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.
If you want to continue this conversation with me you will have to stop adding editorial comments about me personally and address only our arguments .
You're the one who decided to 'up the ante' with your total lack of intellectual honesty exemplified by your ridiculous "circular logic" charge.
Now, if YOU wish the conversation to continue I expect a full retraction, or at the very least, that you lay out a point by point reference of my past comments that would provide any basis on which to validate your assertion.
You're the one who decided to 'up the ante' with your total lack of intellectual honesty exemplified by your ridiculous "circular logic" charge.
Now, if YOU wish the conversation to continue I expect a full retraction, or at the very least, that you lay out a point by point reference of my past comments that would provide any basis on which to validate your assertion.
I tell you what I'll do. I'll give you a point by point reference, but I don't wish to continue the conversation with you anymore after that point. Stand by.
I wrote this all out, but then I erased it. This will have to do for now because I'm going to bed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Your argument (and belief system) rest on a well known logical fallacy.
The bible reveals that God cannot lie. Post 134
We know the bible is accurate because it is the word of God. See Post 128 point 6 for your general discussion of the Transcendent Being communicating a framework for oughtness which establishes that you believe the bible is divinely inspired by an Omnipotent God.
It can also be inferred from you last point on post 87, and the fact that you have throughout adopted a traditional Christian model of belief.
And, more specifically to the point, Do you believe that the bible is the word of God?
We know the word of God is accurate because the bible reveals God cannot lie. Can be inferred from the above.
Isn't it obvious how blatantly circular your reasoning is?
I've been waiting for you to finish your post...but I guess that was it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Your argument (and belief system) rest on a well known logical fallacy.
The bible reveals that God cannot lie.
We know the bible is accurate because it is the word of God.
We know the word of God is accurate because the bible reveals God cannot lie.
Again, we never discussed my "belief system." My belief system includes theism - monotheism to be specific. If you recall, you offered to accept God's existence out of hand for the sake of forwarding the discussion. We never ever even came close to discussing my reasons (reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible by the way) for belief in God's existence. Now, magically, you state that my reasoning, which was never discussed, is "circular."
The charge that my belief in the basic historical reliability of the Bible is based on "circular reasoning" is equally fallacious. I offered to have the discussion whereby we would each put forward our reasons for and against, you refused. Hence, you don't even know what my reasons are for accepting the Bible as a basically reliable historical document, again, reasons that go beyond it's contents.
So here we are. You don't even know what my reasons are for believing in God and accepting the Bible as a basically reliable historical document.
So how can you possibly make the charge of "circular reasoning?"
If this is not a result of gross dishonesty on your part, then, I can only conclude that your mental dullness is of such a magnitude that you can't even comprehend the English language.
If this is not a result of gross dishonesty on your part, then, I can only conclude that your mental dullness is of such a magnitude that you can't even comprehend the English language.
This is why our conversation can't continue. If for some reason you think I misunderstood you, you should have just politely said that. Instead you lowered yourself to petty name calling, and that reflects poorly on your regardless of your belief system or alleged objective morality.
This is why our conversation can't continue. If for some reason you think I misunderstood you, you should have just politely said that. Instead you lowered yourself to petty name calling, and that reflects poorly on your regardless of your belief system or alleged objective morality.
Impolite? What do you think I was trying to be?
There actually are harsher terms to substitute for dishonesty and mental dullness. Should I provide examples?
There actually are harsher terms to substitute for dishonesty and mental dullness. Should I provide examples?
Well then. Must that apply to the intelligence or the recognized creator who at the highest esteem is the scientist. God may be at a very low esteem as the intelligent creator and even at once producer.
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.
