Members banned from this thread: Pragmatist


Page 170 of 171 FirstFirst ... 70120160168169170171 LastLast
Results 1,691 to 1,700 of 1703
Thanks Tree261Thanks

Thread: Atheist answer to the 10 Commandments: 10 Rational positions.

  1. #1691
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,083
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    The difference is that the pictures of the moon landing have other collaborative evidence to support them. hat non-biblical collaborative evidence does the Bible have that the things written therein happened? Oh, that's right. NONE. When you can collaborate that the events recorded in the bible actually happened, then, by all means you can use the bible as evidence. Until then, you don't get to use a source to confirm itself:

    PREMISE: God Exists.
    PREMISE God Wrote the Bible.
    Evidence: The Bible says that God wrote it.
    CONCLUSION: God exists, and wrote the Bible.

    Hate to tell you sparky, that is textbook (literally, as in they actually use this as an example of the logical fallacy in text books) case of a Circular argument.

    So, it doesn't matter how many times you insist that the bible is 'evidence" of the existence of God, until you can confirm the accuracy of the Bible from a second collaborative source, it isn't evidence of anything except your beliefs.
    And yet, your atheism rests on a dubious science which you do not even understand yourself. If you cannot even understand the objective basis of your beliefs, what makes you think you have any business asking for the objective basis of other people's beliefs, hmmmm?

    So tell us, how is your infinite regress superior to a circular argument?

    A circular argument is not a formal logical fallacy. It is a defect in argument. For instance, the reflexive axiom -- that for any x such that x is an element of the set of real numbers, x=x. That statement is circular and true at the same time. In fact, it is an axiom, whose truth value is self evident. No justification is required (and no justification even exists) because the statement is true in and of itself within the domain of the set or real numbers.

    Your infinite regress, on the other hand, is a formal logical fallacy because the truth value of your proposition depends on the truth value of another proposition whose truth value depends on yet another proposition....ad infinitum. Your proposition therefore, along with all the propositions you have presented to justify it, has no truth value to speak of.
    Last edited by kingrat; 13th February 2018 at 11:44 PM.

  2. #1692
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,083
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Except your proof is fallacious, because the only "proof" you have offered is personal experience, which is unreliable, and the Bible which is unreliable. Ergo you "proof" is unreliable. See, this is why the rational atheist doesn't simple ask for "proof". We ask for a very specific sort of proof: objective, verifiable evidence.
    No more fallacious than the argument you fashion against it.

    Proof from personal experience actually has more weight than your psuedo-argument that consists of one fallacy on top of another, and another.....

  3. #1693
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,083
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    How about instead of deflecting by trying to incite a fight with Ian, you stick with acknowledging the fact that we have logically demonstrated the difference between the direct evidence of the moon landing combined with collaborative reinforcement, and the indirect, inconsistent account of the bible, with no collaborative reinforcement at all. The Bible is. Not. Evidence. Moving on...
    How about you acknowledge the fact that you have logically demonstrated nothing as far as your beliefs are concerned, hmmmm?

  4. #1694
    Veteran Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13,282
    Thanks
    5195

    From
    My mother's womb, of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    The Bible needs to be studied in context. You can basically make the Bible say God kills innocent children and spupports Gay Marriage if you took it out of context
    No one took the Holy Bible out of context. There are plenty of contradictions.

  5. #1695
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,083
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael J View Post
    No one took the Holy Bible out of context. There are plenty of contradictions.
    Contradictions arise only from a literal interpretation of the entire bible -- which isn't how one is supposed to read it in the first place.

  6. #1696
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,083
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    No, you have belief and faith and call it proof. That does not make it proof.
    Is there any other form of logic that does not do exactly the same thing?

    Reflexive axiom: Given any object x, x=x.
    Symmetry axiom: Given any objects x and y, if x=y then y=x.

    Is there any way to prove the statements above without reference to the objects themselves?

    It is tempting to say that the formalism of first order predicate logic does not apply to arguments in propositional logic but that simply isn't the case.

    Proposition: All bachelors are unmarried men.

    Is there any way of proving the above proposition without reference to bachelors, men and marriage?

    So, you are correct that aboutenough's argument is self-referencing.

    You are incorrect, however, to say that such an argument is not proof.

  7. #1697
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    60,989
    Thanks
    30241

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Proposition: All bachelors are unmarried men.

    Is there any way of proving the above proposition without reference to bachelors, men and marriage?

    So, you are correct that aboutenough's argument is self-referencing.

    You are incorrect, however, to say that such an argument is not proof.
    Bachelors are unmarried men by definition. The word "bachelor" means "unmarried man." They are terms identical in meaning. This not true of the terms "belief" and "proof."

  8. #1698
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,083
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Bachelors are unmarried men by definition. The word "bachelor" means "unmarried man." They are terms identical in meaning. This not true of the terms "belief" and "proof."
    Let x=bachelor and y=unmarried men. Defining bachelors as unmarried men (if x=y) necessarily concludes that unmarried men are bachelors (y=x) by the symmetry axiom. However you choose to define 'bachelors' or 'unmarried men' is irrelevant to the logical relationship between the two. What is relevant is that, if you choose to define them as such, then a self-referencing relationship arises.

    In the end, that is what axioms are -- true statements without external proof -- or more accurately, statements whose proof are themselves.

    Of course, that is not to say that anyone can believe any random thing and say they are true just because they believe it so. One needs to demonstrate that a belief does not accrue to a contradiction or fallacy. Logic, of course, has to have an internal consistency.

    Which is what I just did -- I demonstrated that the atheist premise is false because it contradicts itself -- that an infinite chain of causality is tantamount to saying that there is no proper cause. At some point, the demonstrable fact of cause and effect can only be true if there is an uncaused cause.

    But you and your friends cannot seem to accept that. You deny the the existence of an uncaused cause never once admitting that that is the only thing that makes all your statements true in the first place.

  9. #1699
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    4,568
    Thanks
    4589

    From
    U.S.A.
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Contradictions arise only from a literal interpretation of the entire bible -- which isn't how one is supposed to read it in the first place.
    You just described fictional children novels.

  10. #1700
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    60,989
    Thanks
    30241

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Let x=bachelor and y=unmarried men. Defining bachelors as unmarried men (if x=y) necessarily concludes that unmarried men are bachelors (y=x) by the symmetry axiom. However you choose to define 'bachelors' or 'unmarried men' is irrelevant to the logical relationship between the two. What is relevant is that, if you choose to define them as such, then a self-referencing relationship arises.

    In the end, that is what axioms are -- true statements without external proof -- or more accurately, statements whose proof are themselves.
    Since "bachelor" is an unmarried man by definition, it is axiomatic. However, since belief and proof are not the same thing by definition, and in fact the definitions of the terms are entirely different, it is not axiomatic. it is nothing more than aboutenough just saying it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Of course, that is not to say that anyone can believe any random thing and say they are true just because they believe it so.
    And yet that is the entire basis of aboutenough's position - his belief that it is true proves it is true.

Similar Threads

  1. Rational reason to believe in God?
    By Communist Rationalist in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 26th July 2013, 09:01 PM
  2. Ask the Last Rational Man
    By JayMick in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 3rd February 2012, 04:41 PM
  3. Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10th April 2009, 12:20 AM
  4. Belief in God is rational
    By Vetruvius in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 18th February 2009, 07:56 AM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed