Page 80 of 82 < 1 2 ... 78 79 80 81 82 >
Topic Options
#510814 - 07/16/03 08:10 AM Re: aliens and christianity.
Jesse Hamm Offline
Member

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 682
Loc: Portland, USA
Quote:
Joe: The attribute of [atheism] says nothing about the candidate's actual views
regarding the relevant political issues. ... Knowing that someone is atheist doesn't tell you anything about what they believe-- it only tells you that they don't believe in god.


By this reasoning, schools shouldn't refuse to hire an astronomy professor who disbelieves that the earth is round or that stars are larger than they appear. After all, his disbelief in something tells you nothing about what he believes.

Quote:
Joe: I wasn't aware that devout practitioners of the Jewish faith had ambitions
of slaying witches.


That was a hypothetical designed to remedy your flawed analogy. (Flawed, in that you used a theist -- the devout Jew -- to represent an atheist, which is just confusing in this context.)

Quote:
Joe: I remember a couple of years ago talking to a [creationist] co-worker, and
hearing him state that the speed of light is constantly changing. ... Hence my concern about unleashing creationism in science courses. The end result wouldn't be a challenge to one theory, but to science as a whole.


"I encountered some kooks who belong to Group X...all of Group X must therefore be kooky!" This is like saying NAMBLA is proof that homosexual schoolteachers will molest our boys.

Creationism isn't barred from schools for rational reasons, but because of illogical prejudices like these.
_________________________
http://jessehamm.blogspot.com

Top
#510815 - 07/16/03 08:12 AM Re: aliens and christianity.
Jesse Hamm Offline
Member

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 682
Loc: Portland, USA
Quote:
Ed: consider fish that are occasionally born with lungs in addition to gills
.... It's conceivable that in the right environment, those lungs would prove useful and be passed on (as it seems to have in lungfish and on an on through amphibians to reptiles to birds and mammals). ... Evolution is the term we use to describe this.

Kal: Can you please refer us to the
evidence you quoted.

Ed: I didn't quote any evidence - I've seen lungfish with my very eyes ...


Looks like the ol' bait & switch. As an example of useful genetic mutations, Ed said that fish are occasionally born with lungs, pointing out that this trait could become useful someday, "as it seems to have in lungfish." Then, after being questioned repeatedly about this, Ed says he was referring to lungfish all along. Yet lungfish are always born with lungs, not "occasionally." This is no present-day mutation; it's a genetic trait that was already there.

I gets more interesting; notice this claim, appearing in the same post:

"The evidence is there, and is so far irrefutable."

In the same post that he backpedals on his best (only?) evidence to date, Ed still manages to affirm the dogma that we're surrounded by rock-solid evidence. Evidence that, according to him, "we can observe happening all over the place all the time. Like gravity." It's this kind of baseless dogma that's kept evolutionary theory entrenched in our schools for so long.

Another, similar development emerges: after pages of us asking over and over for evolutionary evidence, and being put off by a lot of hemming and hawing, Ed comes out with statements like this:

"All of this was covered before, and quite thoroughly, with a lot of evidence. Stop trying to go back down avenues that were already covered and blocked off."

A handy approach: delay requests for evidence until the thread is super-long, and then wave backward at it saying,"You want MORE evidence?
This thread is crawling with it. We covered that in posts hm-hm and hm-hm-hm."

At least he's not alone in this approach; I've been seeing it alot from his compadres on these past few pages. Yet what evidence has actually been cited? By my count: snowflakes (twice refuted), Ed's "occasional" mutant lung (see above), and some fossil evidence a poster named Fish brought up in a post around the middle of the thread (which I countered; he hasn't posted
since). Not exactly mountains of proof.

In fact, this phenomenon characterizes the past century and half of evolutionary dogma. In Darwin's time, responses to criticism were often
along the lines of,"This is a new theory; evidence will emerge eventually. Give it time." But after enough time had passed, the defense morphed into,"Don't pester us for evolutionary evidence. It's been long established, and we don't have time to dredge it all up again for you ignorants." Like the old schoolyard cowboy trick: "Wanna see my quick draw? Wait for
it...here it comes........wanna see it again?" Somehow people keep falling for it.

