AbdulRahman wrote:Fathom wrote:1. You simply failed to logically understand my analogy. Either that, or you are avoiding it because you cannot argue with it. My hunter sees 3 X the lion when mathematically there are only 2. Both are supposedly true. So once again, answer the question:
A lion is defined as 4 legs, 2 eyes, etc. therefore, there are only 2 lions. Size and weight is not the part of a lion definition.
If one has to compute how much strength one need to fight one small and one big lion then one can do that too.
Don’t be stupid. Show me where is the flaw in my logic on Fee Will without diverting the discussion.
The quote of you in bold type above illustrates no less than 3 logical fallacies known as red herrings. Red herrings are known as a flaw in reasoning and logical discourse. Further information is below:
A "red herring" is an answer, given in reply to a questioner, that goes beyond an innocent logical irrelevance. A "red herring" is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
The reason your response has been identified as red herrings is because:
a) There was no discussion relevant to how much strength one need to fight one small and one big lion.
b) The insult of don't be stupid is known as an argumentum ad hominem attack, an effort to attack me personally in an effort to divert attention away from the subject.
c) Your reply of Show me where is the flaw in my logic on Fee Will is another red herring, as it attempts to divert the subject matter away from the question I asked.
I asked the question of "How can both be true," and you have not answered it. Instead, you have failed to maintain a line of logical thought and reasoning, and have crashed and burned.
The question remains unanswered.
AbdulRahman wrote:FAthom wrote:2. Can you conclusively prove that there ever was an initial condition/origin of existence?
I assume you mean existence of big-bang.
Wrong. Since you are such a believer in cause and effect, then obviously before the proposed "Big Bang" effect occured there had to pre-exist a cause.
What was it?
AbdulRahman wrote:Nothing is 100% guaranteed in science.
Since "nothing is guaranteed in science" as you claim, then how can you claim that any single thing is true in science? If "nothing is guarenteed," then no single thing can logically and mathematically be concluded as being true.
Your comment contradicts the very thing you claim to believe in, and leaves you in logical reasoning error.
Would you like to re-phrase your comment?