Why do atheists resort to Straw Man arguments?
They use generalizations to put on all christians similar to what people do to races or age groups. People want to feel like experts talking about something they know nothing about. Many give half remembered discovery channel episodes as their source. They're just not educated in it and have horrible biased against it with that little knowledge from being raised by the atheist media.
Can a cogent argument have a false conclusion?
Yes. Cogent arguments are strong inductive arguments with all true premises. Being that cogent arguments are inductive arguments, their conclusions are not guaranteed to be true, only probable to be true. Andrew is confusing induction with deduction. Inductive arguments allow for the possibility of the conclusion to be false. Cogent inductive arguments still allow for this possibility. Cogency is not applicable to deductive arguments; only inductive arguments.
Why do so many creationists block and censor comments when atheists don’t?
>> Why do so many creationists block and censor comments when atheists don’t?Usually if I disable comments, it is for one of the following reasons:1.) The atheist asking the question really doesn't want an answer, they want to argue. They are baiting with a controversial topic hoping someone with an opposing view as theirs will answer and then they pounce with an already prepared copy & paste reply. So, I answer their question, but I don't give them the opportunity to bait me. They get my answer as requested, but that's all they will be getting from me.2.) I have answered the same question 100x already and I have debated/defended my viewpoint on said topic 100x already. So, in the event they truly have not seen the answer to their question already (which I doubt they haven't seen a similar question already) I will provide them with one - but I am just not interested in defending my position again.3.) I don't have time to get into a debate, and I know that someone will reply in an antagonistic way demanding a rebuttal. And if I don't provide a response, they claim that I “didn't dare reply back.” It's not that I “don't dare” reply, I just don't have the time to. So, I give my answer and then disable comments.4.) If I have a very strong and firm belief on something, I have spoken my piece, I have nothing more say on the topic, and there is absolutely nothing that will change my view so there is zero reason for me to debate with someone.5.) When they ask a question that is so obvious or riddiculous that their question doesn't deserve a reply at all and it is obvious they are a troll. So if I do humour them with a reply, it ends there. I will not play their troll games beyond one reply.There may be other reasons, but these are my main ones. I try not to do it too often, but sometimes I just don't have the time or energy to debate and Quora is a Q&A site, not a debate site. They got from me what they came for- an answer and that is all I'm willing to give them.I have been finding myself needing to disable comments more than usual lately and I’m not sure why. When things get very ugly or disrespectful toward God, the Bible or Christianity, then it is over. They can cut me down and insult me all day- I don't care. But I do not tolerate disrespect toward God.If they can't comport themselves like an adult and behave, they can find someone else willing to bite and argue…it just won't be me.
What is the difference between a valid and cogent argument?
Gadfly is basically correct. Here is a good way to remember it. Validity applies only to deductive arguments and is when the truth of the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Soundness is validity plus true premises. For inductive arguments, the relevant concepts are strength and cogency. Soundness is to validity as cogency is to strength. So, cogency is strength plus true premises. But, as Gadfly mentioned, conclusions of inductive arguments cannot be certain in the way that conclusions of deductive argument can be.
Am I over reacting in this argument with my boyfriend?
I have been dating my boyfriend for around 6 months now and I really love him and can definitely see a future with him. He has a female friend who isn't the classiest and I have always respected their friendship. I have many male friends that I have been close to for years so I have no issue with my boyfriend having close female friends. Last night I go over to my boyfriend's apartment and his friend showed up unannounced and decided to shower at his place. Afterwards she comes into the living room where we are watching TV and lounges on the couch in her towel and starts eating dinner. This goes on for about an hour until she walks into my boyfriend's bedroom and puts on his clothes and leaves. After she left I told him how it made me upset and how I felt she disrespects our relationship and me. I would NEVER do that to any of my male friends and respect those who have girlfriends or wives. We had a big argument and he doesn't see anything wrong about how his friend was acting. Am I overreacting? I asked my girlfriends and of course they all agree with me but I am looking for honest answers here because I love my boyfriend and don't want to be picking fights.
Why do potheads think demonizing alcohol is a good argument for legalizing marijuana?
I've never seen alcohol 'demonized' by marijuana advocates. I drink moderately and would smoke moderately if my car, job, and house wouldn't be in jeopardy. It is a valid comparison, if alcohol, which is more dangerous than marijuana*, is legal and not causing societal destruction, why not marijuana? Your bias shines brightly, btw, " other than the obvious reason that stoners can't think rationally" Does that make all drinkers raging alcoholics? In moderation with responsibility, either is not harmful and should be legal.
Cosmological argument?
Before the Big bang there was a gravitational singularity. The big bang was responsible for the 'creation' of space and time, anything before the big bang(the singularity) is not subject to before, the first cause, physical laws, etc. Therefore, the gravitational singularity is already unbounded by space and time i.e. can also be classified as beyond time, and therefore no creator or first cause is required. The unification between quantum mechanics and general relativity would be the final nail in the coffin for the first cause argument. If your premise is correct, then who created the creator?...Actually, I don't rule out the possibility of a creator, but the position of creator never point out to any specific religion, The creator may as well be the Flying spaghetti monster or a cereal box. Your process of elimination doesn't work with science. As matter of fact, if there was a creator, then it is actually closer to a deistic god than to Allah or Yahweh. According to general relativity, a singularity is entirely compressed into a region with zero volume, which means its density and gravitational pull are infinite, and so is the curvature of space-time which it causes. These infinite values cause most physical equations, including Einstein’s general relativity, to stop working at a singularity i.e the gravitational singularity or at the center of a black hole.