I don't mean to accuse anyone here of sneakiness. I think those arguing for evolution honestly believe evidence for it exists, and even that such
evidence has been posted here on this thread. Whether they can recall any of it is another story. Like a childhood memory, it seems certain, yet wholly indistinct.

Quote:
Ed: Look, let me show you a really basic example of something that your
misunderstanding of thermodynamics would prohibit. If I take a deck of cards and drop them over and over again on a table, it is not completely inconceivable that some will lean against others and stand upright against each other. There you have order from disorder - and all it took was the energy provided by gravity.


How is two cards leaning against each other an example of increased order?

Furthermore, how does this speak to creationist objections regarding thermodynamics?
_________________________
http://jessehamm.blogspot.com

Top
#510816 - 07/16/03 08:14 AM Re: aliens and christianity.
Jesse Hamm Offline
Member

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 682
Loc: Portland, USA
Fufu,

Quote:
Fufu: If you' re really interested in informing yourself about what facts lead to
the conclusion that concerning the evolvement of life on earth an evolutionary process is the most probable, you can find them here:


Sorry; I'd already visited those links, and found them as lacking as the evolutionary arguments on this thread.

You later state that variation entails an increase in complexity, but this is false. Eight different puppies are no more genetically complex than their mother and father. To my knowledge, this is the case even if they are mutated. A corruption of info doesn't entail an addition of info. Even if a mutation were passed on, all that would result is a strain of different animals, never more complex ones. How then does the supposed progression from less to greater complexity occur?

Quote:
Fufu: For an evolutionary process to occur, it doesn't make any difference why there is selection, only THAT there is selection. The only important thing is that some replicators are copied and spread and the others are not.


The failure of some parts to spread cannot constitute an increase in workable complexity.

Quote:
Jesse: Dawkins himself would tell you that evolution is unintentional and
undesigned.

Fufu: How do you know what Dawkins would say? Well, I don't, but I seriously doubt he would say anything in favor of your point.


A familiarity with his thinking is how I know what he would say. In his book River Out of Eden, Dawkins states: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design,
no purpose ... nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

Quote:
Jesse: our thoughts and their communication are clearly neither unintentional nor without design. The spread of ideas is therefore not analogous to evolutionary theory.

Fufu: Modern psychology and brain research has come up with serious doubts if something like an "intentional thought" even exists.


I already demonstrated repeatedly that this notion is self-refuting. For one, determinism and/or materialism would rule out the possibility of objective thought, trapping us in a subjective prison of biological influences. Second, if intent did not exist, we could not have invented any notion of it. Intent is inconceivable to intentionless mechanisms, like images are to an eyeless worm.

But even if our thoughts were intentionless, their communication is clearly designed. This entire thread is composed of communications designed by the participants. Since organisms aren't said to design their evolution (see
Dawkins: "no design"), your analogy between communication and evolution is false.

Quote:
Fufu: Any ideology pretending to be in the possession of "The Truth" immanently delivers easy justification for punishing unbelievers. ... It is our job to figure out what system of beliefs is the most reasonable and gets
closest to what might be called "the truth".


Now that's scary.

Quote:
Fufu: it doesn't make sense to treat Christianity and atheism as equal ideologies, like you would Capitalism and Communism, because the former is a specific system of beliefs, whereas the latter is by definition not an ideological claim but actually the negation thereof.


The negation of a claim can be as consequential as a belief in that claim. The negation of the Jews' right to live is far less ideologically complex than a positive affirmation of the Jewish faith; that doesn't make said negation less dangerous. Similarly, your admitted disbelief in the concept of evil throws the doors wide open to all kinds of unsavory behavior.

Quote:
Fufu: the bible is far from being the only origin of today's christian movements; most of christian theology was ripped off from Platon between 300 and 1000 a.d. and from Aristotle during the middleages.

Jesse: Interesting assertions. Any proof?

Fufu: Ask any theologian (he'd probably say "influenced by" instead of "ripped off").


Sorry; I've read plenty of theologians who would say your assertion is incredibly ignorant.

Quote:
Fufu: The writings of Augustine ... are heavily influenced by Plato and the
scholastic philosophy of St. Thomas of Aquinas builds on the writings of Aristotle. The Hebrews didn't provide a very strong metaphysical heritage, so christianity adapted many of the
deeper notions about god from the "pagans".


