Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Circular reasoning
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 1 of 142 (569176)
07-20-2010 3:08 PM


Glad to see the board back and running.
Alright, the circular reasoning fallacy is a familiar old friend. How many times have we not heard evolutionists accuse creationists of the circular reasoning fallacy when talking about the Bible's authority or even the Doctrine of inspiration, for instance. But here's the deal: I argue that it is impossible to ascribe ultimate authority to someone/something without said someone/something declaring itself the ultimate authority. People of most commonly held worldviews, whether knowingly or unknowingly, declare one single thing/person to be the ultimate authority. For instance, Christians declare God to the ultimate authority; Rationalists declare reason to be the ultimate authority, Some but not all atheists declare science to be the ultimate authority. No matter what the object may be, one cannot ascribe ultimate authority to it unless the object itself categorically declares itself 'I am the ultimate authority'. Everybody who believes in an ultimate authority follows circular reasoning. Prepare to answer this, those of you who hold science as the ultimate authority.
If looked at from a broader perspective, one of the ways in which the two worldviews: Christian and Atheistic, differ is that the former requires an ultimate authority namely God (Basis: God self-confesses to be so), while the latter, from what I know, does not require the concept of a single ultimate authority although certain atheists place science under this category. So, for those of you who do count science as the ultimate authority: why is that? For those atheists who don't, why is it not?
In light of this, it seems to me that this 'circular reasoning logical fallacy' though certainly valuable intrinsically, is being misused by atheists as a ad-hominem tool on most atheist-christian debate arenas for neither is it well thought out by them nor is it applicable to a Christian worldview.
Thanks.
Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Blue Jay, posted 07-24-2010 8:56 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 07-24-2010 9:22 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2010 11:13 AM Pauline has replied
 Message 6 by jar, posted 07-24-2010 11:52 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 7 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 12:32 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 48 by Otto Tellick, posted 07-25-2010 1:09 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 50 by Rrhain, posted 07-26-2010 1:08 AM Pauline has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 8 of 142 (569885)
07-24-2010 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog
07-24-2010 11:13 AM


Bluejay writes:
Hi, Pauline.
Pauline writes:
But here's the deal: I argue that it is impossible to ascribe ultimate authority to someone/something without said someone/something declaring itself the ultimate authority.
So, I can't call someone an authority unless they call themselves an authority?
Is that what you’re saying?
No.
We are not talking about any and all authorities, only THE ultimate authority, assuming there is one for argument's purposes. If we believe X to be the ultimate authority, it CANNOT be on the basis of Y saying that X is the ultimate authority. I think it is obvious why not. I will say it anyway. If Y is the supposed evidence for X being the ultimate authority, then X no longer is a candidate for ultimate authority, Y takes its place. An ultimate authority cannot be declared so on the basis of other sources. First and foremost, it has to command/demand ultimate authority and THEN, other sources can only affirm what it has already declared. But, what other sources collectively declare to be the ultimate authority is definitely not qualified to be one since it depends on those sources for its authentication.
nwr writes:
quote:
I argue that it is impossible to ascribe ultimate authority to someone/something without said someone/something declaring itself the ultimate authority.
  —Pauline
Then that should rule out your use of the Bible as an authority. When did you become an atheist?
I know this is a light-hearted comment and that is fine, but just for clarity's sake, the Bible does declare God to be the ultimate authority for everyone.
Not so.
Oh yes.
quote:
quote:
For instance, Christians declare God to the ultimate authority;
  —Pauline
They may say that. But they are really declaring their favored theologians as the authority. If it were as easy as making God the authority, and settling issues by asking God and getting an answer, then we would not have so many disagreements between different Christian denominations and sects.
  —nwr
Those are interpretational differences. The question of who is the ultimate authority and what he/she says are not the same.
I don't think that's correct. I think they point to reason and evidence, not to reason alone.
I'm not sure why you don't see it, but pointing to reason and evidence as the ultimate authority is just a metaphoric way of speaking. People who say that are denying that there is an ultimate authority, and are saying that they will use their own reason and evidence rather than rely on any authority.
How come you don't count reason as an authority? Being an authority is not limited to being a person alone. If you ask a rationalist why he thinks reason is the authority, he will give you a rational explanation for why. He will never say, "well, because science says so, or because God says so, or because [something] says so" This precisely is my point. An ultimate authority is an ultimate authority because it says it is and not because some other sources say it is. If you ask a person who thinks science is the ultimate authority why that is so, he will give you a scientific explanation. He will never say, "Well, because reason says so, or because God says so". It is because science says so.
Most would look to science as a source of evidence, but not as an authority. Science itself is full of people disagreeing with one another, trying to disprove the claims of one another. That does not look at all like what one might expect of an authority.
Most look to science as a source of evidence that is the final authority. They hardly take into consideration that science is a trial and error process of discovering facts and often gives us wrong results.
If some entity declares itself the ultimate authority, you should run away as fast as you can. For, surely that entity is evil.
So God, by this logic, is evil then. I thought ya'll had thought this through, but apparently you haven't.
I still cannot understand why you think your OP is about circular reasoning.
I don't know why something so simple is hard to understand for you. The argument is: If X is understood to be the ultimate authority, it is ONLY on the basis of X saying so and NOT on the basis of other sources saying so (other sources may certainly further affirm it). This IS circular reasoning. But it is not fallacious. For those of us whose worldview does include an ultimate authority, we understand this. It is those who do not understand the concept of an ultimate authority (or rather, are uncomfortable with it), that fail to see this.
crashfrog writes:
quote:
I argue that it is impossible to ascribe ultimate authority to someone/something without said someone/something declaring itself the ultimate authority.
Perhaps necessary (though you don't make a case why), but not sufficient.
The circular reasoning accusation is made because creationists offer the Bible's claim to its own authority as the sole evidence of its authority.
Of all the responses I have received so far, this is the only fair and sensible one. Crashfrog has understood the point of discussion quite well.
I have already made my made my case for why it is necessary, but I will make it again:
It is necessary for X to declare itself ultimate authority if it is one rather than other sources declaring, because an ultimate authority if there is one, need not have to DEPEND upon other sources for its authentication. However, its claim can certainly be further corroborated by other sources.
No sane person would count God as the ultimate authority because science says so, or because Buddha says so, or because Thor says so. It is because God Himself says so. Now, can external sources further affirm the claim? Certainly.
Case understood?
Pauline writes:
No matter what the object may be, one cannot ascribe ultimate authority to it unless the object itself categorically declares itself 'I am the ultimate authority'.
Why?
Because, if the object does not itself declare ultimate authority, and depends upon external sources to declare that, then it no longer is a suitable candidate because it is depending on other sources/authorities for its authentication.
jar writes:
HUH?
So because Zeus declares himself the ultimate authority Zeus is the ultimate authority?
Let's take the example jar has provided:
Is Zeus the ultimate authority? Answer: We don't care. We only care about HOW people arrive at the answer to such questions.
And the way they come up with their answer is based solely on whether or not Zeus himself claims ultimate authority. This is my point. Is this circular reasoning? Yes. Is it wrong? No. Should the case be further examined? Definitely.
When you talk about some "Ultimate Authority" it really would help if you specified what subject the judgment is being made.
Why? There is absolutely no need to specify the judgement being made. An ultimate authority, assuming one exists, is ultimate irrespective of the judgement in question... be it the flood, be it the diversity of life..be it anything.
For example, when considering whether or not there was some Noach Flood the ultimate authority is science. When considering evolution, the ultimate authority is science...Now if you want to discuss the Christian concept of judgment related to salvation, then it is reasonable to claim that God is the ultimate authority on whether someone is saved or not.
Do you not see that you are contradicting yourself? How can there be two "ultimate authorities"? Isn't that a contradiction of the word "ultimate"?
To claim that God is the ultimate authority on whether or not there was a flood like the ones described in the Noah fable is just silly. To claim that some anthology of anthologies written thousands of years ago is the ultimate authority on how the diversity of life we see around us is simply silly.
Then, to claim that God saves people from hell is also equally silly.
subbie writes:
Reason and science are not authorities. They are processes that people use to arrive at reliable answers to questions about the real world. Although we often use the words figuratively -- science tells us that the world is 4.5 billion years old -- that's simply a short cut way of saying that scientists, using the scientific method, conclude based on the evidence we have at this time that the world is 4.5 billion years old.
Yes they are. People do treat them that way. Your explanation is a distraction from the topic of discussion. I am well aware that science is a method. That doesn't disqualify it from being called an authority.
An ultimate authority is a source you turn to for answers you don't question.
IOW, God is for dummies? That was a polished way of putting way, but the essence is pretty stupid no matter how polished the syntax.
Science is a method, not an authority
You are assuming that methods cannot be authorities.
You are ignoring that many in your own group do not follow this claim.
Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.
Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.
Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.
Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.
Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2010 11:13 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 07-24-2010 3:11 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 07-24-2010 3:33 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 14 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 4:01 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2010 6:02 PM Pauline has replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 10 of 142 (569891)
07-24-2010 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
07-24-2010 3:11 PM


