Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[Hilston]

The Blur ...

The Blur ...

I just realized that I got confused at the end of my last post who I was responding to -- you all begin to blur together after a while -- and I mistakenly referred to ThePhy as aharvey. I guess that's bound to happen when I don't reply to these all in one sitting. Please forgive this faux pas (although I think my comments to aharvey probably apply to ThePhy and vice versa).

Carry on,
Jim

 

[Clete]

Jim,

Post 599 is my pick for POTD!

:first: :thumb:

 

[mighty_duck]

Begging the question is a circular reasoning fallacy in which a circular argument is used within one Syllogism (see Chilli's Wikipedia research provided in an earlier post). Circular reasoning describes all forms of argumentation in that all arguments are ultimately tautological. Moden ponens, syllogisms, etc. are ultimately circular statements, but that does not make them fallacious, as in question-begging.

Talk about a clarification that doesn't clarify anything.

On your view, when is circular reasononing fallacious, and when is it not? When the circle is long enough? When the words "God" or "Bible" happen to be part of the circle?

 

[Mustard Seed]

ThePhy
First of all, it's not my goal to convince you of anything. My aim is to answer your objections rationally and biblically. Second, it is fascinating to me how often non-/anti-theists resort to this sort of blow-off response and never offer their own accounting for logic and reason. Their protests typically amount to: "You might as well believe in the IPU or the FSM or IGG (in this case) to justify your use of logic." Of course, when pressed to explain how the IPU or the FSM or the IGG can account for one's use of logic and reason, they're at a loss, because once they actualy think deeply upon the matter and proffer a response, they start describing an IPU or a FSM that is curiously similar to the God of the Bible.

FYI to Hilston I've challenged key assertions from the above in a different thread.

It is not God's intent to "improve the world." God repeatedly condemns this world.

I take issue with this. The world is to be ultimately improved by God. God only condemns those aspects of this world that work against themselves, ala mene, mene, tekel, upharsin--the writting on the wall. God's intention is to have this world significantly improved that it will not be utterly destroyed at his next coming.

The Bible describes this world as cursed and subject to the consequences imposed on it by the fall of Adam in the Garden. God's intent is to improve the spiritual lives of His people.

He is also intent that those people inheret this planet in a glorified state.

Everything that happens around those people are in accordance with His secret decrees, but are inscrutible with regard to His purposes and intentions (Deut 29:29).

I do not share the absolutist take on the unreachableness of the secrets of God's intentions. It will take time but all will be known. Knowledge will sweep the world like a flood.

All of which, without the existence of God and His sustaining power over nature, would be utterly impossible.

I'll agree with you on that. But of course existence itself sans God is imposible.

Statements like this demonstrate how badly you're missing my point. God is not something to be inserted or removed. You forget that you're not debating a God-of-the-Gaps proponent. It's not that God has not been inserted; rather, it is that God cannot be removed. He is there, whether you like it or not. He is holding your brain together, ThePhy.

That statement on holding the brain together sounds to be aproaching pantheism. God allows his brain to opperate as it has been, true. And as all power eminates from God it being brought into existance and remaining in it's present state are all permited by God and revokable at any moment God sees fit. But God is not literally standing by keeping his nueral connections from flying apart.

On the contrary, the successes of science are in spite of the Godless men who use God's tools without warrant.

If they obtain it without his warent then they would not really obtain it at all. They have his warrant, they simply are accountable for the repercusions of how they use what they discover and the means they take to get there. If God allows them to discover it, allows them to remain in that course, then he warrents it, for whatever reason that we cannot at present comprehend.

Many so-called "advances" in science are built on the flawed framework of previous erroneous ideas.

And traditional Christian thought as viewed today is devoid of such crimes?

These may eventually fall off, but not without a tenacious fight from those who are religiously committed to the flawed framework, not until some other God-less explanation is posited. Only then the devotees of that flawed framework will budge.

If the next explanation is utterly god-less/truthless then it will not be accepted. I concure that current science has a few flawed pretenses. I'm sure ThePhy will readily admit they haven't got it down pat, that's the whole beauty of the system, the purest view of science acknowledges that they will never figure it all out, they will be forever searching, forever attempting to learn. While I find it sad when I see one that only sees science as the means of finding truth It's saddening for me but I admire the determination to keep going in spite of the seeming imposibility of the task. Such determination to find truth would be wisely adopted by all true Christians so long as they kept in mind that science is merely one form of finding truth.