Ibid.
_________________________
http://jessehamm.blogspot.com

Top
#510817 - 07/16/03 08:16 AM Re: aliens and christianity.
Jesse Hamm Offline
Member

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 682
Loc: Portland, USA
Quote:
Charles: read Hume's "On Miracles" and all will be revealed.


Hume's argument was essentially that we should believe things on the basis of their likelihood, and that since miracles are unlikely, they should
therefore be disbelieved. Of course, this neatly disproves (?) every unlikely event that ever occurs...

Quote:
Charles: the Founders' end result was to separate government and theism


Let's not blame a late 20th Century trend on the Founders.

Quote:
Charles: Evidently, you prefer these commandments: ...You shall try to not murder... [etc]


The 10 Commandments' wording assumes for brevity's sake that we will succeed at our aims (as does the wording of most modern laws) -- "Don't murder, don't steal." But throughout scripture it's clear that God realizes the
difference between outcome and intent, and that he prioritizes the latter.

Quote:
Charles: intentions can be immoral or moral and judged accordingly, but that the
outcomes of intentions can also be moral or immoral.


To attribute morality to an event or circumstance is a misapplication of the word "morality." Morality, as the definitions Joe provided point out, pertains to intents, not results. Harmful events are not "immoral"; they're merely tragic. (Which isn't to deny that immoral choices are also tragic.)

Quote:
Jesse: So the crucial question we're faced with is: can the acknowledged trend
toward disorder be circumvented without such a blueprint? I await a single example of such an occurrence, biological or otherwise. In the absence of such, we must conclude that evolutionary theory is false insofar as it posits increases in order that are not directed by some kind of blueprint.

Charles: No one here is suggesting that no mechanism exists before variation takes place.


I assume that by "mechanism" you mean a means by which entropy is thwarted, such as a blueprint. Are you saying that evolutionary theory acknowledges the need for such a mechanism? This is contrary to the entire body of evolutionary thinking I've encountered.

Quote:
Jesse: ID theory does not, to my knowledge, require that the inferred Designer be immaterial.

Charles: Fine, a material being existing before material laws designed all material laws yet wasn't beholden to those material laws himself despite the laws supposedly governing all that is material. That does wonders for the ID
proposition.


ID addresses increases of biological complexity, not the advent of material laws.

Quote:
Jesse: Second, where the Christian God is concerned, he is not bound by the laws of
the material universe, so its easily conceivable for him to control matter by means which transcend natural physics.

Charles: That's why you've got a problem.


You can't conceive of a supernatural being affecting the natural universe? Since I'm sure the other atheists reading this could at least imagine that much, I'll leave you to your blinders.

Quote:
Jesse: even in the context of the material universe and the laws which govern it, there's an indication that matter is merely arranged energy. So a being of pure energy could control matter through the use of energy alone.

Charles: But energy is part of the material universe, so this doesn't explain an
immaterial god being able to effect changes in a material universe.


That energy occupies the material universe does not mean energy is material.

Quote:
Charleswhich stage of the evolution of the eye wasn't functional to demonstrate
that its complexity couldn't come about in the various forms of eyeness scientists have witnessed existing on the earth today.[?]


Any stage prior to sight wouldn't be functional. Or perhaps you can cite functional eyes that don't see anything?

Quote:
Charles: To turn the typical ID question around, I ask you to name an example of some complex design or thought which came about in a single step, not dependent upon many, many, years of research and development, trial and error? Why would such a possibility sound even remotely plausible to you, since we have no evidence for such a creative occurence?


As above, your inability to imagine that an omniscient Being could design something complex without trial and error is probably not shared by your fellows, so I'll pass on addressing it.

Besides, ID theory does not rule out the notion of the Designer trying out different plans prior to or apart from this universe.

Your quotes from Orr were not a massacre, but a suicide.

This argument in particular was the most ludicrous thing I've read in months:

Quote:
Orr: Even if selection favors simplicity, note that the history of life
must show a trend of increasing complexity. The reason is this history starts at zero complexity.


