Common Christian/Muslim argument: I have an answer and you don't!

[Random Person]

Then what you are describing is a god, not a goat.

Not at all. Gods are fictional creations. I am describing the real existing Great Space Goat.

You are assigning "goat" to a description of God. I understand you think God is fictional. Unilaterally changing the meaning of a word doesn't make a valid argument. Instead of arguing against the God hypothesis you are lending it some validity.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Then what you are describing is a god, not a goat.

Not at all. Gods are fictional creations. I am describing the real existing Great Space Goat.

You are assigning "goat" to a description of God. I understand you think God is fictional. Unilaterally changing the meaning of a word doesn't make a valid argument.

I think you're confusing 'God' as a proper noun and 'god' as one of any number of divine beings, worshiped historically or otherwise.
Ganesha, the elephant deity, can be termed a 'god' without changing 'the meaning of the word.'

 

[Random Person]

You are assigning "goat" to a description of God. I understand you think God is fictional. Unilaterally changing the meaning of a word doesn't make a valid argument.

I think you're confusing 'God' as a proper noun and 'god' as one of any number of divine beings, worshiped historically or otherwise.
Ganesha, the elephant deity, can be termed a 'god' without changing 'the meaning of the word.'

Ganesha isn't a creator god.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ganesha isn't a creator god.

He also isn't 'God.' But he is a god. So your objection about 'unilaterally changing the meaning' of the word, 'god,' is clearly a nonstarter.

 

[Random Person]

Ganesha isn't a creator god.

He also isn't 'God.' But he is a god. So your objection about 'unilaterally changing the meaning' of the word, 'god,' is clearly a nonstarter.

You're avoiding the argument.

The weak hypothesis is that God is the creator of the universe and exists out of time, space and material. Goats and elephants aren't an alternative hypothesis.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ganesha isn't a creator god.

He also isn't 'God.' But he is a god. So your objection about 'unilaterally changing the meaning' of the word, 'god,' is clearly a nonstarter.

You're avoiding the argument.

That's hilarious, coming from you.

The weak hypothesis is that God is the creator of the universe and exists out of time, space and material. Goats and elephants aren't an alternative hypothesis.

Still wishing I knew a definition of 'god' that precluded goats...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ganesha isn't a creator god.

He also isn't 'God.' But he is a god. So your objection about 'unilaterally changing the meaning' of the word, 'god,' is clearly a nonstarter.

You're avoiding the argument.

The weak hypothesis is that God is the creator of the universe and exists out of time, space and material. Goats and elephants aren't an alternative hypothesis.

Why not? Show me a single space goat that doesn't exist outside of time, space and material. You need to either provide an example of one or admit that it's a viable alternative hypothesis.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The weak hypothesis is that God is the creator of the universe and exists out of time, space and material.

Thing is, though, you 'hypothesize' that God is outside of time, space, meaning, because that's the sort of god you need to fit your hypothesis. You don't have evidence of a timeless god, or a spaceless god, or a materialless god.

It's circular, made-up shit.

But you object to made-up shit that involves the space goat.

Why reject made-up shit while simultaneously offering made-up shit?

 

[skepticalbip]

Then what you are describing is a god, not a goat.

Not at all. Gods are fictional creations. I am describing the real existing Great Space Goat.

You are assigning "goat" to a description of God. I understand you think God is fictional. Unilaterally changing the meaning of a word doesn't make a valid argument. Instead of arguing against the God hypothesis you are lending it some validity.

So are you asserting that the story of a goat fart creating the universe is as absurd and made up as the story of "goddidit" is?

 

[Underseer]

Then what you are describing is a god, not a goat.

Not at all. Gods are fictional creations. I am describing the real existing Great Space Goat.

You are assigning "goat" to a description of God. I understand you think God is fictional. Unilaterally changing the meaning of a word doesn't make a valid argument. Instead of arguing against the God hypothesis you are lending it some validity.

Ah, so the argument about whether the goat is real is bad because the goat is not real, but when we use the same argument to prove that god is real it is a valid argument because god is real?

That has to be the worst excuse for a special pleading fallacy I've heard in 4, possibly 5 weeks.