To my knowledge, Biblical argumentation, what I've attempted here, is rare in most debates, let alone formal ones. What I typically see are the standard theistic classical proofs that have been offered for centuries. I see very infrequent use or application of debate strategy taught in the Bible or the transcendental methodology it employs. That's all I've been trying to offer here.

As an aspiring theologian I question your claim that your method of debate proceeds soley from the Bible. Can you demonstrate such? Perhapse create a new thread with this post I'm responding to and point out how you derived what you've stated from the Bible and your justification for such interpretations.

The self-indicting nature of this proud boast should be exposed. First ThePhy pretends to use his mind and reasoning faculties autonomously, as if God isn't holding his brain together or hasn't given him the ability to reason in the first place.

I agree that those are assumptions that ThePhy appears to have made. But in the thread I already referenced I therein point out the problems with your relationship between reason/logic and God. An arrogance of your very own.

Then, he arrogantly places himself and his work, as an ostensibly objective scientist, above the unproductive clutter of philosophy. What he fails to acknowledge is that his ability to do anything scientific at all comes from the One whom aharvey would like to see disappear. The sentence, "No fictional deities need apply", in its very formulation, affirms the True Deity that aharvey readily lumps amongst the fictional ones. Aharvey wants to go back to the lab and shut the door to the God who holds the door together. He wants to do science using the tools of reason and science that God has established and given to man. He takes for granted the workings of his mind, his ability to make judgments, to assess evidence and to formulate hypotheses, not wanting to have his mind cluttered with the philosophy of why these things are possible if we are nothing but the product of chance, time and matter in motion. I find it fascinating that, of all the professions in the world that come mind, there are two that view themselves as being above bias and truly objective in their pursuit of the 'facts' for the sake of "improving the world": Scientists and journalists.

Many religionists and theologians see themselves above such also. And I don't accept that that is the take of all Scientists and Journatlists. You are setting up a false dichotomy in trying to place science as an inherent anti-pathetic relationship with relgion. Consider the rise of the western tradition and the rise of rational thought in connection to the rise of the Christian tradition. They go almost side by side despite some of the disputes between various factions of the two.

Scientists and journalists claim they can pursue the facts without the intrusion a Deity.

A few may. But I don't think your statement is terribly accurate. I think the likes of ThePhy would openly admit to being incapable of finding an omnipotent omniscient being if such a being did not want ThePhy to find him via the methods his taken. ThePhy may be arrogant and firm in his fluid dogmas affiliated with his profesion and world views but that doesn't mean he pretends he's above bias. Likewise for the majority of those in the profesions you generaly slimed.

The Bible says all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are stored in Christ (Col 2:1-3).

He's omniscient and the source of all intellegence that doesn't mean we just pray and ask for him to give us the theory of Relativity. By the sweat of our brow...

No one here, not aharvey, not ThePhy, not anyone involved in this discussion, have offered any cogent reasoning -- indeed, they cannot without fallacious question-begging -- why we should believe them and not the Bible.

Freddy get ready; rock steady ...
Jim

Your not one to talk about begging the question or no one offering cogent reasoning, you -yourself- are the one with the dirtiest hands in this regard.

Tell me which Bible would you have ThePhy and aharvey believe? The one offered by Luther (sans a few books you likely have in your Bible)? How about the Catholic Church's? Where does God specify which of all these Bibles is the best? How does God ordain for us to determine what they say? If these are easily answerable questions why has the Christian tradition been so obviously prone to entropy and fractionalization when it's said that it needs to one Lord one faith one baptism?

Apologies to ThePhy and aharvey, I could have resisted but I chose not to. I hope I've not put anyone overly out wack by interjecting midstream.

 

[mighty_duck]

No, you've made the statement, you haven't made the case. This is a non-argument. Perhaps you misunderstand what is involved in "proving" something. To prove the above statement actually requires you to do something other than state it.

That's not true. Most proofs are statements.