It doesn't get more circular than this! In order to prove his thesis (that biological complexity evolved from the lack thereof), he must get over the hurdle that selection favors simplicity rather than complexity. He does this by insisting that the history of life MUST show a trend of increasing complexity. Why must it show this? Because (he assumes) biological complexity evolved from the lack thereof.

And this brilliant maneuver forms the backbone of his objections to Dembski's ideas.

More from Orr:

Quote:
An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later
changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added
because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.


To quote Behe in response:

Quote:
Orr says that the parts of a mousetrap might have started out as some thing else, and then were changed into their current parts. I address this type of argument on page 66 of Darwin's Black Box. Essentially this approach doesn't help. The parts still have to be adjusted to each other at some stage, and they still don't work until all the parts have been so adjusted. That requires intelligent activity.


Elsewhere, Orr's example of the computer program is ludicrous in that even his example entails a designer. From this we're to conclude that a designer is unnecessary?

Quote:
Orr: when the Christian Right tries to tell you that evolutionists instinctively
circle the wagons whenever anyone dares question the Darwinian status quo, you should ask yourself why Wright and Kimura got through, but Behe not. The answer is, I think, straightforward: Wright and Kimura knew what they were talking about.


Orr fails to consider the obvious possibility that the reason evolutionists prefer Wright and Kimura is that their theories don't contradict the
prevailing atheistic bias.
_________________________
http://jessehamm.blogspot.com

Top
#510818 - 07/16/03 08:17 AM Re: aliens and christianity.
Jesse Hamm Offline
Member

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 682
Loc: Portland, USA
Madget,

Quote:
Madget: It took thousands of years of learning and experimentation with the natural
ingredients available to him for man to finally manifest the first Model T. The mere fact that his intelligence had to evolve to the point at which it became capable of such complex design invalidates the entire premise of your analogy.


Your apparent assumption that technological advances are due to evolved intelligence is false. Technology progresses through an accumulation of information coupled with intent, not through biological advances in the human brain. Our technology has increased more in the past century than ever before; that doesn't mean our brains have evolved more in the past century
than ever before.

The crucial difference between your car analogy and evolution is that although our minds are capable of assimilating information we encounter, our genes are not.

Quote:
Madget: The theory of evolution at least has a carefully collected and investigated
body of scientific evidence backing it which goes back -- what? -- at least 200 years.


If so, I find it strange that none of that evidence has found its way to this thread.

Incidentally, you'll want to re-check your "at least 200 years" figure; Darwin wasn't even born yet then.

Quote:
Madget: It's the gap between that and a Biblically literal, Creationist worldview
that remains downright perplexing. Questioning the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is one thing -- the belief that, say, the world is only tens of thousands years old or that we're all descended from Adam and Eve or that the planet was put together in seven days or that there is a Heaven and Hell to which we'll be relegated after death -- is quite another, and flies in the face, scientifically speaking, of much more than mere theory.


The age of the world is not stipulated by the Bible. Some creationists arrive at the "young earth" hypothesis by way of textual inferences which may or may not be sound.

As for the validity of more crucial religious claims, it often comes down to this syllogism:

1. God said A is true.
2. God is honest and all-knowing.
therefore
3. A is true.

The question of whether the syllogism's premises are correct lies beyond the purview of this already sprawling discussion. (And rightly so; if disputants can't accept basic, soundly-argued truths like God's existence and evolution's falsehood, why argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?) Perhaps a discussion about how to validate strictly religious claims will crop up around here later. Until then, here's a long-but-worthwhile paper on the subject:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/tqdecide.html
And one on arriving at a belief in Christianity:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nextseat.html

Quote:
Jesse: If I discover graffiti in my home, my first suspicions should be of my
housemates or recent visitors. However, if those explanations must be ruled out, it's reasonable to hypothesize an unknown intruder.

Madget: Yes, that's reasonable; to jump to the conclusion that the graffiti must have just 'poofed' into being, or that an angel wrote it, or that the Devil put it there -- is not.


You miss the point. If hypotheses A, B, and C are incrementally less plausible, and A and B must be ruled out, then only the rigid and close-minded would refuse to entertain C. Complaining that C is less plausible than A or B would gain you nothing.