Why?
Why not judge each incidence using the best methods available?
So use God for judging matters of spirituality and science for judging matters of fact and reality? What if the are at disagreement with each other? Then, surely you look for who is the ultimate authority if there is one, yes? This is of course if you treat God like He wants to be treated, not like just another spiritual guru.
Jar writes:
jar writes:
For example, when considering whether or not there was some Noach Flood the ultimate authority is science. When considering evolution, the ultimate authority is science...Now if you want to discuss the Christian concept of judgment related to salvation, then it is reasonable to claim that God is the ultimate authority on whether someone is saved or not.
Pauline writes:
Do you not see that you are contradicting yourself? How can there be two "ultimate authorities"? Isn't that a contradiction of the word "ultimate"?
Jar writes:
Nope. It is simply acknowledging reality.
I'm sorry you don't see the inherent contradiction.
Huh?
Now granted no one alive has a clue whether or not there is an afterlife or if anyone is saved, but, if there is an afterlife as imagined by the Christian religion, then the question of who is saved and who is not saved is determined by God as the ultimate authority for that issue.
If you count my OP as word salad, then let me let you know that this is theology salad. May I point out why?
1. The Christian faith does not "imagine" an afterlife. it states that there is one. (Not 'there must be', but 'there is')
2. The Christian faith counts God as the ultimate authority for everything single conceivable issue...and not only matters of spirituality and afterlife.
Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 07-24-2010 3:11 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 07-24-2010 3:50 PM Pauline has replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 12 of 142 (569894)
07-24-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by nwr
07-24-2010 3:33 PM


nwr writes:
In that case, I will make my cat the ultimate authority - just as long as I get to interpret it however I want.
Don't you see that playing the "interpretation" game makes a mockery of the whole idea of "ultimate authority"?....If God gave us free will, that made each of us our own ultimate authority.
I don't see why you are trying to distract us from the tone of this discussion. I prefer you do not.
If you want to discuss this, since this is specifically about the Christian God, open a different thread.
BTW, that last statement is BS.
Reason is a method, not an agent that one can consult.
I am well aware of that and you are dodging the question. Reason, though a non-personal entity, is looked at by a LOT of atheists and rationalists as the ultimate authority when it comes to finding answers to questions. And this precisely on the basis of their own reasoning. <---This reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 07-24-2010 3:33 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 15 of 142 (569905)
07-24-2010 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
07-24-2010 3:50 PM