Well in that case, here are some more proofs:

1. God does not exist.

2. The non-existence of God is a neccessary precondition for Logic, induction, etc.

This is fun! What should I prove next?

I welcome you to try to disprove those two, but keep in mind that if you happen to use logic or words, then you have already accepted the truth of these proofs.:hammer::hammer:

Out of curiousity, has this form of argument EVER convinced anyone of the EOG?

 

[Hilston]

There is no spoon.

There is no spoon.

Originally Posted by Hilston: That's not true. Most proofs are statements.

Well in that case, here are some more proofs:

1. God does not exist.

2. The non-existence of God is a neccessary precondition for Logic, induction, etc.

This is fun! What should I prove next?

I know you're just joking, m_d. But there are actually some people reading this who might think that you actually made a meaningful point. For anyone who doesn't realize the intended humor in what you wrote, I offer the following clarification: My statement was that most proofs are statements. Not the other way around. Anyone who has taken a class in logic or geometry knows that proofs are presented as statements. And anyone who has watched Judge Judy knows that not all statements are true, let alone proven.

I welcome you to try to disprove those two, but keep in mind that if you happen to use logic or words, then you have already accepted the truth of these proofs.

Out of curiousity, has this form of argument EVER convinced anyone of the EOG?

You just. Don't. Get it. No one is ever "convinced of God's existence." Everyone already knows He exists, but they suppress that truth in their rebellion against God's demands and standards. What needs to happen is a change of heart, a change of mind, a reversal of denial, a change of worldview to that which embraces what is already known by all men.

How many times do I have to repeat this: I am not here to convince anyone of anything. I am here to defend the Biblical worldview (Creationism) and to expose the fallacies of unbiblical worldviews (Evolutionism). Proof is not persuasion. Proof is not conviction. Proof need not be accepted to be nonetheless cogent.

Talk about a clarification that doesn't clarify anything.

I merely quoted Chilli's research. If it's unclear to you, don't blame me.

On your view, when is circular reasononing fallacious, and when is it not?

According to Chilli's definition, "Begging the question is a circular reasoning fallacy in which a circular argument is used within one Syllogism." For all of the charges of circularity, no one has been able to demonstrate question-begging in the biblical argument. There's been a lot of whining and moaning about it, but it doesn't exist. It's a collective delusion, reinforced by each other's emotion-laden complaints, fueled by the frustration of not being able to say anything compelling or coherent against it. Question-begging will not be found to exist in the biblical argument. Have a look at all these examples of question-begging offered by various websites:

Example one:

* The Bible is the Word of God.
* The Word of God is true.
* Therefore what is said by the Bible is true.
* The Bible says it is the Word of God.
* Therefore the Bible is the Word of God. [From Wikipedia]​

I have not, nor would I ever make such an argument.

Example 2:

God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible was written by God. (http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/begging_question.htm)​

I have not, nor would I ever make such an argument.

Example 3:

Is there a God?
Yes.
How do you know?
Because the Bible says so.
How do you know the Bible is correct?
Because it was inspired by God. (http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1114.htm)​

I have not, nor would I ever make such an argument.

Example 4:

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God." (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html)​

I have not, nor would I ever make such an argument. Each of these arguments is fraught with question begging fallacies. I would join any anti- or non-theist in blasting holes in these types of arguments. So my question is, are you even capable of seeing the difference between biblical argumentation and the fallacies culled above? If you do not see the difference between Examples 1-4 and the Biblical arguments that have been presented, then this is futile and you've merely shown that your minds are sufficiently dulled to the point of irrational ambiguity of thought.

Send lawyers, guns and money,
Jim

 

[Chilli]

Hi, just a quickie...

Hilston, could you please outline your argument in a similar form to the four you have outlined in your last post?

This will definitely help to clarify things... sorry if this is a repeat request, I've kind of gotten bogged down with all these posts.

Thanks

 

[Hilston]

Would not, could not ...

Would not, could not ...

Hi Chilli,

You ask:

Hilston, could you please outline your argument in a similar form to the four you have outlined in your last post?

Your request vexes me. Did I not make it clear that each of those 4 examples (which I culled from anti-theist websites) were fallacious? Did I not, in each case, explicitly state: "I have not, nor would I ever make such an argument"?

Or would you making a joke similar to aharvey and mighty_duck?