Madget: Christianity has no business claiming authorship to the concepts of right and wrong. These basic concepts exist in most cultures and walks of life, both religious and non, post-Christian and pre.[/quote]

The existence of moral concepts in all cultures doesn't negate the Christian claim that morality was built into us all by God, but rather corroborates it.
_________________________
http://jessehamm.blogspot.com

Top
#510819 - 07/16/03 10:18 AM Re: aliens and christianity.
madget Offline
Member

Registered: 05/11/01
Posts: 4870
Jeez, Jesse. Beyond the purview of this discussion? What is it you thought I was trying to discuss, man?

I only have the energy to grant that the following:

1. God said A is true.
2. God is honest and all-knowing.
therefore
3. A is true.

-- indeed very accurately summarizes Christian "logic." Simple, dumb, and sharply circular, with a pre-determined, unalterable, and completely self-serving destination. Once that Merry-Go-Round machinery is psychologically locked into place, I guess there really is no point debating -- it's like trying to get your horsey to ride off across the fairgrounds. Kick him all you want, he's just gonna keep running his tidy little circle.

As for the Model T thing, you're missing the point, but oh well. As for the existence of moral concepts in other cultures, it corroborates nothing other than the idea that the human mind is predisposed to breaking its behavior into a "right" and "wrong" duality -- the specifics of the "right" and "wrong" differ greatly across different cultures, times, and contexts; their fluidity, and the consistency with which entirely different creation myths are erected around them only serve to reduce Christianity to -- at best -- a single pane in a much larger stained-glass window. Look through only that one pane if you like, but don't expect to see the big picture anytime soon.

K

Top
#510820 - 07/16/03 11:37 AM Re: aliens and christianity.
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
Egads, hereís a couple of responses for now:

Quote:
I assume that by "mechanism" you mean a means by which entropy is thwarted, such as a blueprint. Are you saying that evolutionary theory acknowledges the need for such a mechanism? This is contrary to the entire body of evolutionary thinking I've encountered.


A blueprint isnít a mechanism, but a plan for a mechanism. The question is whether you can have a mechanism of some sort (and letís ignore the everyday sort of assumption that a mechanism is something built by a human) without a blueprint, a plan in advance. Well, yes you can, thatís the point of evolutionary change (snowflakes are another popular example). A blueprint does nothing in ďthwartingĒ entropy, rather itís a a mechanism that "thwarts" entropy. Thus, your disagreement should be (if you're thinking correctly about this) with the existence of a mechanism in place at the time of lifeís beginning, not that the evolutionary mechanism is logically impossible. Thatís a scientific (hypothetico-deductive and empirical) problem, not a logical one (for, clearly, there's nothing illogical about it -- the possibility of such a mechanism contradicts nothing). Trying to set it up as a logical problem is sophistry. Either you need a supernatural builder of material goods (which is a contradiction in terms) or you need some naturalist means for getting a mechanism. Thatís why Darwinism is more respectable in scientific circles (and in science classes), because it doesnít start with a supernatural divide (that immateriality causes material change) that canít be proven or even researched using naturalistic means (which is all science has to go on).

Quote:
ID addresses increases of biological complexity, not the advent of material laws.


But if the designer is material, then it too is subservient to material laws. Consequently, with a material designer, you fall back into the trap from which you were trying to escape by proposing an immaterial designer, youíve got no explanation of the beginning of things. If life couldnít circumvent the dictates of thermodynamics, then the material designer couldnít either. Youíre in an inescapable bind (except through faith): either God is above material laws, for Heís the creator, yet youíve got nothing to offer as to how material came from immaterial OR Heís under their ruling, isnít the creator, and youíre still left with how things developed naturalistically. This is hardly a novel problem, itís the old dilemma of dualism vs. monism, one sideís advantages are the otherís disadvantages. The more pertinent problem for you here is that positing a God does nothing in getting rid of this old dilemma, but it does conflict with the scientifico-Rationalist desire for parsimony. That means youíre necessarily on the losing end when it comes to scientific debates.

These 2 responses also touch on other issues in your last few posts. More bang for the buck.

