Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Can we trust what God says?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
    Not saying you can't. Asking why I should think you do.
    I've asked him this before. He implies that he has the epistemology of the Holy Spirit.

    Here's an explanation of Holy Spirit epistemology (also called reformed epistemology):

    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/criti...t-epistemology

    Comment


    • Originally posted by whag View Post
      Here's an explanation of Holy Spirit epistemology (also called reformed epistemology):

      http://www.reasonablefaith.org/criti...t-epistemology
      I hadn't seen that interview before, but I've read plenty of what Craig has had to say on that subject.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        Yes, and those same Jews considered that Adam and Eve got the boot from Eden on the very day that Adam was created.
        On what basis do you make this claim?

        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        And interpreting "yom" as a 24 hour day was a majority view - there were always dissenters.
        .....and???


        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        Slipped a cog on that one. Genesis 2, not Revelation 2.
        Oh, ok. So you were just taking Genesis 2 out of context again. No biggie. ;)



        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        Straw man fallacy it isn't. You ARE claiming that "Yom" in Genesis refers to a 24 hour day.
        In Genesis 1, yes. But the comment you made gave the impression I leave no room for contextual variance, which is false.

        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        I am saying that contextually, "yom" in Genesis takes the alternative meaning.
        On what basis do you make such a claim, especially in light of Exodus 20:11?

        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        You're claiming that it means a 24 hour day...
        It does in the creation account in Genesis 1, and clearly so.


        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        ...when the time period specified, bracketing the events of day 1, is evening to morning.
        Right. On the Hebrew calendar days began at evening, not morning. The use of "evening and morning" denote the passage of a literal 24-hour day, and that's the exact language that ancient Jews used in their other writings to denote the passing of a literal day.


        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        Parallel: yes. The same: nothing makes that necessary.
        Sue it does. Wanna know what? "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth..."

        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        While the things of Earth do reflect things of heaven, they are never (to the best of my knowledge) exact replicas.
        What do you mean by "things of heaven" here? Define that, please.


        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        The words in verse 15 are "Holy Writings", not "Scripture".
        Actually, the word "writing" in verse 15 in the Greek is γράμμα ("gramma"), from which the word in verse 16, γραφή ("graphē "). Verse 15 refers to the writings on the documents, and verse 16 refers to the documents on which the writings are written.

        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        On those grounds, generally applicable, the reflexive pronoun would not be required. Specifically with regard to verses 15 and 16 however, the reflexive pronoun could not be used in verse 16 because there is an intervening clause referring to Christ.
        That makes no sense. The beautiful bit about Christ in verse 15 is still about the writings and their effect: they lead people to Christ. Keeping the subject on the Scriptures, verse 16 builds on verse 15 by pointing that all Scripture is inspired by God.

        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        Unwarranted is taking an adjective and pretending it is a verb.
        Straw man fallacy. I never claimed "inspired referred in verse 16 to an action or a state of being. I pointed out that Paul said "all Scripture." If Paul were referring merely to the sacred writings Timothy had read there were a number of ways he could have made that clear. He could have said something, "Which writings you've known are inspired and profitable...", or "Those writings from your youth are inspired and profitable...". But no, he specifically said, "All Scripture."

        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        An adjective can appear after the noun it modifies with a substantive "is" interposed: Whether "the car is dilapidated" or "the dilapidated car" is said, the car is being described. "God-breathed" describes the holy/sacred writings that Timothy had known from childhood.
        No doubt the Scriptures that Timothy read as a child were included, but given Paul's clear language "All Scripture", it cannot be limited to only what Timothy read. He was refering to every written document that is God-breathed, not just the ones that Timothy had read.


        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        You said
        Notice that there's a difference between (1) God inspiring a document that's all merely His own words, and(2) God inspiring a document that contains reports of what others have said. In both cases the document is fully inspired by God, and therefore is an accurate report of the events.
        Which would mean that the document might contain things that weren't from God...
        That depends on what you mean by "weren't from God". Take the account of David and Saul. Saul lied to David when he promised to give his daughter Michal to him for a wife. He instead gave her to Adriel the Meholathite.The lie itself is not a message from God, but the historical account of that lie is from God, as He had it written down through inspiration. So the whole document is inspired and authoritative (i.e., its historical claims are not to be challenged).

        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        ...and that the document would have to be carefully examined to determine whether the contents, individually and collectively, originated with God. Anything included that did not originate with God is included because its inclusion in some way serves his purpose.
        I agree with that. Yet anything in it (like accurate reports of men's lies and what not) are inspired and therefore are authoritative historical reports which are not to be judged or challenged in any way, shape, or form. :)


        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        The man who is in the Spirit is an ambassador in Christ's diplomatic service. The Bible declares it, and the fact has been confirmed by the Holy Spirit.
        This is gonna sound like a no-brainer, but which Christ do you serve (Christian/biblical, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses...???)
        Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
          I hadn't seen that interview before, but I've read plenty of what Craig has had to say on that subject.
          I like the part where Craig says that God must amplify his divine presence in the lives of believers who have no apologetics resources, lest they be tempted to recant their faith. This strikes me as curiously presumptive.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by whag View Post
            Stop trying to impress me.
            This is something I see quite a bit. Conceited people who are so focused on themselves, and have cut themselves off from reality such that they've actually managed to convince themselves that Creationists are out to "impress" them. I hate to break it to you, bud, but I just don't have any reason to care about whether you're "impressed". You're not the One Who created me, sustains me, has forgiven me, and has blessed me. God's---and only God's---view is what matters. I would appreciate less rhetoric and more rational answers.

