Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mean like the assertion that because a cause must exist God is the cause, thus God is proven... using your answer as proof of your claim.... that is the entire point of what people are saying.
You deny the basic fact that for everything there is a cause?
Quote:
You are making the assertion as to what the cause is, you are not presenting evidence beyond your claim of the answer... that is circular.
Once we establish the fact that there is a cause...do you have a better theory of who/what that cause is?
Quote:
That would be Assertion again. Causation is evidence of a Cause, you are attempting to dictate that cause rather than prove the cause.
AGAIN you fail to understand the idea. Honestly....you tell me...how does something exist without a cause?
Quote:
If you claim the cause is "God" then use that cause as justification in your explanation... your justification hinges on "God" which you never proved to be the cause. It is circular because rather than prove cause you resort to Assertion Fallacy.
lol. Ok.
Quote:
Then we add Red Herring.... Logic requires supporting evidence or explination, your assertions do not illustrate that. Big Bang is a thoery regarding a possible cause that is supported by mathmatics and physics which is why it is accepted. Evolution likewise is supported by differing species within a Genus adapting based on external stimuli such as predators and environment, again this means there is supporting evidence to move into the realm of theory. Neither theory with supporting arugment or evidence is relevant to the fact that you have provided only Assertion and Circular Logic... distractions will not further your argument.
The difference here being is while you can prove via causation that there is a cause... you rely on Assertion to claim that clause is "God"... and Assertion is by definition not a logical argument.
In short.... you can prove a cause... you can not however prove that cause is "God" simply by assertion which is what you attempt to do.
Back to square one after all your rambling. Yes...a first cause exists. Now let's work on who/what that cause is.
Quote:
This means you are using correlation regaurding causality as it regards to your presented argument without ever proving causation then claiming it is logical.... but that would be Hasty Generalization Fallacy, Causation dictating a cause does not the same as Creationism dictating a God because Causality is not the same thing as Creationism. One says there is a cause, the other dictates what that cause is... ignoring that difference is a generalization hinging on the assumption that "God" is the correct cause without proving that as true.
In short... you are proving Causality as true... but you are not proving your claim as to what the Cause in that relationship is, instead you are simply making an assertion to the end you wish to be true.
Yeah it is. It's the truth. You evolution believers are in direct opposition to God. He says HE created life and HE breathed life into humans. You purposely DENY this and believe that you came from a primate. Then you want to turn around and act like your so educated because you believe in lie. How deluded.
I love when people who don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" accuse others of being uneducated.
You deny the basic fact that for everything there is a cause?
No. The only one who has made that claim in this thread is you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Once we establish the fact that there is a cause...do you have a better theory of who/what that cause is?
Of course. I outlined in a previous post three reasons why the eternal universe is a superior explanation to an eternal God. But as you usual you ran away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Back to square one after all your rambling. Yes...a first cause exists. Now let's work on who/what that cause is.
A first cause can't exist... unless you reject the law of causation.
You deny the basic fact that for everything there is a cause?
Misquoting my meaning only harms your argument. I never said there was no cause... I said you are making an assertion to what that cause is rather than proving it.
Quote:
Once we establish the fact that there is a cause...do you have a better theory of who/what that cause is?
Negative Proof? Is that really the best you can muster? Someone not explicitly stating an alternative is not proof that one is absent.
It also has no bearing on the fact you are still making an assertion that your statement is true rather than proving it as such.
Quote:
AGAIN you fail to understand the idea. Honestly....you tell me...how does something exist without a cause?
Again you miss the entire point. I never said there is no cause, I said you are making an Assertion as to what that cause is rather than proving what it is.
Cause being present =/= God is the cuase
You are making an assumptive leap to suit your argument and as such it is Assertion which is by definition a Logical Fallacy, IE it does not prove your claim.
Quote:
lol. Ok.
Mocking rather than addressing, dangerously close to Ad Hominem there
Quote:
Back to square one after all your rambling. Yes...a first cause exists. Now let's work on who/what that cause is.
That is what people have been demanding of you all along... you simply have failed to support your claim.
Quote:
And you're off to more rambling....
Followed by more derisive undermining rather than any point... do you not realize that Ad Hominem and Poisoning the well.... the act of attempting to dismiss or bring into question my comments by regarding me in a derisive or belittling manner is in of itself a Fallacious act illustrating you are unable to logically prove your claims?
Misquoting my meaning only harms your argument. I never said there was no cause... I said you are making an assertion to what that cause is rather than proving it.
Negative Proof? Is that really the best you can muster? Someone not explicitly stating an alternative is not proof that one is absent.
Not really. That's about as scientific of a conclusion as any evolutionary scientist could come up with. If the only logical conclusion is the one presented, it's our working hypothesis until a better one is presented.
Quote:
Mocking rather than addressing, dangerously close to Ad Hominem there
I'm sure you're enough of an adult that you're not that fragile.
Honestly...we both seem to agree that the universe exists, and it had to have a cause. Now...let's talk about who/what that "cause" is. Do you have any real ideas?
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC:
I can assure you that my scientific background far exceeds that of yours. Do you happen to know what "Aero" could possibly allude to?
If it stands for "aerospace engineer" then you and I have the same degree.
I'm betting the first post is from an Aerobics Instructor.
Actually... begging the question is, by definition, a circular argument.
It appears he mistook my claim and explanation for why his argument is circular in nature... and confused it with the specific form circulus in probando.
However I was explaining why it was "a circular argument" not why it was the specific fallacy "circular reasoning"
The fact is that the argument "There is a cause, thus God is the cause" in support of creation is in fact circular. Because as creationism insists that "God" or a higher power acted as a creating force... the inclusion of "God" as cause in the argument of support means that it is included in both premise and argument.
Ironically given the attempt at correction. The presence of the implied argument is in fact circulus in probando as it is defined as "Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises"
Meaning even for the specific form, the inclusion of God as the causal force, which is the premise of creationism, in the use of Causality to argue the validity of Creationism... does in fact use implicitly the premise of creationism as part of the argument to prove it valid.
I really do not understand why we have had to say this so many times in so many ways yet the circular nature of it eludes those using it.
Wow, you figured that out? Yeah, sometimes my wireless keyboard even adds an extra letter, depending on where the sensor is or the battery level. I'm thankful it was clear enough to understand what I was typing. I hope it wasn't too hard. I had three letters missing in this post, but hopefully I got them all. If I didn't you can proof it for me. Maybe you'd like to proof all my entries - that'd be great, and save me a lot of embarrassment. <= Is the right? I went back and corrected that typo, so back to the question, eh? What did you mean?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hope it wasn't too hard. I had three letters missing in this post, but hopefully I got them all. 
If I didn't you can proof it for me. Maybe you'd like to proof all my entries - that'd be great, and save me a lot of embarrassment. <= Is the right? I went back and corrected that typo, so back to the question, eh? What did you mean?
