Where did God come from?

Crash, it is an idiotic thing to say but adding "idiot" later on crosses into being a personal attack. Also, it's not clear what s/he's trying to say so it's not clear, yet, that it is idiotic.

quote:

---

Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) : attempting to support a proposition with an argument that presupposes the proposition, or the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises

---

This is one definition of circular reasoning.What exactly is Rrhain propostion and what is he presupposing?I think you are saying that he is saying the argument is circular and using the definition of a circular argument for that. You seem to feel that to continue his demonstartion of that he has to somehow independently prove the validity of the definitions of various fallacies of reasoning.However, here are what I take the propostion and his presupposition to be:
1) Presupposition(s) --- there is a form of reasoning fallacy called a "circular argument". It is as defined above. (There is also a language called English with certain definitions of the meaning of its words).
2) Proposition:
WT's argument is circular based on the definition given.Rrhain demonstrates that WT's argument is circular by comparing the nature of that argument to the definition of a circular argument. He does NOT presuppose that it is circular.You are confusing the presupposition of the existance and definition of such a fallcy with a statment that WT's argument is circular. They are not the same thing at all.For example, I can take a carefully formed definition of the idea of a lie and then examine a statement that someone has made to see if it is, indeed, a lie.In doing so I have NOT presupposed that the statement made is a lie. I have taken as a starting point only that there is something that we have agreed defines a lie.Now you may think there is something wrong with the definition of a circular argument (or any other type of fallacy of reasoining). If you do so you can back up and support your conjecture.If you think there is actually something circular you will have to show exactly what you think the proposition and the presupposition is.There is no circle involved here. It is a straight line from the basic meanings of English, through the definition of different fallacies to the reasoning comparing the definition to the statements made by WillowTree. You may tackle Rrhain's argument at any point in that chain.What you are actually saying is that Rrhains argument isn't based on a good foundation but the foundation does NOT include the proposition.BTW, it you don't think reason or logic (or English for that matter) can be used to construct an argument, what exactly do you suggest?? Could you, in this context, define what you mean by "dealing rationally" with the world?You seem to think that only your view that starts with a God can build a rational construct on axioms. In math or in reasoning anyone is entitled to state their axioms up front. (they may or may not justify them) The definitions of terms is a reasonable way to start.------------------
Common sense isn't

I'm afraid I don't understand how to translate the equation into English sentences.Nor do I understand why the version of it that is claimed to be circular is different from what you have actually stated.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-22-2003]

It occurs to me that you're trying to disallow the use of some logical arguements unless the one useing those has a God to underpin them. "Occurs"? I guess you've said that straight out.However, some of these can be derived from simpler principles. For example, the fallacy of a circular argument. As the definition I copied into my previous post says it is when the proposition to be proven is presupposed.If we don't get this from some form of "universal logic" then are there any other ways of deriving it and realizing that it needs to be included?Mine view is that, yes, there is. If we choose to attempt to carry on reasonable discourse but decide that the circular argument is not fallacious what happens? It should be obvious that any proposition at all becomes "provable". Therefore this is not a useful form of reasoning.Is there anything that you would disagree with in this?

You seem to think that Rrhain's argument is circular because it is resting on some assumed underpinnnings. While I agree that we have to understand what underpinnings we are working with and which of those are axiomatic that doesn't mean that taking some things as a starting point meets the definition of circular that we have been using so far.We carry on our discussions in a specific context which we must agree to or the discussions can not go forward. I thought that we had agreed that "reason" and "logic" are givens for this purpose. If someone wants to disagree then they might choose to argue those in a separate place.However, the definition of circular doesn't say it is a fallacy because it takes somethings as a presupposed given. It says that that is is circular if it takes the presupposition to be proven (or supported) as part of the "proof". Rrhains arguments do not do that. They may be considered to be ill founded by some if the axioms or suppositions they rest on are considered to be poor but if those foundations do not include the proposition then they are not circular arguements.You name "absolute truth" as a given in some way. However, it has been shown over and over that there is not hint that there is such a thing. You have yet to answer any of those issues that I've noticed. What? Where did you get this? What is rejected isn't some ideas of God but the idea that there is a scientific basis for the Genesis stories to be taken literally. Only the literalists insist on rejecting God. If you don't want your religious beliefs to be taken as a joke then don't insist on linking them with absurd ideas. God doesn't enter into the picture.------------------
Common sense isn't

Surprisingly, I think that, with some discussion, we might be able to give some reasonable ideas of where we might "become next". However, there is one thing you left out. What will be the conditions around us "next"? What selective pressures will be on the human species? Will we be reproductively isolated into 'smallish' groups?As and example, isolate small groups (1,000's) in hollowed out asteroids for a few 10,000 of generations. Make mechanical aids unavailable for some reason. I suspect that some changes to allow better control in very low gravity and open volumes could well evolve. We would, indeed, "fly".So please fill in the details under which we will live.Or can you, alternatively, details the actual selective pressures we are under now? Are we under any?

---

Common sense isn't

The universe would have to be infinite if it contained something physical that was infinite. Numbers are not such a thing.They are a concept. There is no "highest" number but that doesn't mean that an infinite number of them have actually been enumerated and laid out to look at. I probably should leave this for other to make clearer but it seems obvious to me that your example is a bad one.

---

Common sense isn't

Percy answered this question in the post you are replying to. He seems to be taking it as a 99.9995% "truth" so still tentative but very sure. As for the existance of "absolute truth" could you clarify the definition of this for me (and maybe others). I think I know what you are saying it is and if so, don't see any examples so far.

---

Common sense isn't

I find it astonishing that they would think for a minute that they could know how God thinks. A being who created all and knows all. And they think they can tell us how he thinks? Arrogance!The think they will tell God how He will create the universe and life? Arrogance!They think they will argue with the word He wrote into the very fabric of space, time, the rocks and life? Arrogance!

---

Common sense isn't