Apologetics
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
-
- Fundamentalist Moron
- Posts: 80
- Joined: 2002-11-27 10:44pm
- Location: California
That is a fact about ourselves we should all accept, yes.
Now, do you claim to know whether such circular reasoning is why Christians believe?
Now, do you claim to know whether such circular reasoning is why Christians believe?
"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
2 Corinthians 10:5
2 Corinthians 10:5
- SeebianWurm
- Padawan Learner
- Posts: 300
- Joined: 2002-11-20 09:51pm
- Contact:
-
- Fundamentalist Moron
- Posts: 80
- Joined: 2002-11-27 10:44pm
- Location: California
Stay on topic, or if you wish to change the subject, at least inform me and explain to me the relevance. What are you talking about now? Are you saying that "We believe in Jesus because he said he was the Son of God" is circular reasoning?
"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
2 Corinthians 10:5
2 Corinthians 10:5
Yes we are, idiot. Figure it out: why should you believe jesus? "Because he's the son of God" How do you know this? "Because he said he was the son of God." It uses the premise that Jesus is the son of God to prove that Jesus is the son of God.The Apologist wrote:Stay on topic, or if you wish to change the subject, at least inform me and explain to me the relevance. What are you talking about now? Are you saying that "We believe in Jesus because he said he was the Son of God" is circular reasoning?
Who wants to bet that that explanation will go right over his head?
data_link has resigned from the board after proving himself to be a relentless strawman-using asshole in this thread and being too much of a pussy to deal with the inevitable flames. Buh-bye.
-
- SMAKIBBFB
- Posts: 19195
- Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
- Contact:
*cue ricochet noise*The Apologist wrote:Stay on topic, or if you wish to change the subject, at least inform me and explain to me the relevance. What are you talking about now? Are you saying that "We believe in Jesus because he said he was the Son of God" is circular reasoning?
Sniper! Get to cover!
- SeebianWurm
- Padawan Learner
- Posts: 300
- Joined: 2002-11-20 09:51pm
- Contact:
Just pick one and go with it fucker.The Apologist wrote:Well, since three supposed contradictions have been presented on this topic, I really would appreciate if you told which one you were talking about.
But really, do you even know what it means when two propositions are contradictory?
Member of the BotM. @( !.! )@
- Durandal
- Bile-Driven Hate Machine
- Posts: 17927
- Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
- Contact:
Of course not. It's just extraordinarily naive and poor reasoning. Would you believe David Copperfield is he told you he was the son of God and made one of his sexy assistants disappear?The Apologist wrote:Stay on topic, or if you wish to change the subject, at least inform me and explain to me the relevance. What are you talking about now? Are you saying that "We believe in Jesus because he said he was the Son of God" is circular reasoning?
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
-
- Fundamentalist Moron
- Posts: 80
- Joined: 2002-11-27 10:44pm
- Location: California
1. That is not what was said originally. The reasoning first presented was "We believe in Jesus because he said he was the Son of God," which by itself is not circular reasoning. What you just presented is one step longer.Yes we are, idiot. Figure it out: why should you believe jesus? "Because he's the son of God" How do you know this? "Because he said he was the son of God." It uses the premise that Jesus is the son of God to prove that Jesus is the son of God.
2. Amusingly, even your example is not circular reasoning. It would have been, had you added one more propositional function: How do you know that what He says is true? "Because He is the Son of God." So close, and yet so far.
Anyway, what is wrong with circular reasoning? "A, therefore A" is circular reasoning, and is a valid and sound argument, as most circular reasoning is. In fact, the only thing against circular reasoning is that it is usually not convincing in the least.
It appears as though you and data_link have something to work out between you two.Of course not. It's just extraordinarily naive and poor reasoning.