When there is a disagreement you look at the evidence, you do not look to authority.
The authority you are looking to in this case is evidence! Which makes it your ultimate authority.
I'm sorry but that is simply not true. Do you know anything about Christianity?
Christianity makes no such claims. Have you ever even read the basics?
Sorry. You should've mentioned to me at the beginning that we were talking about *your* version of Christianity. Which, I have no incentive to talk about that. If you want to talk about the Bible's version- the true version- then that's okay.
Consider the Nicene Creed. It lists beliefs.
Christians, and I am a Christian, believe that there is an afterlife, but is simply a belief.
Why not consider the Bible? Is it too authoritative of a source? I see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
subbie writes:
Science is not an authority in the sense that you are using the word.....
The scientific method does not provide an answer to everything. Science is limited to observable phenomenon in the real world. There are a multitude of questions that science doesn't even try to answer: what is moral? what is beauty? what is justice? Science ignores these questions, so obviously it cannot be an "ultimate authority" as you use the phrase.
Which is the sense that an ultimate authority is ultimate for *every* issue in question. Certainly, as you agree, science cannot be considered an authority over realms it does not posses.For instance, spirituality, souls, morality etc.
You yourself have demolished the case for science being an ultimate authority. Perhaps you have done with a little too fast. For if you do not have answer for why you look for 'evidence' -very much a scientific term- for God's (a non-physical being) existence, you will perhaps regret it.
If you disagree with my description that an ultimate authority is one whose answers you don't question, it would be much more constructive for you to explain why, rather than dismiss it as stupid.
That's like saying a tap is something you get water from. That hardly describes a tap. A more apt description would be, a tap is a regulated outlet usually for fluids.
Your 'definition' is not wrong. But it is not apt or accurate. An ultimate authority has all answers and must be right every single time.
Both of us agree that science does not fit this description. For those atheists that do make this fallacious claim, my point is, they use circular reasoning to make it.
I'd guess that everyone in "[my] own group" agree with me in what I said.
Of one thing I am certain, nobody in "[my] own group" thinks that any scientific finding is an ultimate conclusion. Every scientific conclusion is tentative, pending the discovery of new evidence or an new theory that better explains the existing evidence. What you need to do is explain how anything that is tentative can be an "ultimate authority."
There exist atheists and rationalists outside EvC who treat science and reason (respectively) as ultimate authorities. If you met some of them, you would know what I'm talking about. Why, contrary to what you believe, there might be people on here too that think that. We would know if we took a poll.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 07-24-2010 3:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 4:52 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 17 by jar, posted 07-24-2010 5:10 PM Pauline has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 19 of 142 (569926)
07-24-2010 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by subbie
07-24-2010 4:52 PM


jar writes:
It really doesn't matter what you have an incentive to talk about, it is the topic of this thread. You do understand that there is no such thing as "The Bible", no universally accepted canon.
Excuse me, I fail to understand how your version of Christianity is the topic of this thread. I created the thread to talk about circular reasoning and its use in different worldviews. Its validity and non-validity in different circumstances. I'd like to keep it to that.
LOL.
Exactly. Perhaps this sums up your attitude towards Christian beliefs.
A Bible cannot be authoritative since there is no such thing as an authoritative Bible. Which one of the many canons do you believe to be the authoritative one, the Samaritan Canon that includes only the first five books, the Ethiopian Orthodox long Canon with over eighty books or some other Canon?
Care to discuss this in another thread?
Why?
Have you ever read the Nicene Creed? Do you know what it is?
Why, no I haven't. You are the only Christian who has. And the rest of us idiots are waiting for you to share it with us.
In case you haven't, here it is.
quote: We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
In case you are ignorant of the fact, the Nicene Creed is the most widely accepted Creed in the Christian Faith and not a matter of "my Christianity".
Note that each section begins with "We believe".
Oh yeah?
So 'we believe' = we imagine? We conjecture? We guess? We have no clue? Is this what you believe? This is also why I call it your version of Christianity.
Look at what you said:
jar writes:
Now granted no one alive has a clue whether or not there is an afterlife or if anyone is saved, but, if there is an afterlife as imagined by the Christian religion, then the question of who is saved and who is not saved is determined by God as the ultimate authority for that issue.
I'm sorry, but Christianity does not imagine or conjecture. Neither does it guess. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus. And Jesus never said "there *might* be a heaven and hell.", "there might be angels", "there might be a resurrection", "there might be judgment", "I might be God", "I'm guessing you have to believe in me to enter heaven".
And out of all the things in this world, you pick the Nicene creed to make your point? Unbelievable.
By the way, I'm assuming you actually read the Nicene creed since you quote it from somewhere. Have you noticed the first 4 lines? They read:
"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
"
You believe in this creed, but you also believe in evolution. How is that?
It is mind-boggling how categorical, flat statements as found in the Nicene creed are battered out of meaning by people like you.
If you haven't gotten the point, we believe = there is.
I'm not surprised. You aren't the only who *uses* Christianity for a religion and then ignores its maker and all that He says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 4:52 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 07-24-2010 6:29 PM Pauline has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 21 of 142 (569951)
07-24-2010 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
07-24-2010 6:02 PM