Would it help if we explain what an argument is and what its relationship to the conclusion is supposed to be? Because you seem confused about that point.

 

[Underseer]

I will say it again:

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

According to you, having a weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis, therefore it is true that the giant space goat exists.

The logic of your own argument leads to the conclusion that the space goat is real and is the creator of God.

Either the logic is valid when applied to both the space goat and to God, or else the logic is not valid when applied to either conclusion. The logic of an argument does not become valid or invalid based on what conclusion we are trying to support with the argument. Either the logic of the argument is valid or it isn't.

The purpose of an argument is to either support (good logic) or fail to support (bad logic) a conclusion.

You can't say that the logic is valid when applied to conclusion A but not conclusion B because conclusion A is true and B is not, because the entire point of having a conversation in which we use arguments to support conclusions is to determine which if any conclusions are valid.

You're using circular logic to defend bad logic.

• X is true because it is supported by argument B.
• Argument B uses valid logic because X is true.

• Y is not true even though it is supported by argument B.
• Argument B uses invalid logic because Y is false.

That's just not how logic works. That's not how truth works.

This link explains why circular logic fails to support conclusions, and uses famous lines from a famous movie to explain why circular logic does not support conclusions:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning

Hopefully the movie quotes will make the explanation easier to understand.

 

[Random Person]

I will say it again:

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

According to you, having a weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis, therefore it is true that the giant space goat exists.

The logic of your own argument leads to the conclusion that the space goat is real and is the creator of God.

Either the logic is valid when applied to both the space goat and to God, or else the logic is not valid when applied to either conclusion. The logic of an argument does not become valid or invalid based on what conclusion we are trying to support with the argument. Either the logic of the argument is valid or it isn't.

The purpose of an argument is to either support (good logic) or fail to support (bad logic) a conclusion.

You can't say that the logic is valid when applied to conclusion A but not conclusion B because conclusion A is true and B is not, because the entire point of having a conversation in which we use arguments to support conclusions is to determine which if any conclusions are valid.

You're using circular logic to defend bad logic.

• X is true because it is supported by argument B.
• Argument B uses valid logic because X is true.

• Y is not true even though it is supported by argument B.
• Argument B uses invalid logic because Y is false.

That's just not how logic works. That's not how truth works.

This link explains why circular logic fails to support conclusions, and uses famous lines from a famous movie to explain why circular logic does not support conclusions:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning

Hopefully the movie quotes will make the explanation easier to understand.

You are getting more confused by the post.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You are getting more confused by the post.

It's only confusing to those who lack the understanding and insight one gains by letting Space Goat into their heart.

Letting Space Goat into your heart is done by writing progressively larger checks to your local Space Goat chapterhouse.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Goatvfefe.

The right people know...

 

[Underseer]

I will say it again:

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

According to you, having a weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis, therefore it is true that the giant space goat exists.

The logic of your own argument leads to the conclusion that the space goat is real and is the creator of God.

Either the logic is valid when applied to both the space goat and to God, or else the logic is not valid when applied to either conclusion. The logic of an argument does not become valid or invalid based on what conclusion we are trying to support with the argument. Either the logic of the argument is valid or it isn't.

The purpose of an argument is to either support (good logic) or fail to support (bad logic) a conclusion.

You can't say that the logic is valid when applied to conclusion A but not conclusion B because conclusion A is true and B is not, because the entire point of having a conversation in which we use arguments to support conclusions is to determine which if any conclusions are valid.

You're using circular logic to defend bad logic.

• X is true because it is supported by argument B.
• Argument B uses valid logic because X is true.

• Y is not true even though it is supported by argument B.
• Argument B uses invalid logic because Y is false.

That's just not how logic works. That's not how truth works.

This link explains why circular logic fails to support conclusions, and uses famous lines from a famous movie to explain why circular logic does not support conclusions:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning

Hopefully the movie quotes will make the explanation easier to understand.

You are getting more confused by the post.

It's not confusing at all.

Logic doesn't magically become valid or invalid based on which conclusion you apply it to.

