15 Jan 09
Originally posted by jaywillno it is not circular reasoning. the bible is not a method of thinking. it is a true, false, or partially true work of literature. reason is the same as logic. it is a definition, you don't need to prove it because it is how you define a said object.
[b]====================================
The word of God is the word of God because God said so in the word of God."
======================================
If you would bother to open it up and read it, you might see that He also ACTED in a way which gave credibiltiy to the claim.
Sure, anyone can say anything. Jesus acted in a way which le ...[text shortened]... t those who use reason to defend reason.
Isn't that a circular argument ?[/b]
reason is "the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways"(Merriam-Webster). i don't need to prove anything because this is how i define reason. now if i were to say "CaptainCrunch is using reason in his lecture" i made an affirmation that i need to prove. why is CaptainCrunch thinking in and orderly rational way?
you may define bible as the word of god. "From now on, the word of god shall be known as "bible"". but when you say the book containing the gospels, and moses and genesis etc is "bible" you need to prove it is the word of god.
15 Jan 09
Yes, it is a faith based, I guess you might consider it the logical fallacy, appeal to emotion. The love I feel from God, is such a strong emotion of love that I crave it, If I could feel this way throu human relationships, then mayby I wouldn't need God. The Holy Spirit is so enveloping in his love, that I am addicted. So, I read more seeking to know him and pray that he will never leave me. (Thou I know he will not for his promise is never changing.)
15 Jan 09
Originally posted by owlightthe love for god doesn't exclude completely logic.
Yes, it is a faith based, I guess you might consider it the logical fallacy, appeal to emotion. The love I feel from God, is such a strong emotion of love that I crave it, If I could feel this way throu human relationships, then mayby I wouldn't need God. The Holy Spirit is so enveloping in his love, that I am addicted. So, I read more seeking to know him a ...[text shortened]... pray that he will never leave me. (Thou I know he will not for his promise is never changing.)
one is allowed to love god even if no proof of his existence exists. but while jesus dying on the cross is important to the religion, the fact that god created the earth and plants before the sun is useless. believing that nonsense will never make one a better christian or muslim or jew
15 Jan 09
I can't really explain God through debate or external proof. You must experience him on a personal level. Most people, well, it takes them being very sad or lonely or so desperate before they cry out to him. Some people will never acknowledge that they have a need for a connection with him, it can seem so repressed. I felt that way myself for along time. Hopefully, though anyone can realize that if you ever get desperate enough, you know you can say 'Jesus please enter my heart and be one with me.' Send me your Spirit to comfort and guide me. He will not deny anyone seeking him. It probably does seem unbelieveable to unbelievers that you can truely feel God's overpowering love, and then start to know him because you truely become one, especially as you grow as a Christian. It is a real relationship more dependable than any I have know. Also, an experience that most will never seek to kno.. It is the beginning in a planting of the seed of a wisdom that is spiritual and you just start to know. Proof of God? I think you can really only prove it to yourself by asking for him. Concentrating on him. I also wonder if faith doesn't really start to come until after you ask or take that 'leap of faith'.
15 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziHow would that knowledge prevent you from loving her ... Perhaps such qualities -- corresponding to your deepest darkest desires -- were what attracted you in the first place ...
it shouldn't. i may love a woman but if i hear she is planning to kill me or that she was in the KKK, i should better investigate
15 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywill….You're simply using a technicality of formal structure as an excuse to EVADE recognizing the circularity of using reason to DEFEND itself.
[b]==================================
….Isn't that a circular argument ?…
Err, no. The statement:
1, “Now if you are concerned about circular arguments why not confront those who use reason to defend reason.”
is not an “argument” but just a question with the “?” missing at the end.
In this case, the
“if…(condition)…why not …(proposed action)
Could you or he point to the precise biblical passage which states this for starters?
…[/b] (my emphasis)
Firstly, I merely pointed out that your stated question:
…“Now if you are concerned about circular arguments why not confront those who use reason to defend reason.” .…
Is not a “circular argument” as you suggested in you original post -although I recognise the fact that you imply in that question that people that defend reason are using circular arguments.