crashfrog writes:
quote:
It is necessary for X to declare itself ultimate authority if it is one rather than other sources declaring, because an ultimate authority if there is one, need not have to DEPEND upon other sources for its authentication. However, its claim can certainly be further corroborated by other sources.
This is a claim, not a case, and does nothing to substantiate your position. Indeed, you've already contradicted yourself when you say:
quote:
How come you don't count reason as an authority? Being an authority is not limited to being a person alone.
But something that is not a person cannot make claims or assertions. Specifically, it can't make the claim that it is the "ultimate authority" - that's an elocutionary act that only a person is capable of.
I didn't realize you guys were so unfamiliar with the concept of self-authentication. Either you are highly ignorant, or doing your best to dodge the discussion. What is so hard to understand?? I was talking about the process of self-authentication in the paragraph you quoted me.
What we count as ultimate authority, if we do, is what *we* believe to be so. In light of this, I did not contradict myself. Think about it...
If I say God is the ultimate authority, I will give you the Bible (God) as my basis.
^ God authenticates God
If a rationalist counts rationality as the ultimate authority, he will present a 'reason' ( a rational process) for his claim,
^ Rationality authenticates rationality
If an atheist counts science as the ultimate authority, he will present a scientific explanation for why that is so,
^ A scientific explanation authenticates science
Never will people refer to other sources as the primary basis. It is always self-authentication that matters the most when talking about the ultimate authority. And this self-authentication is not a logical fallacy, as many ignorant atheists think. We don't care if the object is personal or non-personal. The process by which ultimate authority is ascribed to it, is circular reasoning. And that is not fallacious in this particular thought process.
I thought people at EvC were clever enough to know this much.
Instead, I've gotten all sorts of stupid nonsense including Jar's citing the Nicene creed to demonstrate to me how one should go about contradicting his own beliefs.
When and where did God supposedly make this claim? Please be specific.
Why do you care? You have your worldview and if you're sticking to it, why should you care about what God says if not to distract the topic...
jar writes:
I believe that the Theory of Evolution explains "How GOD did it."
I can only imagine the distortion of thoughts going through your mind.
Its funny how you trust God with *your* afterlife when you apparently don't trust Him with matters like creation. He must have been lying when He said "And God said let there be...." in Genesis, huh.
Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2010 6:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 7:55 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 24 by jar, posted 07-24-2010 8:28 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2010 8:30 PM Pauline has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 23 of 142 (569961)
07-24-2010 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by subbie
07-24-2010 7:55 PM


subbie writes:
You didn't reply to my last message, so I'm going to assume you agree with it.
Agree with which part?
Since we agree that science isn't an ultimate authority, I guess that means that those who rely on science to learn about the world aren't subject to your charge of circular reasoning.
They aren't. Its those who look to science like it is one, that are my topic of discussion. More precisely, their apparent hypocrisy.
Of course, the scientific method doesn't rely on the authority of science to support itself. Instead, it relies on the observed fact that it produces results. It's the ultimate in pragmatism. It works. Following the scientific method, we learn things that allow us to make predictions about how things work, and how things that we build will work after they're done. The scientific method is the greatest success story that this planet has ever seen.
A perfect example of circular reasoning. Science is the authority because we *observe* (note, a scientific element) that it produces results.
The self authentication is readily visible.
If you're trying to say that there are no sources that corroborate the authenticity of God (the bible), you obviously are wrong. There are fulfilled prophecies, testimonies, supernatural occurrences, transformed lives, etc that all point to God's authenticity. To think that science is the only success story is pretty naive. People are not idiots to believe in God if they don't think that spirituality produces good results.
Religion, on the other hand, has nothing to support itself other than itself. As you so accurately point it, it's one huge circular argument that has failed to produce any results that cannot be obtained by other methods.
Okay, I haven't asked you for this nonsense so please don't give it to me.
Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 7:55 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 8:33 PM Pauline has replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 27 of 142 (569966)
07-24-2010 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
07-24-2010 8:28 PM