"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
2 Corinthians 10:5
2 Corinthians 10:5
- Durandal
- Bile-Driven Hate Machine
- Posts: 17927
- Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
- Contact:
It's using hearsay as evidence, which is a logical fallacy. It's also an appeal to authority, to some extent, and in this case, an irrelevant, nonexistent authority. It doesn't even matter which one it is; the reasoning is wrong.The Apologist wrote:1. That is not what was said originally. The reasoning first presented was "We believe in Jesus because he said he was the Son of God," which by itself is not circular reasoning. What you just presented is one step longer.Yes we are, idiot. Figure it out: why should you believe jesus? "Because he's the son of God" How do you know this? "Because he said he was the son of God." It uses the premise that Jesus is the son of God to prove that Jesus is the son of God.
No, saying "Jesus is the son of God because he said so, and it must be true, since he's the son of God," is circular.2. Amusingly, even your example is not circular reasoning. It would have been, had you added one more propositional function: How do you know that what He says is true? "Because He is the Son of God." So close, and yet so far.
Conclusions cannot be reached by assuming them to be true as a part of your argument.Anyway, what is wrong with circular reasoning? "A, therefore A" is circular reasoning, and is a valid and sound argument, as most circular reasoning is. In fact, the only thing against circular reasoning is that it is usually not convincing in the least.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
- Lagmonster
- Master Control Program
- Posts: 7719
- Joined: 2002-07-04 09:53am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
Of course not. Christians believe for two reasons:The Apologist wrote:That is a fact about ourselves we should all accept, yes.
Now, do you claim to know whether such circular reasoning is why Christians believe?
1) They were indoctrinated from a very young age. Since so many people claim there's a god, and they've been told from youth that there may be something out there, they fall into the 'popular opinion' trap.
2) They are afraid. Usually of their own mortality, but fear nonetheless. If you were afraid of nothing, you wouldn't need gods. Unquestionably.
Note: I'm semi-retired from the board, so if you need something, please be patient.
- SeebianWurm
- Padawan Learner
- Posts: 300
- Joined: 2002-11-20 09:51pm
- Contact:
-
- Fundamentalist Moron
- Posts: 80
- Joined: 2002-11-27 10:44pm
- Location: California
But not circular. Concession accepted.It's using hearsay as evidence, which is a logical fallacy. It's also an appeal to authority, to some extent, and in this case, an irrelevant, nonexistent authority. It doesn't even matter which one it is; the reasoning is wrong.
That is precisely what I just told you, yes.No, saying "Jesus is the son of God because he said so, and it must be true, since he's the son of God," is circular.
Of course not. Do you have a point? How does this discredit circular reasoning? Is there something wrong with "A, therefore A"?Conclusions cannot be reached by assuming them to be true as a part of your argument.
Evolutionists believe for two reasons:Of course not. Christians believe for two reasons:
1) They were indoctrinated from a very young age. Since so many people claim there's a god, and they've been told from youth that there may be something out there, they fall into the 'popular opinion' trap.
2) They are afraid. Usually of their own mortality, but fear nonetheless. If you were afraid of nothing, you wouldn't need gods. Unquestionably.
1) They were indoctrinated from a very young age. Since so many people claim that macroevolution occurred, and they've been told from youth that there may be something evolving out there, they fall into the 'popular opinion' trap.
2) They are ignorant. Usually of their own uneducation, but ignorant nonetheless. If you were ignorant of nothing, you wouldn't need evolution. Unquestionably.
Not that I would really know or anything, since I have never really been one myself, but it coheres with my own personal beliefs, so it must be so!
...Seriously though, what has possessed you to think that you, a skeptic, are in any position to tell me, a Christian, why I believe what I believe?
"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
2 Corinthians 10:5
2 Corinthians 10:5
- Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
Give it up, asshole. You can say "concession accepted" a hundred times, but it won't fool anyone. It is circular logic to say that this particular form of hearsay is something more than hearsay based on its own claims to be something more. You are simply playing sophistic games.The Apologist wrote:But not circular. Concession accepted.It's using hearsay as evidence, which is a logical fallacy. It's also an appeal to authority, to some extent, and in this case, an irrelevant, nonexistent authority. It doesn't even matter which one it is; the reasoning is wrong.