Heidegger was always late,
Jim

 

[Johnny]

I think Chilli was just asking for you to outline your argument like you did those arguments. He's not saying those were your arguments.

 

[mighty_duck]

Originally Posted by Hilston: That's not true. Most proofs are statements.

I know you're just joking, m_d. But there are actually some people reading this who might think that you actually made a meaningful point. For anyone who doesn't realize the intended humor in what you wrote, I offer the following clarification: My statement was that most proofs are statements. Not the other way around. Anyone who has taken a class in logic or geometry knows that proofs are presented as statements. And anyone who has watched Judge Judy knows that not all statements are true, let alone proven.

It does seem like one big joke is being played on us. Please tell me you have been pranking us!

When did I ever say all statements were proofs? That would be silly.
The statements I have made are proofs though. The fact that you use words in your response further proves it. You know that God doesn't exist as well, you are just suppressing it.

This is how all your so called proof has looked so far.

I merely quoted Chilli's research. If it's unclear to you, don't blame me.

According to Chilli's definition, "Begging the question is a circular reasoning fallacy in which a circular argument is used within one Syllogism." For all of the charges of circularity, no one has been able to demonstrate question-begging in the biblical argument. There's been a lot of whining and moaning about it, but it doesn't exist. It's a collective delusion, reinforced by each other's emotion-laden complaints, fueled by the frustration of not being able to say anything compelling or coherent against it. Question-begging will not be found to exist in the biblical argument. Have a look at all these examples of question-begging offered by various websites:

I read Chilli's research, and it is very clear to me what question begging and circular reasoning are, and why they are fallacious.
You claim that all reasoning is circular, but not all reasoning is fallacious. How would we know if the circular reasoning we are using is fallacious or not? Please give an example of Circular reasoning that is not fallacious, and why it is not.

Example 3:

Is there a God?
Yes.
How do you know?
Because the Bible says so.
How do you know the Bible is correct?
Because it was inspired by God. (http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1114.htm)​

I have not, nor would I ever make such an argument.

Really? Isn't this your argument in a nutshell?

Is there a God?
Yes.
How do you know?
Because of this logical proof. <logical proof follows>
How do you know logic is correct?
Because it was inspired by God.

 

[mighty_duck]

Anyone who has taken a class in logic or geometry knows that proofs are presented as statements.

This is a puzzling statement as well. Can you give a couple of examples from geometry where a proof is actually nothing more than a statement?

As far as I know, geometry rests on a small number of axioms (I know, I know, they don't exist ), and everything else is derived from them IE can be proven rather than just stated.

 

[Hilston]

Quick reply to Johnny and mighty_duck ...

Quick reply to Johnny and mighty_duck ...

I think Chilli was just asking for you to outline your argument like you did those arguments. He's not saying those were your arguments.

There is no outline for a meta-argument. A meta-argument, of necessity, must stand above such formulations. The existence of God is proven in that, without Him, you cannot prove anything. The statement is not subject to such formulations as above.

The statements I have made are proofs though.

One of m_d's "proofs" was "1. God does not exist. If this is true, then the predication itself should be unintelligible. But it's not the case. Therefore, m_d's statement is proven false.

Mighty_duck's second statement was: 2. The non-existence of God is a neccessary precondition for Logic, induction, etc. For this to be true, magic would have to be real. No rational person believes that magic is real, and nothing in human experience warrants the belief in real magic. Therefore, m_d's statement is proven false.

The fact that you use words in your response further proves it.

This would only be true if magic were real and human experience were, at base, utterly absurd.

You know that God doesn't exist as well, you are just suppressing it.

If that were true, then I would be secretly believing magic were real, alongside mighty_duck, and undermining all the workings of logic and science and rendering human experience unintelligible.

This is how all your so called proof has looked so far.

Only in the minds of those who refuse to see what the Bible is saying to them.

Originally Posted by Hilston:

I merely quoted Chilli's research. If it's unclear to you, don't blame me.

