Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Circular reasoning
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 52 of 142 (570626)
07-28-2010 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by crashfrog
07-24-2010 10:07 PM


I'm really making a claim of self-authentication, and I'd like you to explain the logical reasons why you reject it.
Well, evidently, your witlessness is preventing you from making any sound judgment. Do you even understand what self-authentication involves? If you want to pronounce yourself ultimate authority, you might as well type "iefgeirznviuzkyrgaldui", it would make no difference to anybody around here, UNLESS, you also substantiated your claim. That is self authentication. Like I said earlier, calling yourself a teapot doesn't make you one. Show us how you are a ultimate authority.
For you to interpret the OP to mean that 'calling your self authority' = self authentication is appallingly ignorant. Self authentication is demanding your rights AFTER you have shown the world who you are. Proving yourself without authentication is useless and authenticating yourself without proving who you are is arrogant and empty.
I'm making a self-authenticated claim to never ever being wrong and to possessing all realms of reality.
What are the logical reasons you reject these self-authenticated claims?
These aren't self-authenticated claims, my dear. You just blew some smoke, that's about it.
Let me ask you, what exactly have you authenticated? Nothing. You've self authenticated....nothing. You claim to be perfect. You claim to know all the answers to everything. You've done nothing to demonstrate these qualities and THEN, prematurely "self-authenticated" yourself.
Not at all. I'm taking your word for the things you say you believe.
Thinking might help too.
Pretend I don't know what that word means and explain it logically.
I have no idea why you want this. But anyway,
Faith is passionate belief. Faith is believing what you don't see and the reward of faith is seeing what you believe.
What character? What works? What "external sources"? Be specific.
Read the Bible.
Whether or not the Bible god is ultimate authority is not the point of this thread. No clue why this thread is being drifted. But what can I do? It goes where you all take it....
And if you're now making a claim of collective contribution, are you now retracting your claim that self-authentication is necessary and sufficient proof of authority?
What kind of a moron would isolate the burden of proof from the claim of self-authentication?
You seem to have this idea that self-authentication is just claiming X. Not so at all. Claiming X after demonstrating your rights and reasons to claim X.
Rhain writes:
Again, just who are these people? I don't know a single person who claims science is the ultimate authority.
I am not talking about big names. I am talking about the average person who has little exposure to spirituality who seems to think the science has the answers to all our questions, thanks to falsehood spreading atheists. These people are lured into falsehood by vibrant atheists who pretend like science does indeed have all the answers we need to live. You do not realize how sad it is when atheists talk about God not existing simply because science seems to tell us He doesn't (so far). Why would science be given the luxury of answering a spiritual question unless the same people think it is some kind of higher authority?
Otto Tellick writes:
I'm fairly confident that the notion of an "ultimate authority" is utterly meaningless and useless to agnostics and atheists (not that I'm an authority on this, of course, but I can certainly speak for myself, and I have seen evidence that others agree with me on this).
You must have missed the part where I acknowledged this fact in my OP.
Not every atheist/agnostic stays true to his worldview, does he? Quite a few of them look to some object and find an ultimate authority in it. It is human psychology. They might not aware of doing this but it certainly comes across in their words, and worldview. Problem is, they ignorantly try to force science and rationality (and therefore man) to answer questions that are beyond their realm. And when they don't have answers from their trusted authorities, they also buy into the falsehoods about faith, God, and spirituality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2010 10:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 2:51 AM Pauline has replied
 Message 54 by bluescat48, posted 07-28-2010 9:29 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 56 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 07-28-2010 10:19 AM Pauline has replied
 Message 142 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-31-2010 3:37 AM Pauline has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 59 of 142 (570744)
07-28-2010 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
07-28-2010 2:51 AM


crashfrog,
Self-authentication is not calling yourself something. You think it is, but its not.
I don't care if you call yourself the ultimate authority without showing me how you are.
If you really are a perfect, ultimate authority- your authority is enough reason for everyone to accept you. I can't acept you on the basis of what people say, it is always on the basis of what you say. That is called self-authentication. If you haven't demonstrated your character qualities, then I have no reason to acept your claim. Claim all you like, it won't matter UNTIL you have demonstrated your character qualities that give you a right to be the ultimate authority. (calling yourself one doesn't count) Once you have demonstrated who you are and your reasons and rights to be called the ultimate authority, THEN self-authenticate yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 2:51 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 3:33 PM Pauline has replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 61 of 142 (570749)
07-28-2010 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
07-28-2010 10:19 AM