A therefore A is a tautology and proves nothing. If you are so mind-bogglingly stupid that you don't see the problem with circular reasoning, then there is no hope for you. You can try so very hard to pretend to be intelligent, carefully construct your sentences, lovingly craft your name-dropping of philosophy-babble terms, but none of it means anything when you insist on making an ass out of yourself by defending doctrines which make no sense, and seizing upon nitpicks or semantic loopholes to attack your opponents (do you think it's not obvious?).Of course not. Do you have a point? How does this discredit circular reasoning? Is there something wrong with "A, therefore A"?
Because the alternative (that you're simply an idiot) isn't as charitable....Seriously though, what has possessed you to think that you, a skeptic, are in any position to tell me, a Christian, why I believe what I believe?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
- Durandal
- Bile-Driven Hate Machine
- Posts: 17927
- Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
- Contact:
Fine, I'll concede that your reasoning is not fallacious in the way someone else described it to be, but it's still fallacious.The Apologist wrote:But not circular. Concession accepted.
You asked what was wrong with circular reasoning. I told you.Of course not. Do you have a point? How does this discredit circular reasoning? Is there something wrong with "A, therefore A"?
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
- SeebianWurm
- Padawan Learner
- Posts: 300
- Joined: 2002-11-20 09:51pm
- Contact:
Firstly: the amount of supporters of Evolution is vastly less than the support of any type of a "God" belief. It's hard to fall into a popular-opinion trap when that is not a popular opinion, and the idea is not a "belief" in the first place.The Dumbass wrote:Evolutionists believe for two reasons:Of course not. Christians believe for two reasons:
1) They were indoctrinated from a very young age. Since so many people claim there's a god, and they've been told from youth that there may be something out there, they fall into the 'popular opinion' trap.
2) They are afraid. Usually of their own mortality, but fear nonetheless. If you were afraid of nothing, you wouldn't need gods. Unquestionably.
1) They were indoctrinated from a very young age. Since so many people claim that macroevolution occurred, and they've been told from youth that there may be something evolving out there, they fall into the 'popular opinion' trap.
2) They are ignorant. Usually of their own uneducation, but ignorant nonetheless. If you were ignorant of nothing, you wouldn't need evolution. Unquestionably.
Not that I would really know or anything, since I have never really been one myself, but it coheres with my own personal beliefs, so it must be so!
...Seriously though, what has possessed you to think that you, a skeptic, are in any position to tell me, a Christian, why I believe what I believe?
Secondly: there is a large amount of fossils, genetics, and the results of experiments that are evidence for evolution. It does not require, nor want, irrational belief - just understanding of the process.
Wager: The Dumbass will reignite his semantics whoring over the use of "belief" in these posts.
[ Ye Olde Coked-Up Werewolf of the Late Knights ]
Fuck fish.
Fuck fish.
-
- Fundamentalist Moron
- Posts: 80
- Joined: 2002-11-27 10:44pm
- Location: California
But the actual inference in question, "We believe in Jesus because he said he was the Son of God," is not circular logic. This is all I am arguing.Give it up, asshole. You can say "concession accepted" a hundred times, but it won't fool anyone. It is circular logic to say that this particular form of hearsay is something more than hearsay based on its own claims to be something more. You are simply playing sophistic games.
Um... it proves that if A, then A. This is what is known as a logical proof by identity, or "trivial validity."A therefore A is a tautology and proves nothing.
Have you ever received any education in formal logic? Because you sound exactly the way I did, before I decided to learn about logic officially, and not rely on my own gatherings.
If there is more of a "problem" with "A, therefore A" than that it "proves nothing," I would love to hear it.If you are so mind-bogglingly stupid that you don't see the problem with circular reasoning, then there is no hope for you.
That made no sense. "Because" answers "why" questions; I asked a "what" question. And, the alternative to what?
...Seriously though, what has possessed you to think that you, a skeptic, are in any position to tell me, a Christian, why I believe what I believe?
Because the alternative (that you're simply an idiot) isn't as charitable.
Well, can you support your position?You asked what was wrong with circular reasoning. I told you.
And, what does it mean when you say that "there is something wrong" with circular reasoning? Does that mean that it is invalid?
Unfortunately, we were not talking about "any type of a 'God' belief." We were speaking specifically of Christianity.Firstly: the amount of supporters of Evolution is vastly less than the support of any type of a "God" belief.
