Circular reasoning

purpledawn writes:

quote:

---

Where in the Bible does God actually claim to be the ultimate authority over everything?

---

Well, it's a bit florid and poetic rather than direct, but Isaiah is where you're looking: So yes, the Bible does claim that god is the ultimate authority.Now, I personally don't believe that the ultimate authority needs to say anything about it. After all, god may have a humble nature and not want to blow his own horn or god may simply not care about what people think and doesn't feel he needs to explain anything to anybody.This is nothing more than a substitution of "ultimate authority" for the word "good" in the conundrum: Is it good because god does it or does god do it because it's good?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

In circles? Even though it is about circular reasoning, we should try to move forward, not get stuck in the same misunderstandings. No, I'm attempting to show you how useless your non-demonstrations of God's authority are. They are as useless as crashfrog's. "False" is not a demonstration, it is an assertion. You are only proving that it has still not been demonstrated. Great. Where? How? This does not prove God's character. Nor is it any sort of demonstration of God's authority.
These people may not be mad, no one has claimed that they were. They're just wrong. People are wrong about things like this all the time. In fact, even if your chosen theology is correct, the majority of the world would have to wrong in exactly this way because they accept a different religious authority. Therefore, using this as a demonstration of God's authority is actually a logical contradiction as it is used by a majority of others for a variety of mutually exclusive ideas. Oh no, not blunt face rejected. Only reasonably rejected as it is in a strict logical contradiction with all other religions, as described above.
Do you have any actual demonstration for why anyone should accept God's authority? Or is everything else you have to offer as useless as crashfrog's claims?

I say, "Question Everything" and stand firm in the belief that evolutionists and creationists is not the only choices to define life's processes. Until evolutionists can find the first replicating cell and how it became so complicated in order to support evolutionists undirected process of life through time with at least some solid evidence (all the ones that have been presented is not evidence) I may consider it.The creationists beliefs is based on a book of their faith written for a small child's comprehension and it is so simplified that it becomes a fairy tale when explaining how life came to be here. It is not a acceptable answer for the adult mindset. However, I tend to see religion as a mechanism for the herd type species that humans are when they were learning to survive in large groups. Even though there were many religious wars, I think without it humans would have become extinct a long time ago. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Well, in reality there is no "creationist model" that explains anything so right now, the only game in town is the Evolutionary model.That's not related to the topic though, not circular reasoning as much as claiming there are other models is simply misrepresentation.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

In other words, until the ToE answers all questions, even those that don't relate to the ToE, you won't give it the time of day.Tell me, do you believe in the theory of gravity? The germ theory of disease? If so, why do you hold the ToE to a higher standard than other scientific theories? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Well, hello there once again, Pauline. I trust you've been well. I think others have hashed this out quite well so far. However, I thought I'd reinforce that what I, too, see as a desperate bid to convince someone (anyone) that biblical literalists who ascribe to self-authentication (circular reasoning) "...aren't the only ones!", falls on its face at the outset. To be fair, I agree that there are some who do ascribe a higher authority to something other than a supernatural entity, but to say "everyone does it" is mistaken at best and dishonest at worst.Let's take your assertion that "those athiests" circularly look to science as the ultimate authority. As others have said, how can the simple direct observation of data in order to prove or disprove a hypothesis be considered circular reasoning? Now, many an ignoramus may look at a certain assertion about *insert natural phenomenon here* and think, "Well, this must be true since such-and-such journal says so and it's scientific, and since science is the ultimate authority, then it must be true! Forever!" However, the fact that (as many here have already said) even the most accepted views in science are quite regularly overturned by new emerging data would very much disqualify science as being any kind of ultimate authority. This would serve to make these ignoramuses, among other things, wrong. I, for one, would appreciate that you please stop misrepresenting the rest of us and know that you and the aforementioned folk share a common bond: to us reasonable folk, you're both inexorably incorrect in your circularity. My opinion, of course, worth price charged.Of course, the crux of the matter is highlighted when one ascribes to an absolute literal inerrancy of The Bible™, as I know that you do. Therefore, your inspired, god breathed version of The Bible™ becomes unquestionable to the point that literalists like yourself will actually consider it evidence for God being the ultimate authority, even though much of Christianity disagrees with you. And there's the circularity which, contrary to your objections, is really found nowhere in science: you're using your faith that The Bible™ is god-inspired versus the works of fallible men written in reverence to God as evidence for your faith. Interesting, that.So what would it take for you to accept Crashfrog's ultimate authority?Make the claim?See upthread.Immemorialize his words in his, the "Grand EVC Bible, 1st edition"?See upthread.Reports of Froggy miracles?Well, I just so happened to have heard from this one guy how this big 'ol toad got smashed in the street in a suburban Twin Cities area, was dead for a time, then was raised by none other than the Almighty Crashfrog. Praise Him.Answered prayers?Last week I prayed to Lord Crashfrog for a serious windfall in order to replace my broken washing machine (the collective pitstains in my dress shirts are becoming horrid). Wouldn't you know it, I was promoted to management with pay to match. Praise Him. Never mind that unanswered prayer the other night for relief from my chronic anxiety so I could get some sleep. I was up the whole damn night! But even that experience was a positive one in that it allowed me to become closer to Crashfrog in our Walk™: I pored over the verses of this thread all night long. In the end, my episodes of chronic insomnia are surely all part of The Grand Plan™, because if they weren't, that must mean the enemy is alive and well, and working...What? You don't believe me? Well, it doesn't matter to me since all who disbelieve will eventually find themselves in dire straits, to say the least. My faith is all I need. Praise Him.I'm sorry if I appear flippant about your faith, Pauline. I assure you my intent is not to deride, but just to attempt to present a parallel here. You see, you can't make any reasonable distinction between your brand of theistic self-authenticative circularity and Lord Crashfrog's because, my dear ... there isn't one. Have you not noticed yet how few of your fellow theists (fewer than usual, it seems) are coming to your aid in this topic? I propose that the reason for this is that most of the reasonable theists here see your argument as the fallacy that it is. Now I know this will probably degenerate into epithets and name-calling as most of your more contentious topics do, but what kind of debate site would EVC be if we all just ... agreed?Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