Please let me know if I am correct in interpreting this to mean that:
A) Science is self-authenticating (because it can always "demonstrate the rights and reasons to claim X").
B) Religion is not self-authenticating (because it cannot "demonstrate the rights and reasons to claim X")*.
No, that's not what I meant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 07-28-2010 10:19 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 62 of 142 (570750)
07-28-2010 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
07-28-2010 3:33 PM


But I have demonstrated them.
No, you haven't.
I've demonstrated them by asserting them.
Assertion is not equivalent to demonstration.
Is writing out the equation, Ca(OH)2 --> Ca2+ + 2OH- the same thing as performing the actual experiment?
I've self-authenticated my character.
You have made claims. You have not demonstrated the basis for those claims i.e substantiated your claims. There is no value to your self-authentication when you have provided nothing to authenticate in the first place. All you provided were two claims on paper. Nothing real or substantiate there.
Can you explain the logical basis by which you reject this claim?
I am continually explaning it. You keep ignoring it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 3:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 4:45 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 07-28-2010 5:55 PM Pauline has replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 65 of 142 (570800)
07-28-2010 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by PaulK
07-28-2010 5:55 PM


I get what you are saying. You claim that the Bible is a communication from God and that there is evidence in it that God actually is the ultimate authority.
But what is this evidence ? Because I've read that Bible thoroughly and never found anything that would really qualify.
The entire Bible is about God. God, throughout its pages, is portrayed as the Ultimate authority.
How can you read the Bible and also not agree that according to it, God is the ultimate authority? That's like asking if there is water in an ocean while standing on the beach and looking at it. That's plain unbelief. Do you not understand that God rules this universe when He claims to have created it? That He forgives sins? That He heals diseases? That He give prophecies that come true? That He fights battles for His people? That He performs miracles? That His character is like none other? That His wisdom is beyond human understanding? How can one ignore these, and many like them, and ask for more evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 07-28-2010 5:55 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 07-28-2010 10:21 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 68 by subbie, posted 07-28-2010 10:26 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 69 by bluescat48, posted 07-28-2010 10:28 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 70 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 10:40 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 76 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2010 1:43 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 84 by Stile, posted 07-29-2010 2:40 PM Pauline has replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 67 of 142 (570805)
07-28-2010 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
07-28-2010 4:45 PM


From what logical basis do you conclude this? I am, after all, making the self-authenticated claim that assertion is equivalent to demonstration, when I do it. Because as we've established I'm an "ultimate authority.
We have not established that you are ultimate authority. You have claimed it, that's it. You have done nothing to prove it. All you've done is called yourself something, and called yourself something a second time. That second time, you think, is the self-authentication.
If I have to provide something other than my own claim, then I wouldn't be self-authenticated, now would I? I'd be authenticated by whatever else I had provided.
Wat do you mean by something other than my own claim? I'm asking you to lay out and demonstrate those character qualities that you think give you the right to be called an ultimate authority. If you are like the rest of us, we don't care.
But that's not what I'm doing, here. I'm self-authenticating, not evidence-authenticating. Clearly, you reject this. I'm asking you what logical basis you reject my claim to self-authentication but accept self-authentication by Christians.
No, you're not self authenticating. There is nothing to authenticate in the first place! There is no work you have done, no data that we can work with. First, please demonstrate those qualities that you claim to have as an ultimate authority. THEN, authenticate yourself by making your claim to authority. Based on our assessment of who you are- which in turn is based on your works, we will either accept or reject your self-authentication.
You're not explaining it at all. You're just repeating your rejection.
If you can lie so well, I'm not surprised you can misinterpret so well.
I get it. You don't think I can authenticate myself. I'm asking you the logical basis for why I can't but others can.
You've got nothing to authenticate. Zero. Which is why I asked you to substantiate your oral claims with real work. Step 1 is to demonstrate you character qualities. Step 2 is to reasonably claim authority because of those distinctly great qualities.
You refuse to do step 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 4:45 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 71 of 142 (570813)
07-28-2010 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by bluescat48
07-28-2010 10:28 PM


