God's Knowledge

[Tercon]

1. Belief comes before knowledge
2. Belief informs knowledge
3. Beliefs form knowledge
4. Belief becomes knowledge
C: Belief must be a form of knowledge

Therefore, belief must represent God's Knowledge.

 

[Algor]

1. Belief comes before knowledge
2. Belief informs knowledge
3. Beliefs form knowledge
4. Belief becomes knowledge
C: Belief must be a form of knowledge

Therefore, belief must represent God's Knowledge.

So if A precedes, informs, forms, and becomes B, then A must be a form of B.

1. Childhood comes before adulthood
2. Childhood informs adulthood
3. Childhood forms adulthood
4. Childhood becomes adulthood
C: Childhood must be a form of adulthood

Therefore, childhood must represent God's adulthood
OK. You are welcome to it, but don't expect anyone to jump on board.

 

[Tetsugaku]

1. Belief comes before knowledge
2. Belief informs knowledge
3. Beliefs form knowledge
4. Belief becomes knowledge
C: Belief must be a form of knowledge

Doesn't follow. Again, if clay can be used to form a statue, is the clay a form of the statue, or is the statue a form of the clay?

 

[Tercon]

So if A precedes, informs, forms, and becomes B, then A must be a form of B.

1. Childhood comes before adulthood
2. Childhood informs adulthood
3. Childhood forms adulthood
4. Childhood becomes adulthood
C: Childhood must be a form of adulthood

Therefore, childhood must represent God's adulthood
OK. You are welcome to it, but don't expect anyone to jump on board.

Strawman and projection. Nope that's all your little strawchild and you are welcome to it, but don't expect anyone including me to jump in and defend something I didn't say to begin with silly.

If you want to deal with what I said, then I am obligated to defend, but why do you think I have to defend something you said?

 

[Tercon]

Doesn't follow. Again, if clay can be used to form a statue, is the clay a form of the statue, or is the statue a form of the clay?

Strawman and evasion. Of course what you said "doesn't follow", because that's not what I was referring to or denoting to begin with silly. Is "clay" or "a statue" like belief and knowledge?

Now deal with what's being said to you and stop evading.

Which premise isn't true?

And what do you think "clay" or "a statue" has to do with belief and knowledge?

1. Does Belief come before knowledge? True.
2. Does Belief inform knowledge? True.
3. Do Beliefs form knowledge? True.
4. Does Belief become knowledge? True.

So, which premise is false?

 

[Ficciones]

So, which premise is false?

1. Are they all false? True.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Strawman and evasion.

Neither of those things.

Of course what you said "doesn't follow", because that's not what I was referring to or denoting to begin with silly. Is "clay" or "a statue" like belief and knowledge?

In that one comes before, and forms the other? Yes.

Now deal with what's being said to you and stop evading.

I did deal with it. Why have you evaded my question?

So, which premise is false?

I didn't say a premise was false. I said your conclusion doesn't follow.

Again, if clay can be used to form a statue, is the clay a form of the statue, or is the statue a form of the clay?

 

[Whatsisface]

1. Belief comes before knowledge

Not necessarily.

2. Belief informs knowledge

No. Knowledge should inform belief.

3. Beliefs form knowledge

No it doesn't.

4. Belief becomes knowledge

No it doesn't.

C: Belief must be a form of knowledge

No it isn't.

Therefore, belief must represent God's Knowledge.

As your premises are flawed, then your conclusions must be likewise.

Frankly, as your premises and conclusions are so flawed, one conclusion is that you post this stuff for attention.

 

[Tercon]

Neither of those things.

Sure it is, as I didn't say or argue any of those things you said. And if you want to argue with yourself take it somewhere else.

In that one comes before, and forms the other? Yes.

So, why do you think I have to defend something I didn't say? I wasn't referring to or denoting "clay" or "a statue" silly.

I did deal with it. Why have you evaded my question?

Evasion. Talking about "clay" and "a statue" isn't dealing with the subject of the argument, it's evading it.

I didn't say a premise was false. I said your conclusion doesn't follow.

You have conceded, if none of the premises are false, then the conclusion must be true.

1. Does Belief come before knowledge? True.
2. Does Belief inform knowledge? True.
3. Do Beliefs form knowledge? True.
4. Does Belief become knowledge? True.
C: Therefore, Belief must be a form of knowledge

But if all the premises are true, then how can the conclusion be false silly?

