Do you think less of theists intelligence?

If you don't have a dog and some other than your dog has eaten your homework, your claim that dog has eaten your homework would still, of course, be valid.
However, if you don't have a dog you can't claim that you have a dog and still consider it a valid claim.
And if you said you had dog eat your homework it would only mean that dog has eaten your homework, not that you owned the dog that ate it (although latter could also be possible, but validation of such assumption would depend on further clarifications and facts of the case).

 

You misunderstand me, validity has nothing to do with truth, it is to do with logic. To put it simply, validity simply means that the argument the person is presenting is logical, based on what they say is the truth. It has nothing to do with fact.

Here is a clear example:
All cats are green
jumbuli55 is a cat
Therefore jumbuli55 is green.

That is a completely valid argument, even though cats are not green and you are not a cat. However because it is not true, it is not sound but it is still valid.

 

Valid means well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>

synonyms valid , sound, cogent, convincing mean having such force as to compel serious attention and usually acceptance. valid implies being supported by objective truth or generally accepted authority. sound implies a basis of flawless reasoning or of solid grounds; cogent may stress either weight of sound argument and evidence or lucidity of presentation; convincing suggests a power to overcome doubt, opposition, or reluctance to accept & etc.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valid

 

Yes, i do mean in terms of logic and argument and not a common usage of the term.

 

Yes, elephant is an airplane , everything is a chance and Darwin's theory is scientifically valid.
That's a valid statement in terms of logic and argument and not a common usage of the term valid

 

Validity is only one part of argumentation, if you don't want to talk about it maturely and instead spout your own personal opinions in a moronic way, it is fine by me. :leaving:

P.S.
The way most people use the term valid, such as the way you use it, is incorrect. I don't care to debate the issue. :smash:

 

No, first of all I think you are confused about meaning of words and calling me a moron won't help you make your point clearer.

I am not sure what you are trying to say but overall intent and tone of your post suggests that you could be accusing me of sophistry.
Sophism, to clarify, is an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially an argument used to deceive
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophism

Now here is the thing:

If you make a claim you also must prove it or you don't have a claim to begin with.
There is just no way around it.

If you say you can fly out of Milky Way tomorrow I won't believe you just because you say so, no matter how hard you try to insist you can.
And if I invite you to prove your claim how does my stating that without proof you have no claim to begin with , how does that turn out to be sophistry?
I guess it is just a habit of your type of arguers to say "something is so just because I say so and you are a moron engaged in sophistry if you doubt me".

But unfortunately for you , just saying so doesn't make it so.

 

No, no I am trying to teach you what the word "valid" means, if you don't want to learn I dont care.

I'm just going to assume that was just a good opportunity for you to use the 'merriam-webster' dictionary again. I have not discussed any of your arguments in this thread, or at the very least not in connection to what we are discussing now (it's a long thread).

That's a very nice understanding of burden of proof, whats your point?

If i said;
all men can fly out of the milky way tomorrow,
I am a man,
Therefore i can fly out of milky way tomorrow.

That would be perfectly valid, you could not dispute my argument form, but i would not expect you to believe me because the facts of my premises can easily be disputed. Your problem is you seem to think that "valid" means correct or true for some reason.

It is not to do with truth but rather with argument form.

I guess the same can be said for you based on this qoute, i have not accused you of sophistry, in fact i have no idea how you came to that conclusion, i find it odd.

Any way, if you want to keep talking out of your ass keep using the term "valid" the way you are, that is all i am saying. You made the claim about what the word "valid" means and I am letting you know you are wrong.

I hope this link clears things up for you and I hope it is enough for you to stop explaining argumentation incorrectly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_validity

 

LOL. Well I think most theists go by more than just "because I was raised in this religion." They may go by personal experience, deep conviction, etc...

I think a definitive question would be "Were the most intelligent people in the annals of history theists or atheists?"...

 

Originally Posted by jumbuli55

Valid means well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>

synonyms valid , sound, cogent, convincing mean having such force as to compel serious attention and usually acceptance. valid implies being supported by objective truth or generally accepted authority. sound implies a basis of flawless reasoning or of solid grounds; cogent may stress either weight of sound argument and evidence or lucidity of presentation; convincing suggests a power to overcome doubt, opposition, or reluctance to accept & etc.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valid

 

Shit, i guess the merriam-webster dictionary is right then, gosh all the logicians at my Uni are going to be disappointed :rofl:. Not that that i disagree with the dictionary definition you gave (except under synonyms, although the use of the word "implies" is different from "means").

Anyway, if you don't agree i don't really care, but posting a definition over and over is just being silly but perhaps you don't care about being understood?

Anyway, deal is this, i study logic and i know you're talking out your ass. I should have realised you dont care, i'm not sure why I have wasted my time.

