Divine revelation

[Doug Shaver]

Well yes I do - based on Scripture.

For bibliolators, everything eventually comes down to that.

[Jedidiah]

Believing what you read and worshiping the book are not the same.

[seer]

For bibliolators, everything eventually comes down to that.

Of course, I'm a Christian - what else would it come down to - your word?

[seer]

Yes. There is a great logical void between the assertion and the conclusion.

No Shuny, show me how exactly where I begged the question.

Again seer science does not prove anything. Argument from Ignorance demanding the impossible be proven. Neither can you PROVE anything with theistic assertions.

Every time you get into an airplane and trust things will be same in the future as they were in the past, you accept the Law of non-contradiction holds and our physical existence is uniform and consistent in the future

Nonsense Shuny, you claimed that the laws of logic/nature are universal and will remain the same in the future. Are you now admitting that you don't know? Talk about bald faced assertions!

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, show me how exactly where I begged the question.

The whole dialogue with Mr. Black and you proposed statements of presuppositional belief without any coherent argument. This is a Van Til presuppositional reasoning in which he proposes that there are no logical argument for the existence of God, and the justification of Christianity. As cited repeatedly, both Mr. Black and you in Van Til tradition you consider all other worldviews irrational and illogical.

Source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

1.Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2.Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."



Example:

1.Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

© Copyright Original Source

Nonsense Shuny, you claimed that the laws of logic/nature are universal and will remain the same in the future. Are you now admitting that you don't know? Talk about bald faced assertions!

I am not admitting anything, again . . .

Again seer science does not prove anything. Argument from Ignorance demanding the impossible be proven. Neither can you PROVE anything with theistic assertions.
Every time you get into an airplane and trust things will be same in the future as they were in the past, you accept the Law of non-contradiction holds and our physical existence is uniform and consistent in the future

[seer]

The whole dialogue with Mr. Black and you proposed statements of presuppositional belief without any coherent argument. This is a Van Til presuppositional reasoning in which he proposes that there are no logical argument for the existence of God, and the justification of Christianity. As cited repeatedly, both Mr. Black and you in Van Til tradition you consider all other worldviews irrational and illogical.

Shuny again, make a deductive or empirical argument that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality. Hint - you can't. Yet you take that assumption as fact and not question begging. My assumption that the Bible is the word of God is no more question begging than that. If you think it is please explain how.

I am not admitting anything, again

So are you lying? First you claim that that the laws of logic/nature are universal and will remain so in the future then you say that science doesn't prove anything. So which is it? And BTW - every time I get on an airplane I trust God alone to up hold the laws of nature. What do you trust Shuny?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny again, make a deductive or empirical argument that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality. Hint - you can't. Yet you take that assumption as fact and not question begging. My assumption that the Bible is the word of God is no more question begging than that. If you think it is please explain how.

Source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html


Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

1.Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2.Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."



Example:

1.Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

[seer]

Source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html


Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

1.Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2.Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."



Example:

1.Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

But Shuny, I did not such thing. My prime presupposition is that the Bible is the word of God, I did not argue from the existence of God to the Bible. It is a presuppositional argument (presuppose: to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance). That is not begging the question.

This may be.

1. How do you know that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality?
2. Because that is what reality looks like in my mind.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=seer;108938]But Shuny, I did not such thing. My prime presupposition is that the Bible is the word of God, I did not argue from the existence of God to the Bible. It is a presuppositional argument (presuppose: to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance). That is not begging the question.

The above is just an example of that reasoning. It remains that it is 'Begging the question' by definition. Actually it fits the example very well.

1.Bill: "I believe the Bible is the word of God."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

This may be.

1. How do you know that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality?
2. Because that is what reality looks like in my mind.

Argument from Ignorance. Demanding proof of the impossible. Again, If you make this assumption, then we are all unable to know, and alas rabbits named Harvey

[seer]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;108951]

But Shuny, I did not such thing. My prime presupposition is that the Bible is the word of God, I did not argue from the existence of God to the Bible. It is a presuppositional argument (presuppose: to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance). That is not begging the question.

The above is just an example of that reasoning. It remains that it is 'Begging the question' by definition. Actually it fits the example very well.

1.Bill: "I believe the Bible is the word of God."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

No Shuny, I'm NOT arguing THAT. My presupposition is that the Bible is the word of God. It is an axiom (a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference). I'm not arguing from or to anything. What don't you get?

Argument from Ignorance. Demanding proof of the impossible. Again, If you make this assumption, then we are all unable to know, and alas rabbits named Harvey

Nonsense, how is this not begging the question:

1. How do you know that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality?
2. Because that is what reality looks like in my mind.

See Shuny, you are being a hypocrite - you have to beg the question or argue in a circle to attempt to justify reality.

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, I'm NOT arguing THAT. My presupposition is that the Bible is the word of God. It is an axiom (a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference). I'm not arguing from or to anything. What don't you get?

It is a presuppositional argument (presuppose: to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance). That is begging the question by definition. Presupposing beforehand the conclusion of your argument is 'Begging the Question' by definition as cited.

The above is just an example of that reasoning. It remains that it is 'Begging the question' by definition. Actually it fits the example very well.

1.Bill: "I believe the Bible is the word of God."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

1. How do you know that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality?
2. Because that is what reality looks like in my mind.

See Shuny, you are being a hypocrite - you have to beg the question or argue in a circle to attempt to justify reality.

Your correct this part of the problem is not begging the question, it is Arguing from Ignorance.

No, Argument from Ignorance. Demanding proof of the impossible. Again, If you make this assumption, then we are all unable to know, and alas rabbits named Harvey

[Doug Shaver]

Believing what you read and worshiping the book are not the same.

I understand the difference . . . having done both.

[Doug Shaver]

Of course, I'm a Christian

You are one kind of Christian. There are many others.

- what else would it come down to - your word?

It doesn't have to come down to anybody's word.

[seer]

1. How do you know that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality?
2. Because that is what reality looks like in my mind.



Your correct this part of the problem is not begging the question, it is Arguing from Ignorance.

No, Argument from Ignorance. Demanding proof of the impossible. Again, If you make this assumption, then we are all unable to know, and alas rabbits named Harvey

Once again Shuny you completely lost me...

[shunyadragon]

Once again Shuny you completely lost me...

Then lost you shall be
Clueless and blind to reality.
Maybe someday you may awaken to see,
There are others, not only me
That suffer and long to see
Like Buddha under the Bodhi tree.