If the logic of an argument is valid, then it is always valid. If the logic of the argument fails to support its conclusion, then it fails to support every conclusion.

To insist otherwise is to commit a special pleading logical fallacy.

You went one step past special pleading straight into circular logic.

I explained why your argument failed to support your conclusion, and you argued that the logic of your argument was valid because the conclusion is true, thus demonstrating that you lack any understanding of the most basic relationship between an argument and a conclusion.

The conclusion becomes true if the logic of the supporting argument is valid.

The logic of the supporting argument does not become valid because the conclusion is true. That's completely backwards, and it demonstrates that you begin with the conclusion, then try to shape the facts to fit the conclusion.

A truth-seeker begins with the facts, then shapes the conclusion to fit the facts.

You are doing the opposite of what a truth-seeker does. If it makes you feel any better, this is a quite common flaw among Christians and Muslims. You have to do the opposite of what a truth-seeker does because you are desperate to believe something that is not actually supported by the facts.

You gave the whole game away by insisting that the conclusion makes the argument valid.

- - - Updated - - -

You are getting more confused by the post.

It's only confusing to those who lack the understanding and insight one gains by letting Space Goat into their heart.

Letting Space Goat into your heart is done by writing progressively larger checks to your local Space Goat chapterhouse.

He denies the space goat because he hates the space goat. Isn't that obvious?

 

[Learner]

He denies the space goat because he hates the space goat. Isn't that obvious?

Its only that your space-goat obviously has erm...very limited "liturature weight" so to speak and from one sole witness.

 

[Rhea]

He denies the space goat because he hates the space goat. Isn't that obvious?

Its only that your space-goat obviously has erm...very limited "liturature weight" so to speak and from one sole witness.

Oh yeah? Do a google search on “Space Goat.” There are millions of hits. That is orders of magnitudes larger than the number of hits on “Jesus” in the first 20 years after his first messages to the people. So clearly it has a larger base of both believers and literature.

You just have to read it “with the spirit of the goat” and you will understand. Don’t harden your heart.

 

[Learner]

Oh yeah? Do a google search on “Space Goat.” There are millions of hits. That is orders of magnitudes larger than the number of hits on “Jesus” in the first 20 years after his first messages to the people. So clearly it has a larger base of both believers and literature.

You just have to read it “with the spirit of the goat” and you will understand. Don’t harden your heart.

Quite interesting and yes worth a look with a soft heart. Harry Potter though ( by the sole witness author if you will) has more weight on "space goat" in the mentioning as the story is "consistent in content liturature and recognisable", and as for the bible i.e. the liturature and its contents is still being studied, debated and being wrote about. There seems to be a more serious perspective in this regard obviously, noticable with the tons of religion threads on the forum.

Perhaps you should create a few more cosmic-billy threads to make up like those "millions of hits" elswhere on the net.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Space Goat isn't so vain that he needs to count google hits. His Glory is available to all who seek him out, be that five people or five billion people, and he will welcome them all into his arms.

If you're curious how it is that a goat has arms - that's a mystery. Praise Be.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh yeah? Do a google search on “Space Goat.” There are millions of hits. That is orders of magnitudes larger than the number of hits on “Jesus” in the first 20 years after his first messages to the people. So clearly it has a larger base of both believers and literature.

You just have to read it “with the spirit of the goat” and you will understand. Don’t harden your heart.

Quite interesting and yes worth a look with a soft heart. Harry Potter though ( by the sole witness author if you will) has more weight on "space goat" in the mentioning as the story is "consistent in content liturature and recognisable", and as for the bible i.e. the liturature and its contents is still being studied, debated and being wrote about. There seems to be a more serious perspective in this regard obviously, noticable with the tons of religion threads on the forum.

Perhaps you should create a few more cosmic-billy threads to make up like those "millions of hits" elswhere on the net.

If you're going to include ongoing discussion as giving credibility to the source, then Harry Potter has LOT more going for it than the Bible. Check the sizes of archives of Harry Potter fanfic vs. Bible Fanfic; check who has a bigger section of Universal Studios' theme park, Harry's world or Christain theology; check the action figures on Amazon.