But for my own interest i would love to know, are you genuinly sure in yourself that you actually believe you know what you're talking about or do you just not want to look silly?

P.S.
I am not saying you cant use the word "valid" in other more common senses of the word, but in terms of logic/argumentation (the context in which you used it), you totally have the definition wrong.

 

When you say I talk out of my ass you are merely digressing.
I could say you eat through your ass and defecate through your mouth, but it would be irrelevant to subject matter in discussion.


To be precise:

The theory does not have scientific validity unless it is proven to the contrary.
When we say "scientifically valid" in the context of our statement we use word VALID in the Miriam-Webster defined way (as copy-pasted twice before).

I don't care to know who your professor is and in what context he disputes the meaning of the word VALID and you will not teach me logic because apparently you lack it in the first place, but above all this talk about definition of the word valid is nothing but a mere digression (everyone can click on the MW link and find out for themselves what the definition of any word is, no need to employ professors to define and interpret simple words).


What is your argument anyway?

Darwin's theory of evolution is scientifically invalid theory and if you say it is scientifically valid theory you also have burden of proof. Simple as that.

Now go ahead and write all you want but you won't change the fact that Religious Theory of Darwin is not scientifically valid theory unless proven to the contrary.

 

Oh please, you've made one silly mistake of yours into a few page long argument and you think i am going to bother trying to prove to you, yourself are full of shit? how futile would that be! (of course i am assuming you recognise the expression and are being difficult because you know you look stupid now).

The definition your dictionary provided contains common use of the word valid, however if you want to use it in the technical sense, that is covered by section b of your definition.

But im sick of you dictionary definition, because it is far from an explanation, which you clearly need, because you are clearly just making up your understanding on your own. But obviously you clearly wont believe my definition either so hopefully you will accept my reference

"A valid deductive argument has this characteristic: if its premises are true, its conclusion must be true. In other words, it is impossible for a deductivley valid argument to have true premises and a false conclusion. Notice that the term valid as used here is not a synonym for true - Valid refers to a deductive argument structure that guarantees the truth of the conclusion if the premises are true." - Schick, Theodore Jr. Vaughn, Lewis, How to Think About Weird Things, New York; McGraw-hill, 2008.

So if we're going just by appeals to authority then I'd say my explanation of argumentation refering specifically to logic and argumentation is superior to your general dictionary definition. But if it isn't good enough, google "logical validity" all on your own and you may be surprised.

At the end of the day all you have said, "Validity refers to my definition i have posted" which is far inferior to my explanation of the term.

First of all some of my professors are women second, they don't dispute terminology, they just teach it. And finally, how can you say I lack logic, when you do not even know what it means? But i'm sure you think it is fun to write! :rofl:

What is my argument? The conclusion of my argument is you were making stuff up when you were explaining the meaning of "Valid" in the context you were. As far as arguing about Darwin, i dont remember making any comment on that.

I couldn't imagine how frustrating it must be to argue about something even slightly complex with pseudo intellectual morons. It seems difficult to explain even the most basic of information, such as the meaning of logical validity, that I'm sure anything more sophisticated would be a waste of my time.

 

It doesn't quite work that way.

I understand the source of your frustration though.

Apparently you are one of those brainwashed followers of Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution who has so much Faith in it that it just strikes at the bottom of your nerve to see someone show how plainly ignorant you are when insisting that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution is indeed a Scientifically Valid one.

Now, what recourse do you have?

Obviously you can't logically prove Scientific Validity of the Religious Theory.

So all you can do now is ad hominem argument, call me names and digress the whole thing towards useless waste of time by arguing what clearly defined words in given contexts mean and what some professor of logic tells you about meaning (linguistics) of the word valid.

But as I noted above, it doesn't quite work that way and if you really believe it does then it goes to show how much you miss the point.

 

Wait a minute, why do I have a tail bone!?!

 

I have no idea why.
But just because you have a tail bone, like many other animals do, doesn't prove that you have evolved into what you are by random chance through natural selection.

Gas stove in the kitchen has basic elementary particles that share characteristics with those of your body.
But it is not a proof of either gas stove or you being the result of evolution by random chance through natural selection.

 

Hey, man. You already won your argument with, I'm sure, most thinking, knowledgeable people on this site. Trying to convince Jumbuli of anything will be a wast of your time.

 

I see you've got to spell my nickname correct, finally
Thank you for the complement, Okiefreak, but I was not trying to convince Jumbuli55 of anything (why would I try to convince myself through posting on hipforums? ).
I posted it in responce to Xac's earlier nonsense.

 

Well sorry, but I'm glad you got the message.

 

Don't feel sorry, mistakes happen.

I am the only infallible person I know of when it comes to serious arguments concerning very difficult and complex subjects.