|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Circular reasoning | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3765 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Pauline (Dr. Sing): You have, in this thread, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that My Creator, His Noodliness, The FSM, is the Almighty and One True God and authority on everything. It says so, right here in the The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Pastafarians UNITE!!!!!!!! rAmen!
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Pauline writes: 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. I'm sorry but speaking as a Christian, that is just silly. Read what you wrote. 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. 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. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3765 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Did you say "Asking God to prove His authority is a matter of one's faith and worldview. "?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And what are those reasons ? Are they evidence-based reasons ? Or something else ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3765 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
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: Where does my paragraph say "authority need not be demonstrated or proven"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Where does my paragraph say "authority need not be demonstrated or proven"? In the part I quoted, where you say:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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. That sentence seems a bit garbled, and besides, why are you bringing Muhammed and/or Joseph Smith into this discussion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3765 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Did you say "Asking God to prove His authority is a matter of one's faith and worldview. "?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3765 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why not answer my question directly and honestly? I did. Why lie about it?
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. Because:
quote: 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. Look, I'm just following your reasoning as you laid it out. If it seems flawed to you, you need to resolve the cognitive dissonance on your own. These are your lines of reasoning, not mine, which is why I was so deftly able to contradict you with your own words. (I don't know how you're ever going to live that down.)
Joe can most certainly corroborate a claim made by Paul himself, but he can't make the claim for Paul. Of course he can. The question is not who is making the claim - that's irrelevant - but what evidence there is for the claim. 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. Anybody can make claims. Making claims is not evidence. Or, as someone one said:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Pauline writes: For a believer, God exists and His authority is proven - by God Himself - and that is more than sufficient. Read what you write. So God's authority depends on what someone believes. By the way, I am a believer and so have every right to examine your position. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024