Most people who even concern themselves with such matters are involved in intellectual circles - schools, colleges, universities, research. Evolution, I think, is popularly accepted in intellectual circles.It's hard to fall into a popular-opinion trap when that is not a popular opinion, and the idea is not a "belief" in the first place.
And yes, it is a belief. If you contend that the Theory of Evolution is veridical, then that is your belief.
Then it is right in league with Christianity.Secondly: there is a large amount of fossils, genetics, and the results of experiments that are evidence for evolution. It does not require, nor want, irrational belief - just understanding of the process.
"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
2 Corinthians 10:5
2 Corinthians 10:5
- SeebianWurm
- Padawan Learner
- Posts: 300
- Joined: 2002-11-20 09:51pm
- Contact:
Yes, but they are predisposed to the idea through the general acceptance of such a belief.The Dumbass Semantics Whore wrote:Unfortunately, we were not talking about "any type of a 'God' belief." We were speaking specifically of Christianity.SeebianWurm wrote:Firstly: the amount of supporters of Evolution is vastly less than the support of any type of a "God" belief.
I just won the bet. Are you incapable of not playing semantics games? Because you haven't stopped since you fucking got here.This Fucking Moron wrote:Most people who even concern themselves with such matters are involved in intellectual circles - schools, colleges, universities, research. Evolution, I think, is popularly accepted in intellectual circles.It's hard to fall into a popular-opinion trap when that is not a popular opinion, and the idea is not a "belief" in the first place.
And yes, it is a belief. If you contend that the Theory of Evolution is veridical, then that is your belief.
How the fuck? You've made similar statements before, and then never returned to the thread to corroborate your claims. Is this an indicator you plan to stop participating?The Cowardly Heckler wrote:Then it is right in league with Christianity.Secondly: there is a large amount of fossils, genetics, and the results of experiments that are evidence for evolution. It does not require, nor want, irrational belief - just understanding of the process.
If so, Praise Allah!
Christianity is an inherently irrational belief system. Without actual, physical evidence or falsifiable theories to its name, many accept its truth based on a book and its followers intolerant conversion attempts. There is no reason to believe in a Deity; and if there was, there is still no reason to believe in Christianity as the particular flavor of it.
Edit: removed extra [/quote] tag
[ Ye Olde Coked-Up Werewolf of the Late Knights ]
Fuck fish.
Fuck fish.
- Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
Yes it is, because you are not truthfully representing the argument. In reality, the argument is "We believe in Jesus because the Bible says he's the Son of God, and we know the Bible is true because it says so." This is definitely circular. Unless you were alive two thousand years ago, you did not speak to Jesus, you do not know what he did or didn't say, and you certainly have no physical evidence, so all you have is hearsay whose inerrancy is based on its own claims of inerrancy.The Apologist wrote:But the actual inference in question, "We believe in Jesus because he said he was the Son of God," is not circular logic. This is all I am arguing.Give it up, asshole. You can say "concession accepted" a hundred times, but it won't fool anyone. It is circular logic to say that this particular form of hearsay is something more than hearsay based on its own claims to be something more. You are simply playing sophistic games.
I'm not sure who you're responding to here, but this is typical of your asinine, vague claims of superior knowledge. Not once have you explained any kind of logic to anyone here; you simpy make constant allusions to having superior knowledge of logic even though you consistently fail to demonstrate any (and have even gone so far as to defend the use of circular reasoning). In effect, you generally counter logical arguments with appeals to your own authority which take the form "I know more about logic than you, so I'm right and you're wrong".Have you ever received any education in formal logic? Because you sound exactly the way I did, before I decided to learn about logic officially, and not rely on my own gatherings.
That is problem enough, since the point of an argument is to prove something, and an argument which claims to prove something but which in fact proves nothing is shit.If there is more of a "problem" with "A, therefore A" than that it "proves nothing," I would love to hear it.If you are so mind-bogglingly stupid that you don't see the problem with circular reasoning, then there is no hope for you.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
- SeebianWurm
- Padawan Learner
- Posts: 300
- Joined: 2002-11-20 09:51pm
- Contact:
- Durandal
- Bile-Driven Hate Machine
- Posts: 17927
- Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
- Contact:
That circular reasoning is flawed?The Apologist wrote:Well, can you support your position?