According to Chilli's definition, "Begging the question is a circular reasoning fallacy in which a circular argument is used within one Syllogism." For all of the charges of circularity, no one has been able to demonstrate question-begging in the biblical argument. There's been a lot of whining and moaning about it, but it doesn't exist. It's a collective delusion, reinforced by each other's emotion-laden complaints, fueled by the frustration of not being able to say anything compelling or coherent against it. Question-begging will not be found to exist in the biblical argument. Have a look at all these examples of question-begging offered by various websites:...​

I read Chilli's research, and it is very clear to me what question begging and circular reasoning are, and why they are fallacious.
You claim that all reasoning is circular, but not all reasoning is fallacious. How would we know if the circular reasoning we are using is fallacious or not?

You can know if you're able to detect a circular argument within one syllogism (according to Chilli's excerpted definition). Try to answer this question without question begging: "How do you know logic is trustworthy?" Feel free to re-phrase the question more precisely if you wish.

Please give an example of Circular reasoning that is not fallacious, and why it is not.

All men are mortal; Socrates was a man; Socrates was mortal.

Originally Posted by Hilston: Example 3 (from Positive Theism website):

Is there a God?
Yes.
How do you know?
Because the Bible says so.
How do you know the Bible is correct?
Because it was inspired by God. (http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1114.htm)​

I have not, nor would I ever make such an argument.

Really? Isn't this your argument in a nutshell?

Is there a God?
Yes.
How do you know?
Because of this logical proof. <logical proof follows>
How do you know logic is correct?
Because it was inspired by God.

I'm this close to ignoring your future posts, m_d. I realize this is difficult, because most people are not accustomed to being confronted with biblical argumentation, but you at least have to try. You will not find in my posts anything even remotely close to the above "argument in a nutshell." If this comes as a surprise to you, then I suggest you do more reading and less chatting. The fact that you think this is my argument is both frustrating and disappointing to me. When have I EVER in this discussion given a logical proof for how I know there is a God? When have I EVER stated that "logic is correct" because it was "inspired by God"? Where are you getting this stuff, m_d? Because it certainly has not EVER come from my pen. If you are honestly this clueless, I don't know how to help you. Are you just being lazy? Have you forgotten everything that we've discussed thus far? Perhaps, instead of making these embarrassing pronouncements, you should simply ask some honest questions and at least demonstrate that you're putting some effort toward understanding.

I've got a strong urge to fly; but I've got nowhere to fly to, fly to, fly to, fly to, fly to, fly to, fly to, fly to ...
Jim

 

[mighty_duck]

Hi Jim,
The last couple of exchanges have been below our usual level. I'll admit it was a knee-jerk reaction to your (outrageous) claim that most proofs are just statements.

When you have time, please return to the last non knee-jerk post:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=983575&postcount=597

Also, I'd like a further clarification on your view of circularity below.

One of m_d's "proofs" was "1. God does not exist. If this is true, then the predication itself should be unintelligible. But it's not the case. Therefore, m_d's statement is proven false.

Mighty_duck's second statement was: 2. The non-existence of God is a neccessary precondition for Logic, induction, etc. For this to be true, magic would have to be real. No rational person believes that magic is real, and nothing in human experience warrants the belief in real magic. Therefore, m_d's statement is proven false.

This would only be true if magic were real and human experience were, at base, utterly absurd.

If that were true, then I would be secretly believing magic were real, alongside mighty_duck, and undermining all the workings of logic and science and rendering human experience unintelligible.

All your objections are easily defeated, but I feel it is too much of a derailment to continue doing so in this thread. If you would like, I'll start another thread. By using your own arguments, it is defensible.

You can know if you're able to detect a circular argument within one syllogism (according to Chilli's excerpted definition). Try to answer this question without question begging: "How do you know logic is trustworthy?" Feel free to re-phrase the question more precisely if you wish.

I have asked about circular reasoning in general, and not the one syllogism version. If you have circular reasoning using two syllogisms it is just as invalid. Same for three. etc.

Please give an example of Circular reasoning that is not fallacious, and why it is not.

All men are mortal; Socrates was a man; Socrates was mortal.

Why, on your view, is this circular? Why, if it is in fact circular, it is not fallacious?
Please give specifics on the chains of this circle, not just "all reason is ultimately circular".

