QUOTE(Ruris @ Jun 27 2021, 11:47 AM)
Hmm, here's a pattern based filter which I apply. If a typical unker from k write a typical low quality post, about how the universe came to be. Sure go ahead and write it off, it's probably a troll post.
But if you did some reading, you will find out that there's a following that the universe is a simulation, based on.... Wait for it, a filter called Fermi paradox and also some probable quantum science. In fact there's a good amount of similarity between god/simulation created universe.
Now I want to posit that the statement above are unlikely to proven wrong or right in this generation. But subject like that is not a fallacy by itself.
Also, people do throng to religion due to the narrative and meaning it provides. Things can have empirical evidence but at the same time you can't prove the supernatural stuff. Again, no fallacy here.
Judgment based on corporate, working, live experience, that's what makes a quality post/writing and an engaging discussion. Going all out to rip apart someone statement does not.
Someone just quoted an authoritative figure of science... Is that a sin or what?
if u read from the beginning you will understand that, again i need to repeat it here that there is 2 layers of onion: one is the Argument Methodology, and the second layer is Fact Finding.
In this thread we are peeling the first one on How Do You Argue Your Points; NOT peeling the second onion layer of Whether Your Argued Fact is True of False.We are critically investigating into HOW you think (logical or not), not WHAT you think. Do you read me?
if how you think is illogical, it doesn't matter further what you says is "right/wrong". So filter what other says is logical or not first before you jump into arguing, if not logical avoid arguing for nothing.This post has been edited by lowya: Jun 27 2021, 12:15 PM