Well, there is evidence for evolution.
Evolution itself is a highly inadequate theory. It doesn't explain the metaphysical element of humanity. It doesn't explain man's rationality. It does account for his conscience. It assumes a miracle occurred. It relies on that miracle. I don't care about a theory that is insufficient.
Remember, God doesn't say anything in the Bible, rather the authors of the different stories created characters they called God and wrote dialog for the character.
Now I see exactly where you're coming from. No wonder.
So God is a fictional character. And you believe there is an afterlife based on a fictional story.
In that case, what compels you to believe something that some guy named Matthew or Paul or Moses wrote thousands of years ago and live by it? Why do you even care?
But as you so nicely point out, my reasoning is not circular. I believe GOD will be the ultimate authority when it comes to my salvation if there is an afterlife, and accept the evidence when it comes to Evolution.
Oh, your reasoning is like none other. It is beyond any conceivable logical fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 07-24-2010 8:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2010 8:42 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 29 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 8:46 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 32 by jar, posted 07-24-2010 8:59 PM Pauline has replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 30 of 142 (569970)
07-24-2010 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by subbie
07-24-2010 8:33 PM


Nobody asked you for any of your nonsense, but you keep doling it out. It's a debate forum, dearie. If you can't stand the heat....
Well, then don't reply to it if it looks like nonsense. Simple.
I won't be offended.
crashfrog writes:
I'm familiar with the risible concept of "self-authentication." It's nothing more than a laughable attempt to say "it's not 'circular reasoning' when Christians do it."
In other words, "self-authentication" is the fallacy of begging the question.
Good, you know it. Pity it took so long to confess as much.
I don't accept the Bible as the testimony of God, since not even its adherents believe it was written in God's own hand. You're free to accept claims in the Bible as being claims made by God, but you need to understand that's an additional point of faith you're making:
Point of faith 1: God exists.
Point of faith 2: The Bible, and not any other holy text, is his word.
You can't derive one from the other, they're two entirely unrelated things you have to take on faith. (Or don't take them on faith, as I don't - as it happens there's ample evidence against both.)
I don't care. And you seem to have completely missed the point.
Of course its fallacious. It's always a fallacy to beg the question.
Let me ask you, Pauline - by your ridiculous doctrine of "self-authentication", I can prove my own authority simply by asserting it.
That is really such a childish answer.
Prove that you are the ultimate authority, then. And sorry, self authentication is necessary but before that who are you , what do you do, and why should I believe that you are the ultimate authority.
From what logical basis can you reject any claim of "self-authentication"? I mean, it's clear that you do reject some claims of self-authentication; can you explain why? You just choose to, no reason to it? You just feel like some claims are true and some are false? (That's the fallacy of the appeal to emotion.)
Are you a psychologist? How do you know by what method I came to my conclusion? Quite silly.
Do you even want to listen to my reasons?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 8:33 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2010 8:58 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 41 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 9:29 PM Pauline has replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 33 of 142 (569973)
07-24-2010 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by subbie
07-24-2010 8:46 PM


subbie writes:
Strangely enough, we don't evaluate the success of a theory by looking at all the things it doesn't do, particularly a list of things that it doesn't even purport to do. The theory of gravity doesn't explain any of those things, does that make it "insufficient?"
Sorry, but if the ToE is going to tell me where I came from and how I came to be, it must also explain EVERYTHING about me. To compare the ToE with the theory of gravity, or germ theory, or quantum theory is plain silly. Those theories, like you accurately point out, are not beholden to explain everything. But since evolution is about life itself, its stuck in a rut that it can't get out of.
Oh, please do educate us. What miracle does the ToE relies on?
Oh, you are educating me. I didn't know you guys like to pretend like you didn't know that the ToE relies on abiogenesis--clearly a miracle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 8:46 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2010 9:04 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 36 by jar, posted 07-24-2010 9:15 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 38 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 9:18 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-25-2010 7:27 AM Pauline has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 35 of 142 (569975)
07-24-2010 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
07-24-2010 8:58 PM


