The Existential Crisis

[Skepdick]

Yawn. He is either caliming that ALL theistic religious beleif originates as he describes or he is not. His problem is that he is trying defend his claim as a weak one, but demands it be understood as a strong one. One contains an if-and-only-if claim, the other does not. If you want to defend an if-and-only-if position, you must defend all of it, which includes the only-if part. Or you can weaken it so a sufficient not necessary claim of if-but-not-only-if and see what happens to the therefore part of the conclusion.

You are totaly capable of understanding that, and you are capable of working within the relevant logical structures when evaluating such claims. If you choose to be too clever to to lower yourself to if-and-only-if stuff then you may enjoy your isolation and irrelevance.

Nobody is ever claiming ALL <anything> when they are doing statistical reasoning.

If-and-only-if reasoning is for axiomatic systems - Logic/Mathematics. The universe we, humans, live in, and reason about isn't one of those.

If you don't even understand what ALL means you are already irrelevant.

So exactly to my point. Your entire contribution was to criticise his grammar. You don't like the "if-and-only-if" part, which you could've easily overlooked.

[FlashDangerpants]

Yawn. He is either caliming that ALL theistic religious beleif originates as he describes or he is not. His problem is that he is trying defend his claim as a weak one, but demands it be understood as a strong one. One contains an if-and-only-if claim, the other does not. If you want to defend an if-and-only-if position, you must defend all of it, which includes the only-if part. Or you can weaken it so a sufficient not necessary claim of if-but-not-only-if and see what happens to the therefore part of the conclusion.

You are totaly capable of understanding that, and you are capable of working within the relevant logical structures when evaluating such claims. If you choose to be too clever to to lower yourself to if-and-only-if stuff then you may enjoy your isolation and irrelevance.

Nobody is ever claiming ALL <anything> when they are doing statistical reasoning.

He isn't. Or at least he doesn't seem to want his argument to be understood that way.
Plus, All means all. If you want to say "some", use the word that means that thing.

[Skepdick]

He isn't.

Then why are you stuck on the if-and-only-if?

[Skepdick]

Plus, All means all. If you want to say "some", use the word that means that thing.

So exactly to my point. Your entire contribution was to criticise his grammar. You don't like the "if-and-only-if" part, which you could've easily overlooked.

[FlashDangerpants]

You're boring me, we can let him decide for himself which meanings he wishes to communicate using words and stuff.

I gave him a conclusion that might just at a stretch be supported by his arguments: "my thesis is that one of the potential factors in the origin of theism might be an existential dilemma traceable to heritable biological factors". No confusion about any words which signify one specific necessary unprovable cause are included. If Aquafresh wishes to have his use of exclusive terms understood in non-exclusive terms, then he has the option of accpeting this sort of non-exclusive consequent.

He rejected that though, specifically stating that "All other causes are not proximate thus secondary." This suggests that he does understand exclusivity in the normal manner, and that he is communicating his ideas in that context.

By any reasonable interpretation of those words, he is using ALL in the normal sense that everyone uses it, and he must be aware that if all other causes are proximate (ie further away) then this entails that the one which is excluded from that (this cause) is automatically labelled necessary. But again, if he wants to downgrade to your nothing is exclusive logic, then he just has to say so, and accept that this has consequence for his conclusion which must observe the same downgraded impact.

I am not interested in being dragged into computer science concepts that Aquafresh is not even wielding just because that is your personal tediuos obsession. Some stuff just isn't about you Logik.

[Skepdick]

You're boring me, we can let him decide for himself which meanings he wishes to communicate using words and stuff.

You are kinda missing the point.

If you have any clue about empiricism (statistical hypothesis testing), you surely understand that the narrative (argument) gets written after the evidence has been examined with whatever statistical instrument the evidence is examined with (even if it's just one's intuition).

You have neither asked for the evidence considered
Nor questioned the method of analysis.
Nor the alternative hypotheses considered/dismissed.
Hell, you aren't even attacking the narrative. You are attacking the grammar of the narrative.

He is communicating but you are being a grammarian.

You are doing what any high-schooler knows how to do - you are attacking the weakest, but most insignificant link. Your entire strategy is a strawman.

[Skepdick]

He rejected that though, specifically stating that "All other causes are not proximate thus secondary." This suggests that he does understand exclusivity in the normal manner, and that he is communicating his ideas in that context.

For somebody who insists that words have meaning...

proximal adj. Very near or next, as in space, time, or order. synonym: close.
Next; immediate; without the intervention of a third.