Again, if clay can be used to form a statue, is the clay a form of the statue, or is the statue a form of the clay?

No, that's just a bunch of strawclay and strawstatues silly. Stop evading a deal with the argument.

 

[Algor]

Strawman and projection.

Same form. Your problem, not mine. 'Bye now.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Sure it is, as I didn't say or argue any of those things you said.

I didn't say you did, so no strawman there.

So, why do you think I have to defend something I didn't say? I wasn't referring to or denoting "clay" or "a statue" silly.

I'm explaining, via analogy, the fallacy of your argument. And you're evading.

You have conceded, if none of the premises are false, then the conclusion must be true.

But if all the premises are true, then how can the conclusion be false silly?

Your argument is invalid. The conclusion does not follow from your premises, regardless of whether the premises are true.

No, that's just a bunch of strawclay and strawstatues silly. Stop evading a deal with the argument.

I'm trying to help you understand how and why your argument fails. You've misunderstood what it means to say "X is a form of Y". You are using the phrase backwards.

Again, if clay can be used to form a statue, is the clay a form of the statue, or is the statue a form of the clay?

 

[Tercon]

Same form. Your problem, not mine. 'Bye now.

A child must have formed that one.

But when you are ready to deal with the argument at hand, then let me known.

 

[Tetsugaku]

A child must have formed that one.

But when you are ready to deal with the argument at hand, then let me known.

His argument was exactly analogous to yours. It has the same logical form, and therefore perfectly illustrates why both are invalid.

 

[Tercon]

His argument was exactly analogous to yours. It has the same logical form, and therefore perfectly illustrates why both are invalid.

Strawman. No it isn't. How are "clay" and "a statue" or "childhood" and "adulthood" "the same" AND "exactly analogous" with beliefs and knowledge silly? And just how DOES this failed analogy "perfectly illustrates" any connection or lack of connection between belief and knowledge?

 

[Tetsugaku]

Strawman. No it isn't. How are "clay" and "a statue" or "childhood" and "adulthood" "the same" AND "exactly analogous" with beliefs and knowledge silly? And just how DOES this failed analogy "perfectly illustrates" any connection or lack of connection between belief and knowledge?

The point is that the logical structure of the arguments are the same, so if one is invalid, so is the other. You said recently that you enjoyed being able to refine your arguments in response to feedback here. This is an opportunity for you to do that. You can correct your present mistake without compromising your core beliefs. By correcting your misuse of the phrase "X is a form of Y" you will be able to better present your ideas, and perhaps be laughed at a little less. All you have to do is try to work with me here a little.

 

[Tercon]

I didn't say you did, so no strawman there.

Well why are you arguing with things I didn't say to begin with? I believe that's called strawmanning.

I'm explaining, via analogy, the fallacy of your argument. And you're evading.

No, you're strawmanning, because clay and statue have nothing to do with any connection between belief and knowledge, as clay and statues are physical objects and belief and knowledge are concepts. So, the connection between clay and a statue isn't the same as between belief and knowledge.

Your argument is invalid. The conclusion does not follow from your premises, regardless of whether the premises are true.

Your strawman is invalid. How is the connection between clay and statues the same as the connection between belief and knowledge silly? NO.

I'm trying to help you understand how and why your argument fails.

No, you are strawmanning and you are telling me how and why your misrepresentation of my "argument fails".

You've misunderstood what it means to say "X is a form of Y". You are using the phrase backwards.

Strawman. Does "X is a form of Y" share the same connection that belief and knowledge share silly?

Again, if clay can be used to form a statue, is the clay a form of the statue, or is the statue a form of the clay?

Another strawman. Does "clay" and "a statue" share the same connection that belief and knowledge do? NO they don't.

And your argument is BS in regards to being analogous in the relationship between belief and knowledge. So, if you can't refute my argument; then you are going to BS and pretend you have. Your argument is a strawman BS.

 

[Tercon]

The point is that the logical structure of the arguments are the same, so if one is invalid, so is the other.

How does the "logical structure of" your argument have any connection in being analogous to my argument when the things you use in those arguments like "clay" and "a statues" don't share the same connection that belief and knowledge share?

