Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 142 (569867)
07-24-2010 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Pauline
07-20-2010 3:08 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Pauline, posted 07-20-2010 3:08 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Pauline, posted 07-24-2010 2:45 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 18 of 142 (569918)
07-24-2010 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Pauline
07-24-2010 2:45 PM


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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Pauline, posted 07-24-2010 2:45 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Pauline, posted 07-24-2010 7:43 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 25 of 142 (569963)
07-24-2010 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Pauline
07-24-2010 7:43 PM


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.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Pauline, posted 07-24-2010 7:43 PM Pauline has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 142 (569968)
07-24-2010 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Pauline
07-24-2010 8:39 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Pauline, posted 07-24-2010 8:39 PM Pauline has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 31 of 142 (569971)
07-24-2010 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Pauline
07-24-2010 8:53 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Pauline, posted 07-24-2010 8:53 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Pauline, posted 07-24-2010 9:11 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 142 (569974)
07-24-2010 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Pauline
07-24-2010 9:00 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Pauline, posted 07-24-2010 9:00 PM Pauline has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 42 of 142 (569982)
07-24-2010 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Pauline
07-24-2010 9:11 PM


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.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Pauline, posted 07-24-2010 9:11 PM Pauline has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 142 (569993)
07-24-2010 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Pauline
07-24-2010 9:49 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Pauline, posted 07-24-2010 9:49 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Pauline, posted 07-28-2010 2:38 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 142 (570628)
07-28-2010 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Pauline
07-28-2010 2:38 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Pauline, posted 07-28-2010 2:38 AM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Pauline, posted 07-28-2010 3:27 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 142 (570734)
07-28-2010 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by bluescat48
07-28-2010 9:29 AM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by bluescat48, posted 07-28-2010 9:29 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by bluescat48, posted 07-28-2010 2:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 60 of 142 (570745)
07-28-2010 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Pauline
07-28-2010 3:27 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Pauline, posted 07-28-2010 3:27 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Pauline, posted 07-28-2010 4:07 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 142 (570755)
07-28-2010 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Pauline
07-28-2010 4:07 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Pauline, posted 07-28-2010 4:07 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Pauline, posted 07-28-2010 10:25 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 142 (570840)
07-29-2010 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Huntard
07-29-2010 4:05 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Huntard, posted 07-29-2010 4:05 AM Huntard has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 89 of 142 (571080)
07-30-2010 6:15 AM


Pauline Vs. Pauline on Self-Authentication
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:
Assertion is not equivalent to demonstration.
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:
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.
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:
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.
If you're trying to say that there are no sources that corroborate the authenticity of God (the bible), you obviously are wrong.
quote:
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.
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:
Thank you, you admitted your proposal to be nonsense. Let's talk about what makes a candidate suitable for being the ultimate authority. Proving yourself without authentication is useless and authenticating yourself without proving who you are is arrogant and empty. Let me ask you, what exactly have you authenticated? Nothing. What kind of a moron would isolate the burden of proof from the claim of self-authentication?
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:
You must have missed the part where I acknowledged this fact in my OP.
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:
Perhaps this sums up your attitude towards Christian beliefs. 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...
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:
I prefer silence to babbling.

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 95 of 142 (571190)
07-30-2010 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Pauline
07-30-2010 3:47 PM


Pauline vs. Pauline, Ctd.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Pauline, posted 07-30-2010 3:47 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Pauline, posted 07-30-2010 6:07 PM crashfrog 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