You will not find in my posts anything even remotely close to the above "argument in a nutshell." If this comes as a surprise to you, then I suggest you do more reading and less chatting. The fact that you think this is my argument is both frustrating and disappointing to me. When have I EVER in this discussion given a logical proof for how I know there is a God? When have I EVER stated that "logic is correct" because it was "inspired by God"?

I'll admit, this was a bit sloppy. I should have resisted the urge to bring back the arguments from posts 532, 542, with inacuracies added. I'll try extra hard to leave that end dead in the future.

 

[Chilli]

Hilston, so then your entire argument is:

1. The existence of God is proven in that, without Him, you cannot prove anything.

You said: "The statement is not subject to such formulations as above," but can't you see that your statement is commensurate to the first step in each of those arguments, only it lacks any qualifying reasoning, argumentation or evidence, let alone proof to support it.

What is to prevent Mighty_Duck from formulating an argument in a similar fashion:

1. The existence of logic is proven, in that without it, you can't prove anything.

It seems that the only reason is because it is your view that is being posited.

I guess if we could have gotten Van Til on this forum, and he'd stuck around for long enough, this is what his "argument" would have been reduced to.

 

[jhodgeiii]

Originally Posted by Hilston:
All men are mortal; Socrates was a man; Socrates was mortal.

Why, on your view, is this circular?

Maybe Hilston says this statement is circular because the statement "All men are mortal," itself, is assumed and is used to prove Socrates' mortality (?).

Why, if it is in fact circular, it is not fallacious?

It's important to note fallacious arguments are not necessarily false, just not particularly convincing.

 

[jhodgeiii]

Hilston, so then your entire argument is:

1. The existence of God is proven in that, without Him, you cannot prove anything.

From what I see it's more like, "Without Him, you cannot prove anything."

 

[jhodgeiii]

Just to clarify, I purposely omitted the first part of your sentence there.

 

[SUTG]

As I've explained previously, there can be no "chain of logic" that will conclude God's existence. All chains of logic necessarily begin with God's existence. The very moment you begin to reason, you affirm His existence. It would like requiring someone to prove the existence of air without breathing. If the air didn't exist, he would not be able to breathe. In the very act of breathing, he proves its existence. But it is precisely here that the non-theist says, "But I AM breathing, so that proves I CAN breathe without the existence of air. So THERE!"

All of this is true, but it all depends on the whether the following proposition is ture:

"God is necessary for logic."

...and the other conclusions you have drawn depend on the tuths of statements such as "God is necessary for induction", etc.

If I remember correctly, the aether was the medium through light propogated. If the light and heat from the sun didn't reach the earth, we would all find ourselves in an icy tomb. So, in the very act of living, we affirm the existence of the aether. We can argue against it, but we are depending on it to deliver the heat from the sun that keeps us alive while we are arguing. Our very arguing proves the existence of the aether.

Of course, the verity of the declarations above depends on whether or not there is an aether needed to carry the heat from the sun. So, all we are really concerned with, or what we really want to determine is whether this is the case. Of course, if this is true than the paragraph above follows. But the paragraph above is not an argument for the existence of the aether any more than Hilston's argument is an argument for the existence of the Christian God. Anyone can claim that the aether exists and we depend on it, such that it is proven every time we try to argue against them. But their claim is only worth considering if they can show that we do in fact depend on the aether!

Also not that the 'aether of the gaps' argument need not apply. If no-one else at the time could shoe how the light from the sun reached the earth, it would not follow that the only crackpot idea around at the time was true.

 

[SUTG]

All of this is true, but it all depends on the whether the following proposition is ture:

Whoops! I meant to say:

All of this is could be true, but it all depends on the whether the following proposition is true:

 

[Metalking]

The design of God is always being discovered...astronomers will be able to answer an important question about the large-scale structure of the universe: at how big a scale do you have to look before the universe starts to look uniform?

Astronomers were not very surprised to find that our own galaxy, The Milky Way, was a member of a group of some twenty galaxies. They were also not surprised to find that that our local group was a member of a cluster of some two thousand galaxies. But when looking on larger scales, they expected to find well-ordered and sensible phenomena. They did not expect to find the perfectly ordered universe the ancient Greeks envisioned, but they believed that once they looked out beyond their local neighborhood, within a few hundred million light-years, the average properties of the universe would become predictable. ..the more we appreciate God's designs.