Circular reasoning

I am not interested in discussing hypothetical beliefs that may be held by hypothetical people who are not here to defend them. It seems you and I agree that science is not an ultimate authority, so I have answered your question from the OP: I hope the answer satisfies you. I demolished the case for science being an ultimate authority because it isn't. I certainly wouldn't agree that I did it "too fast," whatever that means.I'm far from certain what you mean but the last sentence I quoted, but let me see if I can suss it out. It seems that you are suggesting that I should justify looking for evidence of a god's existence when gods are non-physical beings. If that is indeed what you are asking, the answer is quite simple. If there is a god, there are two possibilities. Either gods affect things on Earth they don't. If gods affect things on Earth, we can look for evidence of a god's action. If gods don't affect things on Earth, then there's really no way for us to know about gods. Thus, if one wants to know whether and how a god affects things on Earth, we look for evidence.To put it another way, the only thing we have to examine is the world around us. If we want to look for evidence of a god, what choice do we have other than to look for that evidence around us? If you have a suggestion for a method that has shown a better track record than scientific examination of evidence for finding out things about the world, please suggest it. I would truly love to learn of such a method.

---

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

No, it makes it...wait for it....wait for it...evidence. It really doesn't matter what you have an incentive to talk about, it is the topic of this thread. You do understand that there is no such thing as "The Bible", no universally accepted canon. LOL.A Bible cannot be authoritative since there is no such thing as an authoritative Bible. Which one of the many canons do you believe to be the authoritative one, the Samaritan Canon that includes only the first five books, the Ethiopian Orthodox long Canon with over eighty books or some other Canon?Why?Have you ever read the Nicene Creed? Do you know what it is?In case you haven't, here it is.

quote:

---

We believe in one God,

​

the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

​

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

​

the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation

​

he came down from heaven:

​

by the power of the Holy Spirit

​

he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

​

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

​

he suffered death and was buried.

​

On the third day he rose again

​

in accordance with the Scriptures;

​

he ascended into heaven

​

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

​

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

​

and his kingdom will have no end

​

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,

​

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,

​

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

---

In case you are ignorant of the fact, the Nicene Creed is the most widely accepted Creed in the Christian Faith and not a matter of "my Christianity".Note that each section begins with "We believe".

---

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

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. When and where did God supposedly make this claim? Please be specific.

Excuse me, I fail to understand how your version of Christianity is the topic of this thread. I created the thread to talk about circular reasoning and its use in different worldviews. Its validity and non-validity in different circumstances. I'd like to keep it to that. Exactly. Perhaps this sums up your attitude towards Christian beliefs. Care to discuss this in another thread? Why, no I haven't. You are the only Christian who has. And the rest of us idiots are waiting for you to share it with us. Oh yeah?So 'we believe' = we imagine? We conjecture? We guess? We have no clue? Is this what you believe? This is also why I call it your version of Christianity.Look at what you said: I'm sorry, but Christianity does not imagine or conjecture. Neither does it guess. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus. And Jesus never said "there *might* be a heaven and hell.", "there might be angels", "there might be a resurrection", "there might be judgment", "I might be God", "I'm guessing you have to believe in me to enter heaven".And out of all the things in this world, you pick the Nicene creed to make your point? Unbelievable.By the way, I'm assuming you actually read the Nicene creed since you quote it from somewhere. Have you noticed the first 4 lines? They read:"We believe in one God,the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen."You believe in this creed, but you also believe in evolution. How is that?It is mind-boggling how categorical, flat statements as found in the Nicene creed are battered out of meaning by people like you.If you haven't gotten the point, we believe = there is.I'm not surprised. You aren't the only who *uses* Christianity for a religion and then ignores its maker and all that He says.

LOLToo funny. Yes. We believe, we imagine, we conjecture, we guess and we have no clue whether there is an afterlife or not.Do I believe that GOD created all that is, seen and unseen?Yup, I believe that.But it is simply a personal belief. It really is very simple.I believe that the Theory of Evolution explains "How GOD did it."