I have no idea how you get from " not proximate" when dealing with multi-variable causality, to the binary exaggerated notion of "exclusivity".
The only way to get there is to forget the fact that "not proximate" doesn't mean "not necessary".

I am watching you struggle to grasp the nuance and it's hilarious that you think you are being even remotely objective in your critique.

[FlashDangerpants]

He rejected that though, specifically stating that "All other causes are not proximate thus secondary." This suggests that he does understand exclusivity in the normal manner, and that he is communicating his ideas in that context.

For somebody who insists that words have meaning...

proximal adj. Very near or next, as in space, time, or order. synonym: close.
Next; immediate; without the intervention of a third.

I have no idea how you get from the nuanced "proximality" when dealing with multi-variable causality, to the sharply exaggerated notion such as "exclusivity". I am watching you struggle to grasp the nuance and it's hilarious that you think you are being even remotely objective in your critique.

I suppose I could have been clearer.
His thesis was split between in two sentences in that attempt. One describes the "most critical" cause as the thing he attempts to describe in his argument. Everything else being not proximate, and secondary. In context, this was his rejection of the option I gave him for a conclusion that does not assert that his thing MUST be present in all cases.

Now he may want to say that there are other parts of the causal chain which are perhaps interchangeable, or can be absent in specific cases or something, and that's all fine. But as presently stated, his case does not appear to allow for this one he has described to be absent. I don't much care which option he takes to resolve this. He can confirm that he believes his argument does justify an exclusive claim that whatever other causes may be involved, this one must be present in all cases. Or he can go with something weak where this is one of several possible direct causes. He just gets into new trouble either way, and you won't be any use to him in either case.

[Skepdick]

I suppose I could have been clearer.
His thesis was split between in two sentences in that attempt. One describes the "most critical" cause as the thing he attempts to describe in his argument. Everything else being not proximate, and secondary. In context, this was his rejection of the option I gave him for a conclusion that does not assert that his thing MUST be present in all cases.

Now he may want to say that there are other parts of the causal chain which are perhaps interchangeable, or can be absent in specific cases or something, and that's all fine. But as presently stated, his case does not appear to allow for this one he has described to be absent. I don't much care which option he takes to resolve this. He can confirm that he believes his argument does justify an exclusive claim that whatever other causes may be involved, this one must be present in all cases. Or he can go with something weak where this is one of several possible direct causes. He just gets into new trouble either way, and you won't be any use to him in either case.

And you continue to focus on the grammar instead of content, methodology or data

Is the structure of an argument really the thing that sways YOUR mind?

[FlashDangerpants]

I suppose I could have been clearer.
His thesis was split between in two sentences in that attempt. One describes the "most critical" cause as the thing he attempts to describe in his argument. Everything else being not proximate, and secondary. In context, this was his rejection of the option I gave him for a conclusion that does not assert that his thing MUST be present in all cases.

Now he may want to say that there are other parts of the causal chain which are perhaps interchangeable, or can be absent in specific cases or something, and that's all fine. But as presently stated, his case does not appear to allow for this one he has described to be absent. I don't much care which option he takes to resolve this. He can confirm that he believes his argument does justify an exclusive claim that whatever other causes may be involved, this one must be present in all cases. Or he can go with something weak where this is one of several possible direct causes. He just gets into new trouble either way, and you won't be any use to him in either case.

And you continue to focus on the grammar instead of content, methodology or data

Is the structure of an argument really the thing that sways YOUR mind?

FFS. What is the point of Aquafresh's argument? Considedr what he may intend to use this argument to actually demonstrate...

I'm an athiest so I have very little skin in htis game, but Mister Can is a Christian. That is a theistic religious belief which makes it the subject of this argument. Now Mister Can almost certainly believes something along the lines of God, and God's command, God's grace and things of that ilk being the ultimate cause of Christian stuff. It would appear that mister Aquafresh wants to challenge this belief with an argument to the effect that the actual primary cause of Christianity is that stuff he wrote about existential crises.

So does Aquafresh think his argument is necessary in that it excludes any explanation that does not include his as a component?

If he does, then he feels it demonstrates that the posited supernatural source of Christianity is not true.
If not, then Mister Can is free to adopt it, and say that it doesn't explain his religion, but it does adequately explain all the others.

This is not a grammatical criticism. He has not provided an argument with the correct structure given that the competing explanations are by the very nature of thing under discussion supernatural and thereby miraculous.

[Skepdick]

I suppose I could have been clearer.
His thesis was split between in two sentences in that attempt. One describes the "most critical" cause as the thing he attempts to describe in his argument. Everything else being not proximate, and secondary. In context, this was his rejection of the option I gave him for a conclusion that does not assert that his thing MUST be present in all cases.