I've been reading this a little. I think get why there's so much arguing and angry words.Pauline claims that the bible supporting god's ultimate authority because he beliefs the bible is divine, and written by god. This may seem circular, but he remedies it by his belief in evidence that it's true.(such as prophecies coming true, etc). Atheists and agnostics do not believe in this evidence, and as a result, in their view, the reasoning becomes circular.As is already becoming apparent, the evidence is IN DISPUTE. And it depends on the evidence if the reasoning is circular or not. For discussion about evidence: check all the topics.Criticism about circular reasoning is FUTILE, unless you happen to convince them that their evidence is false, or you let them be because a person just believes himself that the evidence is false.It's all very subjective. As I noted in this topic, for this reason, reasoning about circular reasoning tends to once again go in wel... circles using evidence are arguments, because everyone has different views about positive evidence, and refuting evidence.As for me: I am a Christian with heavy doubts and agnostic tendencies, so eh... I haven't worked it out. I do believe the general scientific opinions, so at the moment I am quite in a hassle. I do still believe, but science tend to have evidence, or at least logical rational theories about stuff based on evidence. But that's my personal view and besides the point.EDIT: by the way, if you use ''we know nothing 100%, even that the sky is blue is only 99,99% sure'' logic , even something simple as that could be accused to be a very tiny little bit circular. Just to drive the point home. But generally, logic becomes more or less circular depending on the evidence, so no one actively questions the sky colour for long.Edited by WSW24, : adding thingsEdited by WSW24, : No reason given.Edited by WSW24, : No reason given.

The bigger issue could well be that it is not atheists and agnostics questioning his evidence but very devout Christian believers as well.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

quote:

---

Pauline claims that the bible supporting god's ultimate authority because he beliefs the bible is divine, and written by god. This may seem circular, but he remedies it by his belief in evidence that it's true.(such as prophecies coming true, etc). Atheists and agnostics do not believe in this evidence, and as a result, in their view, the reasoning becomes circular.

---

However, Pauline simply CLAIMED to have evidence and when questioned did not produce it. Even worse, Pauline initially claimed that evidence should NOT be available. In other words Pauline is making ad hoc arguments and moving the goal posts.

quote:

---

As is already becoming apparent, the evidence is IN DISPUTE. And it depends on the evidence if the reasoning is circular or not. For discussion about evidence: check all the topics.

---

And you will find that believers fail to produce convincing evidence and in fact their examples are often of failed prophecies. Which is why her opponents were confident enough to dare her to produce the evidence.

quote:

---

Criticism about circular reasoning is FUTILE, unless you happen to convince them that their evidence is false, or you let them be because a person just believes himself that the evidence is false.

---

When they won't even say what their evidence is it seems clear to me that the "evidence" isn't their real reason for belief.

