Bryan

I thought so. And apparently it's perfectly fine with you if the converse argument is rife with fallacies. Semper Fi. Marines.com

You'll have to explain the supposed relevance, given the structure of our financial system. Most "money" does not exist as such, so key shifts in assets trigger macro effects (such as when a minority of a bank's customers withdraw a small amount of a bank's liquid cash leaving the bank with too little to be able to meet similar requests from others: "a run on the bank"). Is that other words or simply a non sequitur? How did it come about that nobody knows what the derivative investments are worth? Yup. Dancing. That's it. Direct the attention away from your explanation. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/paul...272029A8710B%7D http://www.merkfund.com/merk-perspective/i...2007-02-21.html Still looks like you're dancing. Explain why unregulated derivatives are a problem right now without defaulted subprime loans if you can.

Riiiight. Because we all remember what a great job you did arguing for that in other threads. You, Keith, are the liar. Because you make an assertion that you can't support and keep making it even after your arguments have crumbled over and over again. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/lofiversi...p/t20839-0.html

I love the way you deal with the example (ignore it). Your intellectual dishonesty shames you.

Answering a question with a question is one way to dodge a question ...

Wouldn't it pretty much take a complete idiot to assert the etymological relevance of an English word in explaining a text written in ancient Hebrew? Survey says yes, and anyone who thought it was a "great post" without noting that embarrassingly stupid error gets to share some of the egg on the face. The only person I've ever encountered who was routinely stupid enough to employ this type of etymological argument is Paul LaClair, father of Matthew LaClair. For what that's worth.

No, it doesn't; at least not the way you probably mean it. http://www.maths.uwa.edu.au/~duongt/mwe/zero/zero.html If I don't assume possibility then I'd be fallaciously begging the question as in the original argument. How did you forget about that? Did you misplace your brain? That's pure baloney, since I was plucking numbers out of the air to use as an example. No matter how many uninterrupted deaths have been observed, it is less than the total number that have occurred. Only one exception is required in the case of Jesus. That's good enough for you when it comes to cosmology, isn't it? Straw man fallacy. Boring. The ones that you are too craven to organize into deductive syllogisms?

The fallacy of begging the question is extremely popular with you lot. You appear to have dodged the issue of quantifying consciousness in favor of relying on a relatively thin correspondence. You must be another one of those who doesn't understand how science works. For people like you, Occam's razor slips from your benumbed fingers whenever its use turns inconvenient. Perhaps you'd like to explain why a mechanism is required without committing the fallacy of begging the question? You'd really be educating me with that one. Why don't you give it a try? Because I don't know how to commit logical fallacies as well as you do? Or is it something else? That couldn't have been a typo. Are you that desperate? Right after you tell me why Occam's razor doesn't rule out consciousness according to your epistemology, genius (you can't explain consciousness given life as a premise).

You figure that pretending to be magnanimous will make your fallacy disappear? "Abracadabra" is just as likely to work.

I think there are exceptions. It may be one of Obama's truly remarkable accomplishments that he helped Democrats finally realize what kind of people the Clintons are.

Irrelevant, unless you mean "myth" as in something that did not really happen, in which case you're just duplicating the fallacy of begging the question. p1 Jesus was supposedly resurrected p2 Jesus' resurrection was a myth (=didn't happen) Therefore Jesus' resurrection didn't happen That is exactly the form of the fallacy of begging the question. How does it defy physics, supposedly? When did physics get around to quantifying consciousness? The claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence seems like an extraordinary claim. What's the evidence for it, then? I doubt you'd know Occam's razor if it sliced you scalp off the top of your head. Run look it up at Wikipedia before your ignorance is exposed. Then try to explain your assertion.

Why is that the question, rather than "Can LaSquid produce and argument against the resurrection while avoiding logical fallacies?"? Is it because you're eager to engage in the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof? Be warned: If you answer "no" it puts your team's streak in jeopardy (though maybe we could credit you with a red herring even if you don't want to go the burden shifting route). http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mat...c.html#shifting

Oh? Why is it incorrect? True. What does that have to do with what I said? On what basis do you claim it was incorrect? That depends on what you mean by "(t)he ohbservation that dead people do not return to life after being dead for several days." If you mean it probabilistically (as a scientific description of a given set of data), then you're stating it accurately. If you mean it as an absolute (does not and cannot happen) then you don't understand the scientific method. That wasn't my argument. But thanks for the straw man fallacy. It keeps your team's streak of fallacies alive. 10^16 people have died and not one has come back to life 0/10^16 test cases indicates a low probability (that is, unlikely) Therefore, coming back to life from the dead is unlikely http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=84366 Shall I expect your apology never? Ha ha ha. Guest is so clever to ridicule a straw man while claiming that it sums up all of my arguments.