Now he may want to say that there are other parts of the causal chain which are perhaps interchangeable, or can be absent in specific cases or something, and that's all fine. But as presently stated, his case does not appear to allow for this one he has described to be absent. I don't much care which option he takes to resolve this. He can confirm that he believes his argument does justify an exclusive claim that whatever other causes may be involved, this one must be present in all cases. Or he can go with something weak where this is one of several possible direct causes. He just gets into new trouble either way, and you won't be any use to him in either case.

And you continue to focus on the grammar instead of content, methodology or data

Is the structure of an argument really the thing that sways YOUR mind?

FFS. What is the point of Aquafresh's argument? Considedr what he may intend to use this argument to actually demonstrate...

I'm an athiest so I have very little skin in htis game, but Mister Can is a Christian. That is a theistic religious belief which makes it the subject of this argument. Now Mister Can almost certainly believes something along the lines of God, and God's command, God's grace and things of that ilk being the ultimate cause of Christian stuff. It would appear that mister Aquafresh wants to challenge this belief with an argument to the effect that the actual primary cause of Christianity is that stuff he wrote about existential crises.

So does Aquafresh think his argument is necessary in that it excludes any explanation that does not include his as a component?

If he does, then he feels it demonstrates that the posited supernatural source of Christianity is not true.
If not, then Mister Can is free to adopt it, and say that it doesn't explain his religion, but it does adequately explain all the others.

This is not a grammatical criticism. He has not provided an argument with the correct structure given that the competing explanations are by the very nature of thing under discussion supernatural and thereby miraculous.

Arguments don't demonstrate anything. They are just narratives. And in response to that - there's the narrative fallacy.

The a posteriori reasons we give for why shit is the way it is are almost always a reductionist version of actual events - is just our monkey brains coping with complexity.

Even the very idea of causality is too simple to deal with multi-variate events with 2nd, 3rd and n-th order effects.

I don't particularly care about narratives if they aren't followed up with "and therefore if we change X we can expect Y to happen".
Narratives without an imperative step are inconsequential speculations.

If you want a demonstration you should probably ask him for the experiment design.

[FlashDangerpants]

Arguments don't demonstrate anything.

well once again you are making a giant claim about the world for the sake a trivial little dispute and I still consider that to be pointless. Using a narrative argument to explain how a narrative fallacy renders all argument worthless is something you should do in your own thread and see if anyone can be bothered with that discussion. It won't be me.

[Skepdick]

well once again you are making a giant claim about the world for the sake a trivial little dispute and I still consider that to be pointless. Using a narrative argument to explain how a narrative fallacy renders all argument worthless is something you should do in your own thread and see if anyone can be bothered with that discussion. It won't be me.

I am not making ANY claims about "the world" - I am perfectly aware of the inability of language to uniquely describe it.

I am making a claim about what you (personally) CAN'T do: which is you can't determine the validity of other people's descriptions of "the world". Given the raging boners you get from "being right" you would've done it by now if you could.

To paraphrase your outrage: Quit trying to railroad me. That shit won't work on me.

If it doesn't communicate anything testable it's not a claim - it's just another re-description of the past.
It's just intellectual masturbation. It may as well be poetry.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You seem to misunderstand what the word therefore does in an argument. It is incompatible with all those caveats.

In any case, if your "thesis is the origin and cause of theism is driven by the existential crisis/dilemma traceable to the DNA/RNA", then the presence of THE in that sentence is exclusionary - it is a claim that there is no truthful competing explanation. Only a necessary argument can support such a thesis. Having failed to construct such an argument, you are now pretending not to have tried. In which case your thesis also needs a downgrade.

You can accurately rephrase is as "my thesis is that one of the potential factors in the origin of theism might be an existential dilemma traceable to heritable biologoical factors"

That's as far as you can possibly get with the material you have come up with so far, and I am still being generous with your shitty premises to allow this much.

English is not my mother tongue but there is no way your English is superior to mine in this case of using 'therefore'.

Note;
How to Use Therefore in a Sentence
https://www.wikihow.com/Use-Therefore-in-a-Sentence

I'm already applying a discount because I know English isn't your first language. You still are wrong.

Your own link says " It shows cause and effect between independent clauses", but your own defence of your argument is that it isn't of that sort, that it is weaker than this effect is caused by this source. If you aren't arguing A must be the cause of B, or in other words that that All Bs are caused by A, then you cannot have a Therefore B is traceable to A at the end of it. And if you were arguing that, then your argument can only work if it is both a necessary and sufficient explanation, which you have already admitted you cannot do, and so have decided you don't need to.