coragyps writes:
See the italicized bit there, Pauline? I can agree with you just fine on that basis. I can also agree that Harry Potter is a pretty good wizard according to the books that talk about him, or that sandworms are dangerous according to Dune.
That doesn't mean that any of these agreements impinge on reality, though.
That would be fine, if the Bible was an equally fictitious books as the others mentioned. It isn't.
bluescat writes:
Easily when one sees that these are stories first told by bronze aged farmers who knew nothing of the earth, what's on it or what the universe was. They invented the higher authority from their imagination. That is why they could believe that the entire earth would be covered by 40 days of rain, and that all types of animals could fit on a small wooden boat to repopulate the earth. It shows that the God of Genesis 1, Genesis 2, and Exodus are portrayed differently. When people try to read the Bible through modern eyes they cannot see this only when read through the eyes of the story-tellers can one see the real Bible, that of myths, legends & lessons told by men who needed to know what was what but had no way of finding the answer.
Those "bronze age farmers" and other "illiterate writers" knew extraordinary things that you conveniently choose to ignore. Fulfilled prophecies. Extensive history. Science, without physical experimentation (refer to Job). Luke, a doctor is apparently a "bronze age farmer"? Paul, a thinker is a "bronze age farmer"? Moses, a highly educated Egyptian Prince is a "bronze age farmer"? Daniel is too? Isaiah? These bronze age farmers were a little too smart for their writings.
subbie writes:
Yeah, that biblical god, great guy!
God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21)
God orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there, then orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3)
He orders another attack and the killing of all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses (Joshua 6)
He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her his wife. (Judges 21)
God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church. (2 Kings 10:18-27)
And that's just a few of the highlights. Yup, regular peacekeeper that Ywaheawhaehw. He's certainly an authority on cruelty, mayhem and murder.
Yep. When God is the author of this universe He has every right to do everything He wants. No one except of their own folly dare question Him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by bluescat48, posted 07-28-2010 10:28 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by subbie, posted 07-28-2010 10:54 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 74 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 11:03 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 75 by bluescat48, posted 07-29-2010 12:13 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 77 by Huntard, posted 07-29-2010 4:05 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 78 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 07-29-2010 5:51 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 81 by purpledawn, posted 07-29-2010 7:23 AM Pauline has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 73 of 142 (570816)
07-28-2010 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by subbie
07-28-2010 10:54 PM


And the fact that you find a sick fuck like that to be an ultimate authority on anything speaks volumes about what kind of a sick fuck you are yourself.
Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by subbie, posted 07-28-2010 10:54 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 90 of 142 (571177)
07-30-2010 3:47 PM


Perhaps the majority of you here have different beliefs from me. I believe in God on the basis on faith, not evidence. Digital computations based on physical evidence are easy and often wrong. Faith, on the other hand, rests entirely on the credibility of the object being trusted in. If that object proves to be worthy of trust, praise, and authority- then faith becomes valuable and necessary. It is with this appraoch that Christians build the authority of God argument. When God, in and through His Word, proves to be worthy of all authority - then He must be the ultimate Authority. There is no polysemy for the believer. The unbeliever on the other hand is a digital machine that computes and calculates. Is that the right way to approach someone who is intangible and of a completely higher status? You decide. The consensus is to deal in terms of faith and non-faith. For you those of you here whose minds fervidly scan the pages for convincing evidence, there will be none. For those who trust with blind belief, the ultimate evidence is yet to come. But our faith sees it even inspite of its current non-existence. If and when Jesus returns to the earth, like the Bible says, the equivocacy will vanish and even then, the issue will remain a predominantly faith vs non-faith issue like it has always been. Both the existence vs. non-existence issue and faith vs. non-faith issue have been settled for believers. Neither is settled for unbelievers, unless they hold a "I don't know yet" position which in that case, they voluntarily avoid interactions with faith and assume they hold a rationally 'safe' position. A rationally safe position might not be a spiritually safe one. It is with this philosophy that I have proposed to you that God, I believe, is the Ultimate Authority just as He portrays Himself in the Holy Scriptures. You might ask which Holy Scripture? Which canon is authentic? The rational answer invariably is to look for evidence for the canon that conforms best to the orthodox doctrine. That issue can be easily resolved through vigorous scrutiny of evidence. Regardless of the issue of 'which Canon', God, we will all agree is portrayed as supremely authoritative in the Scriptures. There is no need to look for evidence for this. The pages flood with God's display of His authority. Again, taken by faith - this is firm doctrine. For those of us that do choose to have faith in God, this is big deal - that we resolve the issue of whether or not there exists the ultimate authority and if it is Him. God has always self-authenticated everything He is. This is not to say that there lack external sources of verification. Ultimately, a Christian doesn't care what th external sources say. For while there is external evidence that supports God's self-authentication, there are plenty of sources of that have the counter-evidence. The Christian is not playing a "weigh both sides and decide" game. His belief is firmly based on the self-authentication of God. This is the heart of th issue. All of you show strong signs of missing the hwole point of this thread. I'll show you how.
Crashfrog claims that he is the ultimate authority in his own words and wants me to counter that claim in a logical basis. It is simple. I said, prove it. He didn't. Case resolved. (It is surprising that all of you agree with him and bolster his argument). I need no further look into his vacuous claims any further. However, this is not the what God does. The evidence for God being the ultimate authority is on an uncomparably higher level than for crashfrog being the ultimate authority for all that crashfrog has are his own words -which he calls self authentication. But those of us who are familiar with the conept know that that is not self-authentication at all. Self authentication of ultimate authority is when you prove your character in a way that is discernable to all, and THEN, claim all authority. Yes, no claim, including self-authentication, can break its ties with the strong need for proof. Even God's claim to ultimate authority. The only difference is, some accept the claim because their worldview is primed with faith and some don't because their eyes are agog for physical evidence and tangibility.
Despite the smarmy attempts of mockery by some at the topic in discussion, those of you who are as broad-minded as you would like to claim, will see the difference between what I am proposing and what crashfrog and co have been proposing. Both parties agree that proof is necessary for any claim. Yet, when I ask crashfrog to prove his character, he refuses it. Asking God to prove His authority is a matter of one's faith and worldview. Regardless, the point still remains - ultimate authorities become ultimate authorities on the basis of self-authentication of their visibly, and unequivocally proved character.
Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 4:06 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2010 5:40 PM Pauline has replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 91 of 142 (571179)
07-30-2010 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Stile
07-29-2010 2:40 PM


