|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Circular reasoning | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
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: 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.
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. When and where did God supposedly make this claim? Please be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
I didn't realize you guys were so unfamiliar with the concept of self-authentication. 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.
If I say God is the ultimate authority, I will give you the Bible (God) as my basis. 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.)
And that is not fallacious in this particular thought process. 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. 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.)
Why do you care? You're using God's supposed claim to authority to authenticate God's authority. If God did not in fact make such a claim, you have little basis to accept him as an authority. (In fact, even if God did claim to be an authority that's no reason to believe him, because "self-authentication" is always fallacious.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It doesn't explain the metaphysical element of humanity. There is no metaphysical element of humanity.
It doesn't explain man's rationality. "Men" aren't frequently rational (which evolution does explain.)
It does account for his conscience. Kin selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Prove that you are the ultimate authority, then. I say that I am. From what logical basis do you reject my claim of "self-authentication"?
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. 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?
Do you even want to listen to my reasons? I do, very much. What are they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I didn't know you guys like to pretend like you didn't know that the ToE relies on abiogenesis Which model of abiogenesis? You did know there are more than one, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I can't believe we have gotten down to this nonsense. 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.
Are you perfect? As far as you know!
Hell, why do I even need to consider you??? Because I presented you with a claim to "self-authentication." From what logical basis do you reject the claim?
You do realize that God does things to show how He is the ultimate authority after claiming it , right? 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?
I believe that God is always right and perfect, just as He says in His Word. What is your basis for this belief besides God's supposed claim to these qualities? Or is this yet another claim of "self-authentication"? 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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And so that means we can talk about real matters now. Well, we were. I'm really making a claim of self-authentication, and I'd like you to explain the logical reasons why you reject it.
Can anything that is often wrong be an ultimate authority? Can anything that does not posses all realms of reality be an ultimate authority? 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?
Again, you're playing psychologist. Not at all. I'm taking your word for the things you say you believe. When I read your mind, I'll let you know. (First, I'll make a self-authenticated claim to be able to read minds.)
If I told you that God's character, and self-authentication, and works, and external sources all collectively contributed to my belief What character? What works? What "external sources"? Be specific. 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?
Its called faith. Pretend I don't know what that word means and explain it logically.
Calling yourself a teapot doesn't make you one, crashfrog. I'm not making a claim of being a teapot. That would be "self-teapot-ing." I'm making a claim of being the ultimate authority, and my support for this claim is that I'm making the claim. "Self-authentication." What are your logical reasons for rejecting these self-authenticated claims on my part?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
t. Do you even understand what self-authentication involves? Sure. Me being perfect, basically, such that I'm the highest authority available when it comes to my own authority. Well, I am. You can believe this because I told you so - I self-authenticated.
That is self authentication. Like I said earlier, calling yourself a teapot doesn't make you one. I'm not making a claim to being a tea-pot. I'm making a claim to being an "ultimate authority", and you've made it clear that you believe in self-authentication when it comes to ultimate authorities. Just not when I do it. I'm asking you for the logical basis that explains this apparent inconsistency. I'm making a claim of authentication. Can you explain the logical basis by which you reject it, or can't you?
These aren't self-authenticated claims, my dear. Sure they are. I made them, and I authenticated them myself. Self-authentication.
You claim to be perfect. You claim to know all the answers to everything. Sure. As far as you know, all that is true. What's your logical basis for rejecting those claims?
Faith is believing what you don't see and the reward of faith is seeing what you believe. If what you believe in exists you can see it whether you believe in it or not. Existence is independent of belief.
What kind of a moron would isolate the burden of proof from the claim of self-authentication? You, apparently.
Claiming X after demonstrating your rights and reasons to claim X. But I have demonstrated those rights. I'm perfect, and I know everything. I've self-authenticated those claims. From what logical basis do you reject those claims? Please be specific. Right now you won't even admit to rejecting them, you're just calling me names and getting emotional. I don't want your emotional case, I want your logical case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I have never met an atheist who claims science disproves the existence of god. I'm happy to tell you that it's clear to me, and to plenty of others, that science provides ample evidence counter to the existence of most formulations of "God."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Self-authentication is not calling yourself something. You think it is, but its not. What I think it is is the fallacy of begging the question, but we're not talking about what I think, we're talking about the logical basis by which you accept a claim of self-authentication from Christians but not from me.
I don't care if you call yourself the ultimate authority without showing me how you are. I have shown it, by asserting it. Can you explain the logical basis by which you reject this claim?
If you haven't demonstrated your character qualities, then I have no reason to acept your claim. But I have demonstrated them. I've demonstrated them by asserting them. I've self-authenticated my character. Can you explain the logical basis by which you reject this claim?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Assertion is not equivalent to demonstration. 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."
You have not demonstrated the basis for those claims i.e substantiated your claims. 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. 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.
All you provided were two claims on paper. Bibles are printed on paper, correct?
I am continually explaning it. You're not explaining it at all. You're just repeating your rejection. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Yeah, like, I'm always floored when I meet Christians who think Moses existed and is the author of any part of the Bible (especially the parts after he dies.)
Do they think Ishmael actually wrote "Moby Dick", too?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I argue that it is impossible to ascribe ultimate authority to someone/something without said someone/something declaring itself 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'. quote: 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. quote: 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. quote: If you're trying to say that there are no sources that corroborate the authenticity of God (the bible), you obviously are wrong. quote: I can't believe we have gotten down to this nonsense. You do realize that God does things to show how He is the ultimate authority after claiming it , right? quote: 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. 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? quote: 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. quote: 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? quote: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024