Sounds like presuppositionalism to me.
So you started with the god of the bible existing, to come to the conclusion that the god of the bible exists? Sure seems like you are begging the question.
You can save yourself a couple steps and just replaced the whole thing with:
P1 The god of the Bible exists.
/e:
and of course, begging the question is an example of a circular argument.
The really funny part was claiming to be rational, then decrying logic. The wheels came of this one pretty quickly, my guess is a bored teenage boy.
You replied: That one is called a straw man fallacy, as I made no such claim.
So fallacies can be valid arguments in your worldview, or canât they?
You replied: I never made that claim either, so you seem to racking up logical fallacies, having ironically introduced your spiel as rational. They do however violate a basic principle of logic. Thus they are by definition irrational,
So logical fallacies can be true at some times and some places in your worldview, or canât they?
whether you care about making irrational claims of course is up to you, but I disbelieve such claims and arguments.
Based on your forthcoming responses (or evasions) to the questions above, it should become obvious which of us holds to a rational position regarding the nature and application of logic in our worldview and which of us does not.
Even though you have been consistently irrational, do you even know what it means, or is this the theistic use of rhetoric where think tacking the word rational onto their superstitious verbiage lends it credence or gravitas?
Still an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, an atheistic worldview is one that does not include belief in a deity, one does not have to disprove anything in order to disbelieve it, to claim otherwise is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Again, I disagree with your allegation here. However, Iâll hold off on further response to this until you let me know if alleged âfallaciesâ are always invalid arguments in your worldview or whether they are valid at some times and in some places.
Another straw man fallacy. I never made that claim either.
Logical fallacies are irrational by definition, I already explained this to you. my worldview does not dictate the principles of logic either. Something either does or does not violate the principles of logic, and those are not dependant on my worldview.
You think thatâs up for debate, bless? You have used at least one known logical fallacy in almost every post so far, and I donât think youâve been here a couple of hours yet.
Again I donât care, your use of logical fallacies is manifest and there for all to see.
Is that a question? Scroll up and see my previous answer, I suggest you read more carefully as I definitely gave a response to how I view irrational claims.
Sounds like presuppositionalism to me.
So you started with the god of the bible existing, to come to the conclusion that the god of the bible exists? Sure seems like you are begging the question.
Do you have a problem with this argument?:
P1 All men are mortal
P2 Socrates is a man
C Socrates is mortal
Socrates was not a deity, and we know all men are mortal. You simple assumed this deity existed in your first premise. In an argument when you just assume the thing that you are arguing for, thatâs called a begging the question fallacy, this makes your argument irrational.
Do you have a problem with that?
I asked: [quote=âscmike, post:83, topic:2318â]
So fallacies can be valid arguments in your worldview, or canât they?
[/quote]
You replied: > Another straw man fallacy. I never made that claim either.
It wasnât an accusation, it was a question. Can fallacies be valid arguments in your worldview or are they absolutely invalid for use as rational arguments? Why?
I asked: [quote=âscmike, post:83, topic:2318â]
So logical fallacies can be true at some times and some places in your worldview, or canât they?
[/quote]
You said: > Logical fallacies are irrational by definition, I already explained this to you.
Yet you have never stated whether or not that definition applies universally at all times and places or if it only applies at some times and in some places. Why the evasion?
my worldview does not dictate the principles of logic either. Something either does or does not violate the principles of logic, and those are not dependant on my worldview.
âDoes or does notâ? Is it possible for something to both violate the âprinciples of logicâ and not violate them at the same time and same way in your worldview or are contradictions like this absolutely not possible?
Sheldon, the hedge you are hiding behind is a very thin one. The deflection that you are engaging in here does not become you.
I just saw this remark from you regarding logic. I challenge your claim by simply asking if the universe could have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before there were people around to âmakeâ the laws of logic? Yes or no.
Also, what type of reasoning-logical or illogical-did the people use who âmadeâ the laws of logic?
So you concede?
FYI you have no knowledge of my history or positions. I was an ultra-devout theist who left the church because I believed it was more of a social club than a place to become closer to my creator. And I doubt you would be foolish enough to state you can read my mind, so just why do you propose that my mind is closed?
Thereâs massive evidence that humans evolved from earlier primate species and that there was never a single pair of humans known as Adam and Eve as presented in the bible.
Why do you think a mishmash of ancient stories written by semi-literate Bronze Age nomads is in any way authoritative in matters of human origins?
With a dash of ad hominem. Which is a shame because I expected our friendly theist to be a little more civilized. But hey, when I encounter one who resorts to personal attacks to be one who has run out of rational replies and thus (not by their admission) conceded the argument.
so just why do you propose that my mind is closed?
Because you are content to live by blind faith (i.e. universal laws are âjust the way they areâ). I pray that will change. Take care!
Thanks for the rather bizarre non sequitur, now do you have anything of value to offer on the actual post you just pretended to respond to?
You used a begging the question fallacy in the first premise in your opening post, itâs there for all to see, and several posters have pointed it out. So doubly ironic for you to accuse others of hiding since you have refused to honestly acknowledge that.
The simple answer is that both were made up by humans.
I pose the same challenge to you as I posed to Sheldonâcould the universe have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before humans were around to âmake upâ the logical law of non-contradiction?
Nope, you never asked me that champ? Just as well I havenât got a clue what youâre asking. Luckily I donât give the furry crack of a ratâs arse anyway, as it is demonstrable gibberish to obfuscate from your earlier irrational use of logical fallacies.
However I did ask you:
So far unsurprisingly, you have not even acknowledged the question.