How is anyone ever supposed to take you seriously when you make up rules on the fly and appeal to illogical half-baked bullshit to worm your way out of everything?
Please do keep worming - what inevitably happens is that you show you don't get it, and that's why you believe the nonsense you believe.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Sparhafoc said:
It appears dandan/leroy has reached his Meyer limit ceiling.
Oh, and dandan/leroy's native tongue is Spanish. He will not answer that question directly, however in this case I doubt he read where you asked. He does love to glean, which causes him to ask questions that were already answered.
Sparhafoc said:
that would seem to make sense for someone who just read the "Title" of the argument,
someone who actually read the document would have noticed that the intent of the argument is to stablish that the universe had a cause, someone who actually read the document would have noticed that the argument is based on 2 premises and 1 conclusion any rebuttal should be on ether rejecting any of the premises or by showing that the conclusion doesn't follow.
again, from where I am standing all the evidence indicates that you don't understand the argument, and that you don't have a genuine interest in learning and understanding the argument.
if you what to redime yourself, If you what to convince me that I am wrong about that, you are going to have to answer 3 or 4 questions that by answering correctly you will prove to me that you understand the argument.
if you don't care what my personal opinion about you is, then you don't have to do anything
leroy said:
You distorted my words completely, you lying toerag, and you did so repeatedly just in this thread alone. So now you're trying to justify being a liar by repeating your lie.
No such intent is apparent in what I wrote as what your intent was. So, no. Bollocks, pop it back up that rectum you use for so much of your interactions here.
There is no qualification in credulism for apologetics, LEROY. You are once again blabbing from the wrong end of your digestive tract. Already pre-empted this pathetic attempt to position yourself as an authority, and the only further response you're going to get is me laughing in your face. The sartorial master of the Emperor's New Clothes.
leroy said:
In the world the rest of us inhabit, LEROY, lying about what someone said half a dozen times does not constitute a 'small thing'.
Obviously, to you, lies are just what you do, and you seem to be saying that I should just expect you to repeatedly lie about what I write.
Oh, I do.
But that doesn't mean I will give you free pass.
You distorted what I wrote. If you desire to have even a scrap of credibility with honest people, if you make an 'honest' mistake, you'd apologize immediately. Didn't your momma teach you that? Or were you too busy tugging on your local priest's plonker to notice?
No offense was taken. Instead, you showed yourself to be a liar. No onus is on me to address your lies, but your credibility is on the line. Well, it would be if you hadn't already shown yourself to be morally stunted.
MarsCydonia
New Member
Is Leroy under the impression that trying ARATTs with someone new will make these arguments any more sound?leroy said:
Take the 2nd argument (there was actually 5 of them on Craig's page, Leroy did not include the 1st for some reason... can you guess?): it's the Kalam cosmological argument.
Hasn't this "argument" been addressed a couple of thousand times already? And particularly Calamity Craig's use of it?
It isn't unusual from Leroy to abandon a topic where he can no longer defends his blunders with anything new but to do in order to regurgitate old ones this time? :facepalm:
well from where I am standing there are 2 possibilities, ether you read 5000 words and made a 300 words reply in less than 12 minutes or you are simply lying
the fact that.
1 you have lied in the past
2 most people don't have this ability and there is no independent evidence that you have the ability to read 5000 and type a 300 words reply
3 the fact there is independent evidence that proves that you did not read the document (you misrepresented the argument) you replied as if you would have only read the title.
4 the fact that when people lie, they usually try to hard in justifying their assertion, which is what you are doing.
http://www.businessinsider.com/11-signs-someone-is-lying-2014-4?op=1/#they-repeat-words-or-phrases-4
leroy said:
Binary mind is binary, well what a surprise.
leroy said:
Cite or reinsert your bollocks back in the sticky hole you extracted them from.
leroy said:
Already addressed in spades, your trolling is all you've got when you can't address arguments.
leroy said:
Only a mentally delusional person would think so.
No, you are just doing your usual merry-go-round of evasions. I honestly think you are scum, LEROY. Nasty, little scum. And if I were a Christian, and you claimed to be one, I'd be very seriously worried that I was a cunt just by association with you.
leroy said:
What assertion would that be, LEROY?
Oh wait, there isn't one because this is another storm in a teacup you've manufactured to evade having your fatuous bullshit destroyed instantly.
Cue 85 more pages of LEROY arguing about whether I could read WLC webpage and reply in 12 minutes, because the distraction is vastly more important to LEROY than any honest interest in interaction.
http://www.businessinsider.com/11-signs-someone-is-lying-2014-4?op=1/#they-repeat-words-or-phrases-4[/quote]leroy"[quote said:
Another probablistic claim that LEROY genuflects his pitiful intelligence to because it conforms to his prejudices.
I provided you an empirical test LEROY. What was your score? :roll:
1 word a minute? That's what all this is about, isn't it LEROY? You know you're thick as shit, and you can't bear it that anyone of at least normal intelligence is manifestly more competent than you.