I say that I am.
From what logical basis do you reject my claim of "self-authentication"?
...
I'm me (or, if you prefer "I AM THAT I AM"), I do what I do, and you should believe me because I say you should.
From what logical basis do you reject my claim to self-authentication?
I can't believe we have gotten down to this nonsense. Anyway, what can I do now...
Can you answer my all my questions and be proven to be right via external ways?
Can you always be right?
Do you know things that I don't?
Are you perfect?
Hell, why do I even need to consider you??? Prove to me that you are an applicable candidate and then, I shall take your self-authenticity in consideration.
You do realize that God does things to show how He is the ultimate authority after claiming it , right? Right. So please do something.
I do, very much. What are they?
I do not count reason to be the ultimate authority because often rationality is wrong.
I do not count science, because often science is wrong
I do not count myself, because I am often wrong and am imperfect.
I do not count other people, for obvious reasons.
I do not count anything that is often wrong or imperfect.
I believe that God is always right and perfect, just as He says in His Word. My faith in god's character is my basis for counting God as the ultimate authority.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2010 8:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 9:25 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2010 9:31 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 51 by Rrhain, posted 07-26-2010 1:53 AM Pauline has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 37 of 142 (569977)
07-24-2010 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
07-24-2010 8:59 PM


jar writes:
I never said that GOD was a fictional character. I said that the gods in the stories are characters created by the authors of the stories.
What exactly do you believe?
I care because I believe that a charge has been laid upon us, beginning with the great gift of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the charge to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sorrowful, shelter the homeless, help the weak, teach the children; you know, "Do unto others as I would have them do unto me."
you do realize that your atheist chums also care about all these things, right? Without caring about God, that is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 07-24-2010 8:59 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 07-24-2010 9:23 PM Pauline has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 43 of 142 (569987)
07-24-2010 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by subbie
07-24-2010 9:29 PM


subbie writes:
If you expect people at a science-based forum board to ignore it when you post nonsense, you haven't been around very much.
But how can nonsense cure nonsense?
crashfrog writes:
This is precisely the nonsense that you allow in when you take "self-authentication" at face-value instead of recognizing it as the fallacy of begging the question.
Thank you crashfrog- you admitted your proposal to be nonsense. And so that means we can talk about real matters now.
Let's talk about what makes a candidate suitable for being the ultimate authority.
Can anything that is often wrong be an ultimate authority?
Can anything that does not posses all realms of reality be an ultimate authority?
No, he doesn't. And why would it matter if he did so after you've accepted the claim? You've already accepted his claim to self-authentication, you're already convinced. Why would he need to convince the convinced?
Again, you're playing psychologist.
How do you know exactly when I believed God to be ultimate authority. Was it right after I came to know that He claimed it? We it after I observed a few reasons for it being so? How do you know when exactly. And why do you pretend like you know my mind.
If I told you that God's character, and self-authentication, and works, and external sources all collectively contributed to my belief, would you then keep quiet?
What is your basis for this belief besides God's supposed claim to these qualities?
You don't know? Its called faith.
If that's the case, then also claim to be always right and perfect, just as I say in my words. (Which are these words.)
Calling yourself a teapot doesn't make you one, crashfrog. Calling yourself perfect is like saying that triangles are four-sided.
Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 9:29 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 9:56 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2010 10:07 PM Pauline has replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 45 of 142 (569992)
07-24-2010 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by subbie
07-24-2010 9:56 PM


BTW, I'd appreciate it if once in a while you'd endeavor to answer the questions I ask you, and respond to the points I make. After all, that is the purpose of a debate forum, and it's actually expected of participants here.
Just a heads up for you.
Curiously, I expect the same from you.
Reply with irrelevant posts is not the same as making an effort to answer the points in question. And I prefer silence to babbling. There might be many reasons why I ignore certain posts. It might be because that person doesn't get the point, or it might be because he is trying to distract the topic, or it might be because multiple people have already made that point, or it might be because I don't have much time, or it might be because I have a life other than EvC, or it might be because I don't have an answer. I have tried my best to not let anything relevant go. And I think I should know what's relevant and not since I made the topic. If you feel like I'm not being fair, then please point out specifically what exactly you're wanting me to respond to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 9:56 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by subbie, posted 07-24-2010 10:10 PM Pauline has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024