YESAnd, what does it mean when you say that "there is something wrong" with circular reasoning? Does that mean that it is invalid?
Jesus Christ Being Fucked by a Bar Stool, you actually claim to have received "formal education in logic"?
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
- Slartibartfast
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 6730
- Joined: 2002-09-10 05:35pm
- Location: Where The Sea Meets The Sky
- Contact:
- Slartibartfast
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 6730
- Joined: 2002-09-10 05:35pm
- Location: Where The Sea Meets The Sky
- Contact:
- Slartibartfast
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 6730
- Joined: 2002-09-10 05:35pm
- Location: Where The Sea Meets The Sky
- Contact:
You just shot yourself in the balls. You asked a rethoric question, which means that you weren't expecting any answer (unless you honestly thought that the devil had "possessed" him to think that). "What possessed you to..." equals "Why did you..."The Apologist wrote:That made no sense. "Because" answers "why" questions; I asked a "what" question. And, the alternative to what?...Seriously though, what has possessed you to think that you, a skeptic, are in any position to tell me, a Christian, why I believe what I believe?
Because the alternative (that you're simply an idiot) isn't as charitable.
"Why did you think that you, a skeptic, are in any position to tell me, a Chrisian, why I believe what I believe?"
"Because the alternative (that you're simply an idiot) isn't as charitable."
Myself, I wouldn't have put that between parentheses, though. That way I would have emphasized the alternative instead of just adding it as a thought.
Technically!
-
- Fundamentalist Moron
- Posts: 80
- Joined: 2002-11-27 10:44pm
- Location: California
Whom were you betting with?I just won the bet. Are you incapable of not playing semantics games? Because you haven't stopped since you fucking got here.
Anyway, why do you have a problem with semantics, and how have I used it more than anyone else on this topic? Need I remind you that semiotics and logic are closely related studies?
All I am doing is expressing my views, and questioning yours. Are you hostile toward "semantics" because it is a study too intellectual for you?
Keep in mind which of us is outnumbered twenty to one.How the fuck? You've made similar statements before, and then never returned to the thread to corroborate your claims. Is this an indicator you plan to stop participating?
Ignorance springs eternal, I guess...Christianity is an inherently irrational belief system. Without actual, physical evidence or falsifiable theories to its name, many accept its truth based on a book and its followers intolerant conversion attempts.
If Christianity has no "actual, physical evidence or falsifiable theories to its name," how does it then follow that it is irrational? And how do you know that many accept it because of a book and conversion attempts?
So, what are the winning numbers for California's next lottery?There is no reason to believe in a Deity; and if there was, there is still no reason to believe in Christianity as the particular flavor of it.
Oh ok, so I am supposed to read your mind, and know exactly what you mean, even when you say something completely different.Yes it is, because you are not truthfully representing the argument. In reality, the argument is "We believe in Jesus because the Bible says he's the Son of God, and we know the Bible is true because it says so." This is definitely circular.
Well, I guess I should be able to, since you obviously have the power to read Christians' minds.
But in fact, "A, therefore A" proves that if A, then A. I thought I already explained this to you. This is the most basic form of logical proof.That is problem enough, since the point of an argument is to prove something, and an argument which claims to prove something but which in fact proves nothing is shit.
No, I claimed to have decided to learn about logic officially.YES
Jesus Christ Being Fucked by a Bar Stool, you actually claim to have received "formal education in logic"?
Anyway, so you are saying that "A, therefore A" is an invalid argument? Can you explain why?
Not rhetorical, but idiomatic. I think the "what" should stay; it means "what made you think..."You just shot yourself in the balls. You asked a rethoric question, which means that you weren't expecting any answer (unless you honestly thought that the devil had "possessed" him to think that). "What possessed you to..." equals "Why did you..."
His answer still makes no sense, though.
"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
2 Corinthians 10:5
2 Corinthians 10:5