You could make some minimalistic attempt not to lie. LaSquid is offering a guarantee based on premises that support probability. I'm simply noting the incongruity that LaSquid ignores. Can you give an example of an absolute guarantee that is in my mind? If not, I can suggest one that is in LaSquid's mind. I have a problem with thinking that 10 quadrillion to one offers a guarantee. Apparently you agree but you do not wish to give up your belief that coming back from the dead is impossible. So are you unintentionally ironic or what? I'm simply dealing with the argument as it was given. It is a fallacious argument. Apparently you don't want to believe it even though you have implicitly agreed with my analysis. What does that say about you? What I do know is enough about Love and compassion to know that if the God you claim exists, really existed, he would surely prefer to reveal himself in the flesh than to allow me, one of his precious children to suffer forever. Plainly the above is a suggestion that it would be outrageous for the "God (I) claim exists" to allow a Squid to suffer. As I've already noted (and you've chosen to ignore), it is possible to take that type of argument and present it formally. Presenting it as above in the form of an emotionally wrought conclusion without the benefit of valid construction is a fallacious appeal to outrage. The pattern of response from your side is both pathetic and illuminating.

Conversationally, yes. But not in dealing with a proposed counterexample. Your argument could qualify as a fallacy of equivocation. Exactly. That is why it is unscientific to "guarantee" that coming back to life after three days doesn't happen. LaSquid is the one selling the guarantee in the name of science. You've taken note of the blunder but failed to credit it to the correct source. Guaranteed? Make up your mind.

That's quite the argument. Shall we credit you with a fallacious appeal to ridicule?

Dear Melanie you little liar, Where is the supposed argument presented, please? Or is my viewpoint not narrow enough to allow me to view it?

Come to think of it, I demand a sincere apology from Paul LaClair for his "big fish" misrepresentation, and that Kearny Baptist Church be contracted to hold ethics seminars in the LaClair household (with mandatory attendance for all living immediate family members) on an annual basis for the next 10 years.

Oh, it most certainly did happen. Among the many examples, Paul LaClair tried to spin Paszkiewicz's statement (in part) "you got the big fish" into a confession. Listening to the office conversation in context the reasonable person should have absolutely no doubt that Paszkiewicz was referring only to Matthew LaClair's attitude toward the matter. Only one blinded by bias due to a son's involvement or a blatant liar would have made that claim.

It's understandable that having failed to produce an argument against the resurrection that avoids logical fallacies that you'd come up with a substitute argument that relies on a fallacious appeal to outrage. Sometimes philosophers try to take the general arguments you've mentioned and present them formally. You're not really much for that sort of thing, are you? Bluster and blubbering are more your speed.

Minor vacuum cleaner repairs. You? Any biologist or doctor who tries to make a scientific claim that people do not come back to life after three days quite simply doesn't understand science. You probably don't realize that because you don't understand science. It shouldn't amaze you that I point out that the assertion begs the question unless you understand neither science nor logic. And I can explain it to you even if I can't guarantee that you'll understand it. If you understood either logic or science you would probably realize that you're describing a probabilistic argument (0/10^14 people dying without coming back to life simply makes it unlikely that the next one will come back to life--not impossible). You wish. You're peddling a absolute truth based on probabilistic reasoning. It doesn't work that way. You're committing a fallacy and (sadly) you're too ignorant to realize it. But if you idolize Paul LaClair take heart: You argue the same stupid way he does. Oh! Another LaClairism. How does it feel slinking around anonymously? Did your law firm encourage you to adopt a lower profile or something? Was that supposed to be an example? Here's how to write a cogent argument: 10^16 people have died and not one has come back to life 0/10^16 test cases indicates a low probability (that is, unlikely) Therefore, coming back to life from the dead is unlikely Of course, none of that would be news to the people of Jesus' time. They thought it unusual that somebody would come back to life. As soon as you replace the conclusion with "coming back to life from the dead is impossible" from premises corresponding to those I've listed, you're guilty of a logical fallacy. That's the type of fallacy that beginners make--and you've made enough attempts that you shouldn't be considered a beginner at this point. If Matthew is even a below-average skeptic he probably cries himself to sleep at night over the fact that daddy makes such pathetic arguments.

That's an unsupported assertion that fallaciously begs the question. Obviously. What accounts for your difficulty in understanding that? http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/b...e-question.html Those are four very specific assertions unsupported with argumentation. Once you (or somebody else) tries it, I'll show you where you've committed a logical fallacy. Though there's no guarantee that you're smart enough to understand it based on your current post.

Yes, indeed. You get a gold star. Why would one assume that? Uh ... what part of my argument? All I did was point out a fallacy. So the point is you want to pretend that the fallacy didn't happen or something? Your post doesn't get you there.

I'm not terrifically surprised that you came up with another fallacious argument (argumentum ad ignorantiam: since Bryan provides no reason for X therefore there is no reason for X). http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html You're allowed to keep trying to come up with non-fallacious arguments. I'll be waiting.

Defaulted mortgages don't make very good investments, do they? Are you trying to dance around the why of it or what? Read that great article again and take note of how it dances around the relaxation of lending standards. It all comes down to the fact that a defaulted loan is a bad investment.