So, how is it the same logical argument?

You said recently that you enjoyed being able to refine your arguments in response to feedback here.

Yes and I am doing that right now. Thank You.

This is an opportunity for you to do that. You can correct your present mistake without compromising your core beliefs. By correcting your misuse of the phrase "X is a form of Y" you will be able to better present your ideas, and perhaps be laughed at a little less. All you have to do is try to work with me here a little.

Strawman. How does "X" and "Y" share the same connection that belief and knowledge silly?

How can I work with you when all you do is make BS strawman arguments?

Stop evading and deal directly with my argument.

Now, you have already as good as admitted that the 4 premises are true.

Why don't you start by explaining why you think there is no connection between belief and knowledge?

1. Does Belief come before knowledge? True.
2. Does Belief inform knowledge? True.
3. Do Beliefs form knowledge? True.
4. Does Belief become knowledge? True.
C: Therefore, Belief must be a form of knowledge

 

[Tetsugaku]

Well why are you arguing with things I didn't say to begin with? I believe that's called strawmanning.

No, you're strawmanning, because clay and statue have nothing to do with any connection between belief and knowledge, as clay and statues are physical objects and belief and knowledge are concepts. So, the connection between clay and a statue isn't the same as between belief and knowledge.

Your strawman is invalid. How is the connection between clay and statues the same as the connection between belief and knowledge silly? NO.

No, you are strawmanning and you are telling me how and why your misrepresentation of my "argument fails".

Strawman. Does "X is a form of Y" share the same connection that belief and knowledge share silly?

Another strawman. Does "clay" and "a statue" share the same connection that belief and knowledge do? NO they don't.

And your argument is BS in regards to being analogous in the relationship between belief and knowledge. So, if you can't refute my argument; then you are going to BS and pretend you have. Your argument is a strawman BS.

I can't help you if you're not going to be reasonable. No-one is strawmanning you. Your argument was invalid. The clay example will help you understand why, but only if you choose to engage instead of evading. Please answer, and then we can move forward productively.

Again, if clay can be used to form a statue, is the clay a form of the statue, or is the statue a form of the clay?

 

[Tercon]

I can't help you if you're not going to be reasonable. No-one is strawmanning you.

You can't help anyone anyway, because you are too busy strawmanning everyone rather than dealing with what they actually said silly.

Your argument was invalid.

If it is, then how come you can't refute it then?

The clay example will help you understand why, but only if you choose to engage instead of evading. Please answer, and then we can move forward productively.

Strawman and evasion.

Again, what does your "clay" and "a statue" comparison have to do with the connection between belief and knowledge silly? As if your comparison is analogous, then what is the connection between belief and knowledge that applies to your "clay" and "a statue" analogy has well silly? What make it analogous in the comparison between belief and knowledge?

So, this is why your analogy fails, because in revealing the connection between the "clay" and "a statue" you are in fact conceding that there is a connection between belief and knowledge. Understand? You are so far behind; that you think you're first. The emperor has new clothes and they look great on you Nouveau.

Again, if clay can be used to form a statue, is the clay a form of the statue, or is the statue a form of the clay?

You tell me, as it is your argument. So, can "clay" "be used to form a statue"?

Does your "statue" "form" and make itself or does someone form and shape the "clay" into "a statue"?

Come on Nouve; show me your new clothes. lol

 

[Tercon]

Not necessarily.

Don't know how knowledge can come before belief, when belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to us. Maybe you can explain?

No. Knowledge should inform belief.

But how can knowledge make belief known to us when belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to us?
Maybe you can explain?

No it doesn't.

Why, just because you said so?

No it doesn't.

Why, just because you said so?

No it isn't.

Why, just because you said so?

As your premises are flawed, then your conclusions must be likewise.

But you didn't show how and why my "premises are flawed", all you did was just say they were.

Frankly, as your premises and conclusions are so flawed, one conclusion is that you post this stuff for attention.

But you didn't show how and why any of what I said to be "flawed", so what are you referring to when you say "flawed"?

Here is my argument again for your convenience:

1. Does Belief come before knowledge? True.
2. Does Belief inform knowledge? True.
3. Do Beliefs form knowledge? True.
4. Does Belief become knowledge? True.
C: Therefore, Belief must be a form of knowledge. Must Follow.