Secondly, reason/logic does not ever “require” “defending” providing it is flawless reason/logic -and it can be judged to be “flawless” reason/logic if it is:
1, logically self-consistent (i.e. free of internal contradictions)
2, consistent with observation and the known evidence
3, does not and cannot lead to two or more logically contradictory conclusions when applied to analysing any observations/evidence (whether actual or hypothetical),
-no circular reasoning required there.
do you deny this?
Thirdly, and I think most importantly, you apparently have something against using reason (I presume because reason discredits some of your religious beliefs) else why else would you be saying “why not confront those who use reason to defend reason.”?
But, I presume you would claim to use “reason” in your arguments -yes? -else you would be forced to admit you “arguments” are invalid.
If you would claim to use “reason” in your arguments, how do you reconcile this with the fact you are against using reason!!!?
15 Jan 09
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagei specifically mentioned those "qualities" as you mentioned, as deal breakers. i wouldn't involve my self with a kkk woman or someone trying to kill me. i can think of more deal breakers.
How would that knowledge prevent you from loving her ... Perhaps such qualities -- corresponding to your deepest darkest desires -- were what attracted you in the first place ...
it doesn't stop me from loving her, but it also doesn't stop me from investigating. if they are true, then i fell in love with somebody else, i was deceived, call it what you like. if they are not true, even better. i can also understand remaining with someone if the above are uncertain, you love them and you believe the best of them. but all that love shouldn't stop you from acting in a reasonable fashion. like becoming suspicious if you find a kkk uniform in your house.
15 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi============================================
no it is not circular reasoning. the bible is not a method of thinking. it is a true, false, or partially true work of literature. reason is the same as logic. it is a definition, you don't need to prove it because it is how you define a said object.
reason is "the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways"(Merri spels, and moses and genesis etc is "bible" you need to prove it is the word of god.
no it is not circular reasoning. the bible is not a method of thinking. it is a true, false, or partially true work of literature. reason is the same as logic. it is a definition, you don't need to prove it because it is how you define a said object.
============================================
Those who say "Reason Alone" and those who proclaim reason as the only means of knowing truth do not realize that they are standing on faith to make a proclamation about reason.
Their reasoning requires and presupposes a "faith" of sorts. If they deny this and use Reason to defend that Reason alone is the only means of knowing truth, they make a circular argument.
Those who say "Reason Alone" make a nonsensical statement which fails to understand that their motto presupposes a "faith". And the defense of reason BY reason is circular, therefore worthless.
Furthermore the athiest, the Darwinist, and the materialist who believe that our minds arose from mindless matter believe so by "faith". That is because what they believe contradicts all scientific observation that an effect cannot be greater than its cause.
You can't give what you haven't got. Yet yet the materialist believes that dead and unintelligent matter has produced intelligent life. This is like believing that the Library of Congress was produced by an explosion in a print shop.
Our abilty to reason came from one of two sources:
1.) It arose from mindless matter without intelligent intervention.
2.) It arose from pre-existing intelligence.
From which do you think our ability to reason arose? And which do we have scientific observation to confirm?
This is not to ask for scientific confirmation of the existence of God per se. This is to suggest that the observations of science tell us that reasoning ability does not come from mindless matter but from life and pre-existing similar ability.
15 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywill….Their reasoning requires and presupposes a "faith" of sorts.…
[b]============================================
no it is not circular reasoning. the bible is not a method of thinking. it is a true, false, or partially true work of literature. reason is the same as logic. it is a definition, you don't need to prove it because it is how you define a said object.
============================================
T does not come from mindless matter but from life and pre-existing similar ability.[/b]
Err, no.