If the evidence is only valid once you assume the truth of the Bible, then it's circular reasoning, because you have to assume to be true what the evidence is meant to prove for the evidence to be valid at all.Circular reason, to remind you, is when the conclusion and one of the premises are the same. If the validity of the evidence meant to prove a conclusion is premised on the conclusion being true then you're engaged in circular reasoning. Noting that an argument is based on a fallacy and is therefore invalid disproves an argument regardless of whether its conclusion or premises are true or not. That's why they're called logical fallacies and not logical "falsities." It's not that a fallacious argument proves that the conclusion is false, because it doesn't. A fallacious argument proves nothing at all.Otherwise I could prove any statement by simply constructing a fallacious argument for the contrary. If the conclusions of a fallacious argument are interpreted as known to be false as a result, then logically the inverse statement must be true ( ~~A = A, by double negation.) But we know that's not how it works. Fallacious arguments prove nothing at all - just as Pauline has proven nothing at all, this entire thread. That's the best part - fallacies in arguments are never subjective. You've either committed the fallacy or you haven't. It never matters what you were actually trying to prove; if your argument was fallacious you've failed to prove it. There's no subjectivity about it at all. I'm an atheist, too, who was once in your position. I think when you look back at this point in your life from the future you'll realize you're not actually a Christian at all, now, and haven't been for some time.

As I'm sure you know, many theists will consider the "evidence" for their faith invisible until such time as they "receive the Holy Spirit." So to them, it's not circular at all since they instantly undergo some sort of awakening which unbelievers will never experience.Most of the unbelieving anti-Crashfrogism infidels in this thread will never understand the wisdom and enlightenment (which I like to call "evidence") which was revealed to me upon accepting you as my Savior. Praise you.Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Because the evidence is IN DISPUTE, who is convinced depends on the ideological mindset of who is convinced and who is not convinced OF THE DISPUTED EVIDENCE, so around and around we merrily go, debating the DISPUTED EVIDENCE.Secularists DISPUTE EVIDENCE like fulfilled prophecy, application of historical data, geology, and interpretations of archeological discoveries, geneological data, mysterious phenomena, human cultures and observed complexity.Creationist believers DISPUTE EVIDENCE like dating methodology, mathmatical calculations, application of two, four, ten and eleven etc dimensional models for a three metric dimensional universe, historical data, geology, interpretations of archeological discoveries, geneological data, mysterious phenomena, human cultures and observed complexity. Edited by Buzsaw, : remove two wordsEdited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Content deleted because the above post was declared off-topic while I was composing the message.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Well, since I'm the one who created the topic, I should know whether I am 'desperate' for peer approval or simply for the evolutionist community to understand the simple concept of self authentication by stepping out of their bigoted mindset. I don't so much as to care about furthering the topic anymore either simply because I've gotten plenty of demonstration of sheer incapacity and weakness of the atheist/evolutionary mind to comprehend an idea totally foreign to its realm and worldview. That is pitiable. And I at best and worst only pity the participants of this thread who have so enthusiastically provided an emotional outlet for their crippled minds' incapacity. It is not up to me to convince you of anything, you and I are well aware of that. Honestly, this discussion is one where there is no need of evidence - as in evidence for whether or not God is infact the ultimate authority as He claims to be- to be produced. The reason being, such a claim was neither presented for scrutiny nor is the main topic at hand. It surely was used multiple times by me in order to illustrate my main topic- is self-authentication valid in worldviews that incorporate an ultimate authority?. That doesn't at all mean that the main topic be shoved aside in a desperate (to use the word in this instance seems more appropriate to me, Apothecus) attempt to distract the participants or boost the glamor or potency of the discussion by asking for "EVIDENCE, for God being the Ultimate authority!!!"If this discussion was a demonstration of the bigot nature of the atheist community, then let me applaud you all for you have communicated the message quite potently. For example, participants who do not understand the difference between internal and external difference. I honestly do not know how to communicate the idea to them. I know that that is a very simple concept. And yet, I've got people who claim that 'a person demonstrating his character qualities and works that make him worthy of the title of ultimate authority' is mere EVIDENCE. Yes it is, but what kind of evidence? I don't think they ask that question. There is absolutely no point is stopping right there and concluding that evidence authenticates a person's claims. I am not saying that is wrong..but it is not right either. Think about it. Yes, you do appear quite flippant. And neither will I accept any apologetic assurances because I well know that the main intent was infact, to deride. If not, I am horrendously surprised that even you would resort to such a childish means of rebuttal. There is no parallel at all between crashfrog's claims and God's claims. You and I know very well that Christianity is a faith founded in history. Christianity has been subject to scrutiny and has passed the test. If Christianity is 'irrational' to you guys, then atheism takes the word to a whole another realm to us. Please remember that.I don't understand the intent of the 'show me the evidence for God's being the ultimate authority' chant being sung here. Is it to 'make me- the theist- think about my own claims, perhaps to make me realize that they are wrong (as my opponents would claim they are)? If so, there is no point, really. That would be like me trying to explain the intricacies and workings of atheism to you all. I would suck at that. And you know, you guys suck at teaching me about my own faith too. Instead, why don't we all just discuss the proposed topic? The topic being, is the concept of self-authentication valid in worldivews that incorporate an ultimate authority, why/why not? If yes, how?Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

I see you're having a good time, Apothecus.Indeed, have a good one.