[changed a mistake of repetition and cleared up the whole post -- 9:01 pm, 7-16-03]
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#510821 - 07/16/03 05:45 PM Re: aliens and christianity.
jeaoure Offline
Member

Registered: 03/14/02
Posts: 800
Loc: Long Beach, CA
Quote:
Originally posted by madget:
I only have the energy to grant that the following:

1. God said A is true.
2. God is honest and all-knowing.
therefore
3. A is true.

-- indeed very accurately summarizes Christian "logic." Simple, dumb, and sharply circular, with a pre-determined, unalterable, and completely self-serving destination. Once that Merry-Go-Round machinery is psychologically locked into place, I guess there really is no point debating -- it's like trying to get your horsey to ride off across the fairgrounds. Kick him all you want, he's just gonna keep running his tidy little circle.


Argh. I really didn't want to dive back in here (and I've consciously decided not to quibble with madget specifically because... well, I'd hope it's obvious at this point), but pride has bested me.

How on earth is this circular logic?!

A circle, circular logic in this case, begins where it ends. I'd thought that this would be fairly obvious. Jesse's logic is about as circular as:

1. A=B
2. B=C
3. Therefore, A=C

LINEAR logic, madget. While you may feel that Jesse is assuming an awful lot (particularly with his second point), the logic isn't circular.

By the way, I was very tickled by "sharply circular."
_________________________
http://www.ObnoxiousBoners.com

Top
#510822 - 07/16/03 08:49 PM Re: aliens and christianity.
grendel824 Offline
Member

Registered: 01/17/02
Posts: 2392
Loc: Mission Viejo, CA
Wow, I have two words for Jesse (making outright lies about things I've said by the way - bravo on hitting a new low! I'd have expected this from others that had left the threat a long time ago, but not you): Cognitive Dissonance. Enjoy it, you're swimming in it! :rolleyes:


As far as the house of cards goes, I don't necessarily see more order in two cards leaning against each other, but apparently you do - you seem to think a house of cards is more ordered than many other arrangements, so why wouldn't part of a house of cards (two cards propping each other up) NOT be more ordered than a pile of cards. If the world worked the way you seem to think it does, once a deck is shuffled, it could never be randomly shuffled back into it's orginal order, or into anything resembling order, but obviously it can.

Just by complaining about people saying "this has already covered" doesn't retroactively make it uncovered - all those posts are still there, and if I didn't know anything about thermodynamics or evolutions, I think I'd have a pretty decent understanding of it and why it works if I just read through these posts. You're just hoping we get tired of explaining the same thing over and over again while you pretend that we never did it and go away, so you can finally shout "victory!" You should've just done that anyway and we probanbly wouldn't have bothered to respond...

Ed

Top
#510823 - 07/16/03 09:38 PM Re: aliens and christianity.
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
It's perfectly reasonable to call

Quote:
1. God said A is true.
2. God is honest and all-knowing.
therefore
3. A is true.


circular. By granting the conclusion (like any atheist might do) AND assuming it is tied to the premises (which any atheist is not going to do), you're begging the questions as to whether or not a god, or even which god, said A, if this god is to be trusted in divulging his knowledge, and if the statements of this god are of any consequence to the facts of the matter. Note that the only way you know this god is to be trusted is by previously verifying that A (or any other proposition uttered by your god of choice) is indeed true, not because some god has supposedly said it, but because there is evidence for A. Of course, accepting the truth of an honest, allknowing god (independent of any evidence) means that you're not going to see the circularity, but it's quite circular to the rest of us, who only grant the truth of A.

(Say it with me my brothers) From The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy:

Quote:
Circular reasoning is often said to beg the question. 'Begging the question' and petitio principii are translations of a phrase in Aristotle connected with a game of formal disputation played in antiquity but not in recent times. The meanings of 'question' and 'begging' do not in any clear way determine the meaning of 'question begging'.

There is no simple argument form that all and only circular arguments have. It is not logic [...] that determines the identity of content between the premise and the conclusion. Some theorists propose rather more complicated formal or syntactic accounts of circularity. Others believe that any account of circular reasoning must refer to the beliefs of those who reason.


Thus, Jesse's petitio principii is assuming there's any connection between the state of the world and what some god supposedly stated about the world. Proposition A about the world, if true, is true regardless of whether God commented on it or not. Consider the following:

1. God supposedly said A isn't true.
2. Christians believe God is honest and all-knowing.
but
3. A is still true.
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
Page 80 of 82 < 1 2 ... 78 79 80 81 82 >