….If they deny this AND use Reason to defend that Reason alone is the only means of knowing truth, they make a circular argument. … (my emphasis)
Why the “AND” in the above? Why cannot a person recognise the fact that sound reason/logic is not blind faith by definition AND NOT use reason/logic to defend the hypothesis that reason/logic alone is the only means of knowing truth? (like I do)
Why is it a requirement to defend reason/logic with reason/logic when reason/logic is constructed and defined using DEFINITIONS rather than yet more reason/logic and thus you don’t need to “defend” nor “prove” it!!!!?
-thus there is absolutely no need to “defend” nor “prove” reason/logic with anything let alone with circular arguments.
…Furthermore the atheist, the Darwinist, and the materialist who believe that our minds arose from mindless matter believe so by "faith". That is because what they believe contradicts all scientific observation that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. .…
Oh not this “all scientific observation show that an effect cannot be greater than its cause” claptrap again -this nonsense has already been debunked in another thread many months ago:
It is obviously simply not true that “all scientific observation show that an effect cannot be greater than its cause” and you deliberately misrepresent science by saying this and the hypothesis that our conscious brains evolved from non-conscious life does NOT contradict any observation nor any scientific principle. There are at least two reasons for this:
Firstly, the is no standard scientific definition of how “great” a cause or event is thus there is no standard way of measuring an effect as simply being “greater than or less than” its cause -“greater than or less than” in what way? In its 3D size? -in its energy content? -in its loudness? -in its… what? To say simply event X is “greater than” event Y without specifying in what way is terribly vague and totally unscientific.
Secondly, lets say you DO define in what way one event can be “greater than” another -lets suppose you arbitrarily define the “greatness” of an event as the amount of kinetic energy involved in the event. Then I can give you a clear example of a scientific observation that PROVES that an effect CAN be “greater than” its cause -it can be observed that somebody skies down a mountain can triggers an avalanche -the event of a person skiing involves just the kinetic energy of the moving person but the avalanche involves the vastly greater kinetic energy of tons of snow and ice crushing down the mountain thus the effect IS “greater than” its cause (using that arbitrary criteria for “greatness&rdquo😉.
…Our ability to reason came from one of two sources:
1.) It arose from mindless matter without intelligent intervention.
2.) It arose from pre-existing intelligence.
From which do you think our ability to reason arose? .…
(1)
…And which do we have scientific observation to confirm? .…
(1) -haven’t you heard of the proven fact of evolution and living missing links etc?
May I ask, what scientific observation “confirms” (2)?
….This is to suggest that the OBSERVATIONS of science tell us that reasoning ability does not come from mindless matter but from life and pre-existing similar ability..… (my emphasis)
Which “OBSERVATIONS”?
15 Jan 09
Originally posted by jaywillAnd how did you get to these incredible tidbits of human knowledge? did you use reason.
[b]============================================
no it is not circular reasoning. the bible is not a method of thinking. it is a true, false, or partially true work of literature. reason is the same as logic. it is a definition, you don't need to prove it because it is how you define a said object.
============================================
T ...[text shortened]... does not come from mindless matter but from life and pre-existing similar ability.[/b]
do you realize how ignorant a statement like "those who say reason alone make a nonsensical statement? that if they say "i use logic and observation to discover truth" they are making a statement of belief?
"Their reasoning requires and presupposes a "faith" of sorts." Prove it damn it. How can you make a statement so idiotic and not even attempt to discuss it. how can reason imply faith? on the contrary, reason dictates you use "i don't know for sure" when you do not know for sure and not use faith.
"Furthermore the athiest, the Darwinist, and the materialist who believe that our minds arose from mindless matter believe so by "faith"."
actually it is a theory. "i claim this because(insert reasons here)...It may or may not be true" which is very different from "i believe this and it is absolutely true" which is used by fanatics.
faith implies believing without proof. so who says what faith is wrong and what faith is right? if you use faith as discovering truth, you must have a certain method applied to it. you cannot just claim "i own a unicorn, it is pink" and expect nobody to question it. how do you reach truth?
"From which do you think our ability to reason arose? And which do we have scientific observation to confirm?"
i know we descended from apes. and i believe god may have had something to do with it. and what i know and what i believe do not contradict.