Re: Crashfrog vs. God
Are you saying you don't understand the similarities that Crashfrog is trying to show you?
No. crashforg is showing me bullshit. He is noteven on the same page with the topic at hand. If you would like to join him, please do. But I am taking this thread where it wanted to go originally.
How can you read Crashfrog's posts and also not agree that according to them, Crashfrog is the ultimate authority?
As if there's a dearth of words in this thread, is this more BS?
But none of this has been demonstrated.
False.
It's only written on some paper like many other stories.
False.
Like Jumped Up Chimpanzee's claims. Like Crashfrog's claims.
Why do you demand that Crashfrog must demonstrate himself outside of his writings, while God does not have to demonstrate himself outside of His writings?
God does prove His character. People are not mad to carry the legacy of one man throughout ages, believe in Him, live and die for Him, and preach about Him, if He did nothing but only talk about Himself. If you would like to blunt face reject this, please do. I don't care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Stile, posted 07-29-2010 2:40 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Coragyps, posted 07-30-2010 6:17 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 122 by Stile, posted 08-04-2010 1:36 PM Pauline has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 94 of 142 (571189)
07-30-2010 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by jar
07-30-2010 4:06 PM


I'm sorry but speaking as a Christian, that is just silly.
Read what you wrote.
If you had faith in crashfrog, then you would see that he is the ultimate authority.
It is only your lack of faith and your limited worldview that prevents you from acknowledging crashfrog as the ultimate authority.
Exactly. There is absolutely no reason for me to have faith in crashfrog. I have strong reasons for my faith in God.
You said "Asking God to prove His authority is a matter of one's faith and worldview. ", so it is not God that is self authenticating but rather YOU who is authenticating God based on YOUR faith and YOUR worldview.
Okay, so you obviously do not understand what I said. If you can't understand this much, we have much more basic issues to resolve before we go onto Ultimate authority.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 4:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 5:45 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 07-30-2010 6:04 PM Pauline has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 98 of 142 (571195)
07-30-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by crashfrog
07-30-2010 5:40 PM


Re: Pauline vs. Pauline, Ctd.
Crashfrog writes...
Pauline writes:
Crashfrog claims that he is the ultimate authority in his own words and wants me to counter that claim in a logical basis. It is simple. I said, prove it.
quote:
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.
Where does my paragraph say "authority need not be demonstrated or proven"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2010 5:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2010 6:15 PM Pauline has replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 101 of 142 (571201)
07-30-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by crashfrog
07-30-2010 6:15 PM