This is very simple logic, not an English test.

You can accurately rephrase is as "my thesis is that one of the potential factors in the origin of theism might be an existential dilemma traceable to heritable biological factors"

NOPE.

My thesis conclusion is this;
The most critical cause of theism is the existential crisis/dilemma traceable to DNA/RNA.
All other causes are not proximate thus secondary.

Pick one. If you are claiming that all alternative causes are insufficient, then you are claiming necessity on part of your argument. In which case you must make a necessary argument, otherwise you have no grounds for concluding that other proposals are insufficient. In that case, your thesis needs to contain that exclusive MUST that you have explicitly told me it does not claim.

Just to make sure you understand, that is a claim that If this occurs, then that must be the cause. I've just realised you have may have misunderstood that as meaning if condition A (existential anxiety) exists then condition B (theistic stuff) must result. That's not it, this is the other way round: if condition B exists, then Condition A must be the cause.

Again, this is elementary reasoning, I can't begin to describe how silly it is for me to have to explain this to somebody who fools themselves they can lecture me about the proper applications of philososphy. L

Thus, my hypothesis: ALL theistic beliefs grounded on a clinging to God are caused primarily by the existential crisis/dilemma and traceable to the DNA/RNA.

this, again, directly contradicts your previous claim that "My thesis did not insist it MUST happen".

From the evidences given and testing and justified;
Therefore, ALL theistic beliefs grounded on a clinging to God is caused by the existential crisis/dilemma and traceable to the DNA/RNA.

And this is getting counted as another instance of you contradicting yourself. This is a claim that All theistic belief must be the result of ....

The only reservation is the evidences provided are not that powerful and testing is a bit crude and my "therefore" is qualified to these limitation but with optimism in the future to achieve greater precision.

I really that I have already pointed out enough times that making your argument dependent on empirically testable criteria necesitates that the same argument is subject to the limits of what empirical testing can justify. When you are honest about your conclusion, it is always far in excess of that that can logically justify.

Look at your stuff here and do the basics. Ask yourself if it makes certain claims true on an "if and only if" basis. Have you really done enough in your own judgment to say that any theistic belief X can arise if and only if it is casued by that poorly described DNA/RNA thing. Then posit an untestable eternal deity and explain how the stuff you have provisioned for here, tests for that guy telling one unknown person somewhere in untestable history a theistic religious truth about himself. Has your argument, actually proved that that HAS NEVER happened?

The correct answer would be "no - this isn't the type of argument that can do that sort of thing". And the next logical requirement would be to downgrade the conclusion exactly as I drescribed for you. A better solution is to realise that the whole argument is bankrupt because I haven't even bothered with the set of premises you used to get to that conclusion, but they aren't looking good.

At least Skepdick understood [maybe not agree with everything] what I am trying to communicate.

My thesis is very complex and within this forum the best I can present is skeletal.
Point is you lack the depth and width of knowledge on this issue thus exposes your ignorance.

I'll leave you in your state of ignorance given your attitude is so intellectually barbaric. I hypothesize this primal aggression of yours is also driven by that existential crisis that is driving theists to theism.

[FlashDangerpants]

At least Skepdick understood [maybe not agree with everything] what I am trying to communicate.

I bet that if you tried to describe in any detail which parts of your reasoning he supports (in similar terms to any that you intended) I could make you regret it.

My thesis is very complex and within this forum the best I can present is skeletal.

What you have presented amounts to the skeleton of a syphilitic jellyfish, but let's just take that at face value.

You obviously will not be linking to this thread from future ones and saying it demontrates anything to do with the origins of anything at all. You have given up defending this argument without clearing up some very simple questions, and now you have confessed it is not so much an argument as the rumour of an argument you might make elsewhere.

I assume that you will also stop doing that with those other bad arguments, such as your "god is impossible" one. Those must also operate on some incommunicable higher plane, as they are "skeletal" too.

Point is you lack the depth and width of knowledge on this issue thus exposes your ignorance.

Preferring to tell yourself little lies like this, rather than actually understanding what was wrong with your argument, is why you won't learn anything from this, and will repeat the same set of simple logical mistakes in your next skeletal horrorshow of an argument.

I'll leave you in your state of ignorance given your attitude is so intellectually barbaric. I hypothesize this primal aggression of yours is also driven by that existential crisis that is driving theists to theism.

Your argument would probably be just as plausible if you did offer that conclusion as it is with the one you chose.