---

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

I didn't realize you guys were so unfamiliar with the concept of self-authentication. 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.^ God authenticates GodIf a rationalist counts rationality as the ultimate authority, he will present a 'reason' ( a rational process) for his claim,^ Rationality authenticates rationalityIf an atheist counts science as the ultimate authority, he will present a scientific explanation for why that is so,^ A scientific explanation authenticates scienceNever will people refer to other sources as the primary basis. It is always self-authentication that matters the most when talking about the ultimate authority. And this self-authentication is not a logical fallacy, as many ignorant atheists think. We don't care if the object is personal or non-personal. The process by which ultimate authority is ascribed to it, is circular reasoning. And that is not fallacious in this particular thought process.I thought people at EvC were clever enough to know this much.Instead, I've gotten all sorts of stupid nonsense including Jar's citing the Nicene creed to demonstrate to me how one should go about contradicting his own 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... I can only imagine the distortion of thoughts going through your mind.Its funny how you trust God with *your* afterlife when you apparently don't trust Him with matters like creation. He must have been lying when He said "And God said let there be...." in Genesis, huh. Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

You didn't reply to my last message, so I'm going to assume you agree with it. Since we agree that science isn't an ultimate authority, I guess that means that those who rely on science to learn about the world aren't subject to your charge of circular reasoning. Of course, the scientific method doesn't rely on the authority of science to support itself. Instead, it relies on the observed fact that it produces results. It's the ultimate in pragmatism. It works. Following the scientific method, we learn things that allow us to make predictions about how things work, and how things that we build will work after they're done. The scientific method is the greatest success story that this planet has ever seen.Religion, on the other hand, has nothing to support itself other than itself. As you so accurately point it, it's one huge circular argument that has failed to produce any results that cannot be obtained by other methods.

---

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

Agree with which part? They aren't. Its those who look to science like it is one, that are my topic of discussion. More precisely, their apparent hypocrisy. A perfect example of circular reasoning. Science is the authority because we *observe* (note, a scientific element) that it produces results.The self authentication is readily visible.If you're trying to say that there are no sources that corroborate the authenticity of God (the bible), you obviously are wrong. There are fulfilled prophecies, testimonies, supernatural occurrences, transformed lives, etc that all point to God's authenticity. To think that science is the only success story is pretty naive. People are not idiots to believe in God if they don't think that spirituality produces good results. Okay, I haven't asked you for this nonsense so please don't give it to me. Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

Well, there is evidence for evolution.Remember, God doesn't say anything in the Bible, rather the authors of the different stories created characters they called God and wrote dialog for the character.But as you so nicely point out, my reasoning is not circular. I believe GOD will be the ultimate authority when it comes to my salvation if there is an afterlife, and accept the evidence when it comes to Evolution.

---

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

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. 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.) 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.) 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.)

But it's the actual production of the results, not our observation of the results, that demonstrates the success of science. If the observation of results was all it took, we'd have to declare magic as successful as science. Now, if you want to equate science with producing results, I'd hardly be in a position to argue with you. But it wouldn't really help your silly position anyway. Nobody asked you for any of your nonsense, but you keep doling it out. It's a debate forum, dearie. If you can't stand the heat....

---

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

Evolution itself is a highly inadequate theory. It doesn't explain the metaphysical element of humanity. It doesn't explain man's rationality. It does account for his conscience. It assumes a miracle occurred. It relies on that miracle. I don't care about a theory that is insufficient. Now I see exactly where you're coming from. No wonder.So God is a fictional character. And you believe there is an afterlife based on a fictional story.In that case, what compels you to believe something that some guy named Matthew or Paul or Moses wrote thousands of years ago and live by it? Why do you even care? Oh, your reasoning is like none other. It is beyond any conceivable logical fallacy.

There is no metaphysical element of humanity. "Men" aren't frequently rational (which evolution does explain.) Kin selection.

Strangely enough, we don't evaluate the success of a theory by looking at all the things it doesn't do, particularly a list of things that it doesn't even purport to do. The theory of gravity doesn't explain any of those things, does that make it "insufficient?"Instead, we evaluate a theory on the basis of what it does do. Are you now going to claim that the ToE doesn't explain anything?(Note: for purposes of this reply, I'm not quarreling with Pauline's characterization that the ToE doesn't explain any of the things she lists. If another wants to take on that list, please feel free.) Oh, please do educate us. What miracle does the ToE relies on?

---

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, then don't reply to it if it looks like nonsense. Simple.I won't be offended. Good, you know it. Pity it took so long to confess as much. I don't care. And you seem to have completely missed the point. That is really such a childish answer.Prove that you are the ultimate authority, then. 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. Are you a psychologist? How do you know by what method I came to my conclusion? Quite silly.Do you even want to listen to my reasons?