Re: Pauline vs. Pauline, Ctd.
Pauline writes:
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.
crashfrog writes:
Are you denying that you wrote those words? Because they seem pretty clear, to me - were I to provide evidence for my claim of being the "ultimate authority", as you keep asking for, I would no longer be the ultimate authority - whatever evidence I provided would be.
Frankly, Pauline, you've contradicted yourself so many times in this thread I can do this all day. I can answer your skepticism of my claim to be the "ultimate authority" with everything you've said to rebut skepticism of the Bible's claim that God is the ultimate authority.
That's because, as I've demonstrated, your position is nothing more than begging the question - "it's not a fallacy when I do it." Yes, it is. Not circular reasoning, as you incorrectly identified it, but the fallacy of begging the question.
Why not answer my question directly and honestly? Why all this nonsense?
For one thing, you do not understand the difference between actually living out your claims and external evidence, do you? If you lived out your claims in a way that everyone around you acknowledged the greatness of your character, by all means, I will take you self-claim to ultimate authority into consideration. If you refuse this basic step, the argument is closed.
For another thing, you do not even understand the above quoted. (my quote) Let me illustrate...
If Paul IS the most supreme being that exists, does it make any sense for lets say...Joe to make that claim for Paul? Joe can most certainly corroborate a claim made by Paul himself, but he can't make the claim for Paul. Regardless of who's claiming what, for Paul to prove his supremeness is absolutely necessary. That does not count as external evidence, my friend. That very much counts as part of Paul's own SELF-authentication.
coragyps writes:
...why are you [not] bringing Muhammed and/or Joseph Smith into this discussion?
Talking about God is enough motivation for you guys to generate nonsense so why talk about other people.
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 99 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2010 6:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 6:40 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2010 6:44 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-30-2010 8:56 PM Pauline has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 103 of 142 (571203)
07-30-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by jar
07-30-2010 5:45 PM


jar writes:
Did you say "Asking God to prove His authority is a matter of one's faith and worldview. "?
Yes. Which means, God's authority certainly is viewed differently by different worldviews and whether or not these include faith as part of them. For a rationalist, God's authority has not been proven for God Himself doesn't exist. For a believer, God exists and His authority is proven - by God Himself - and that is more than sufficient. An unbeliever has really no business trying to analyze this a logical fallacy unless he wants to demonstrate that he doesn't understand faith whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 5:45 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 6:51 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 117 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2010 4:09 AM Pauline has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 106 of 142 (571206)
07-30-2010 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by crashfrog
07-30-2010 6:44 PM


Re: Pauline vs. Pauline, Ctd.
I did. Why lie about it?
It must be an invisible, non-existent answer then.
If you needed my lived life as evidence for my claim of being the ultimate authority, then I wouldn't be the ultimate authority - the evidence of my life would be.
This is exactly where you're misinterpreting my reasoning. You're assuming that this evidence of living out your claim is EXTERNAL. You're assuming it to be the Y source. I am not. I'm claiming that the "living out" a.k.a evidence as you put it , is part and parcel of the internal self-authentication. After all, can Joe live out Paul- the ultimate authority - 's character qualities? No. They are Paul's internal proof of his own claims. We are both calling it evidence ans seeint its need, but you see it as external to the claimant whereas I see it not just as internal evidence but the BASIS of self-authentication.
Of course he can.
No. If Joe makes the claim for Paul, then whose authority are we going by? Joe's. An external source of evidence. Not just that, but a HIGHER authority than Paul. This is self-contradictory.
Do you not see the difference between the two sources compared here? Joe- an external source and Paul's living out his claims- an internal source?
The question is not who is making the claim - that's irrelevant - but what evidence there is for the claim.
That is not irrelevant. That is the heart of this topic. The question is, who is making the claim because remember we are talking about the ultimate authority. It is vital that he himself make the claim or else he disqualifies. Given any normal claim to authority, by all means look at evidence and only evidence regardless of who makes the claims. But ours is a special case- one where self-authentication necessary and relevant.
Using the claim itself as evidence, as you do when you use the Bible as evidence for the claims of the Bible, is fallacious begging the question.
Got me wrong again. I can't help it. This shows that you some sort of atheist robot programmed to rebut issues you don't even care or think about.
Anybody can make claims. Making claims is not evidence. Or, as someone one said:
quote:
Assertion is not equivalent to demonstration.
Why someone? I said that. And I still stand by it.
Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.
Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2010 6:44 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2010 7:27 PM Pauline has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024