            Originally posted by whag View Post
            I simply accept scientific epistemology as a rational human being
            I'll address the confused term "scientific epistemology" below, but I'd just like to point out that your language here, "I simply accept..." wreaks of arbitrariness---which is an irrational cardinal sin in reasoning I suspect you would ever let a Christian get away with. ;)

            Originally posted by whag View Post
            --as do many Christians here, such as tabibito.
            Logical fallacy: appeal to majority. What you're essentially saying is, "Lots of other people, including Christians, have an arbitrary and absurd foundation for their reasoning, so gee that must make it rational to embrace absurdity." No, it doesn't it.

            Originally posted by whag View Post
            Christians must accept scientific epistemology to have any credence today.
            There's no such thing as "scientific epistemology". There's the scientific method, but to conduct identical experiments in sufficiently similar conditions and expect consistent results already assumes that we know some things, which means we've already employed an epistemology before we go about doing science. Science and technology require the uniformity of nature, which means to make sense of science we need some sort of rational, non-arbitrary guarantee that the universe will continue to act in a law-like fashion. If you can't provide a justification---from your worldview---for knowing that nature will be uniform 10 seconds from now, then science is destroyed by your worldview.
            What is the basis for such a view in your worldview? What rational basis do you have believing in the validity of science?

            Originally posted by whag View Post
            You can't evangelize without knowing that basic information about reality.
            Exactly. To do anything you need to know some things, yet your worldview can't account for a single thing. Not laws of logic, not the uniformity of nature, nor moral absolutes, basis reliability of your senses, memory, cognitive faculties, etc.
            Or can it? I'd love to see an explanation from you.

            Originally posted by whag View Post
            You're trying to leapfrog over scientific epistemology...
            No such thing. You need an epistemology first, otherwise you couldn't have known anything prior to looking at science (which means you couldn't even know that science can bring certain facts to light, which means you had no rational basis for accepting---or even trying---science to begin with).

            Originally posted by whag View Post
            ...and start preaching without that basic knowledge.
            Science is not basic basic knowledge. A=A, A is not Non-A, and Either A or Non-A would be examples of basic knowledge.
            Another piece of knowledge more basic than science would be that nature is uniform, because without that guarantee science is destroyed.
            So what's the basis for the uniformity of nature in your worldview?
            Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

            Comment


            • Right. On the Hebrew calendar days began at evening, not morning. The use of "evening and morning" denote the passage of a literal 24-hour day, and that's the exact language that ancient Jews used in their other writings to denote the passing of a literal day.
              If you can provide verifiable citations, I'll withdraw the objection.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                This is something I see quite a bit. Conceited people who are so focused on themselves, and have cut themselves off from reality such that they've actually managed to convince themselves that Creationists are out to "impress" them. I hate to break it to you, bud, but I just don't have any reason to care about whether you're "impressed". You're not the One Who created me, sustains me, has forgiven me, and has blessed me. God's---and only God's---view is what matters. I would appreciate less rhetoric and more rational answers.
                Careful with your use of 'conceit' to describe others. The humility to realize that you may be wrong and accept change in the light of new knowledge is far from conceit.

                I'll address the confused term "scientific epistemology" below, but I'd just like to point out that your language here, "I simply accept..." wreaks of arbitrariness---which is an irrational cardinal sin in reasoning I suspect you would ever let a Christian get away with. ;)
                The statement I simply accept is probably not the best way to express why one supports the Methodological Naturalism methods of science to understand our physical existence.


                Logical fallacy: appeal to majority. What you're essentially saying is, "Lots of other people, including Christians, have an arbitrary and absurd foundation for their reasoning, so gee that must make it rational to embrace absurdity." No, it doesn't it.
                The foundation of science is not an appeal to the majority. It is an appeal to the consistent evidence that supports the scientific view of our physical existence.



                There's no such thing as "scientific epistemology". There's the scientific method, but to conduct identical experiments in sufficiently similar conditions and expect consistent results already assumes that we know some things, which means we've already employed an epistemology before we go about doing science. Science and technology require the uniformity of nature, which means to make sense of science we need some sort of rational, non-arbitrary guarantee that the universe will continue to act in a law-like fashion. If you can't provide a justification---from your worldview---for knowing that nature will be uniform 10 seconds from now, then science is destroyed by your worldview.
                Belief in the knowledge of science and the uniformity of nature is based on the fact that the Methodological Naturalism methods have been overwhelmingly consistent and have never failed show a uniform continuity of natural law. IF ten seconds from now this fails, so be it, but at present a science epistemology has been 100% accurate in its methods of understanding the knowledge of our physical existence. This track record warrants the support science has earned. On the other hand you have failed to present evidence that this is not the case. All you have is anecdotal claims that you know differently. This conceit at the highest expression.

                What is the basis for such a view in your worldview? What rational basis do you have believing in the validity of science?
                Consistent uniform predictability of the methods of science. Consistency trumps 'what if?'



                Exactly. To do anything you need to know some things, yet your worldview can't account for a single thing. Not laws of logic, not the uniformity of nature, nor moral absolutes, basis reliability of your senses, memory, cognitive faculties, etc.
                Or can it? I'd love to see an explanation from you.
                The epistemology of science can account for the uniform consistent nature of our physical existence.



                No such thing. You need an epistemology first, otherwise you couldn't have known anything prior to looking at science (which means you couldn't even know that science can bring certain facts to light, which means you had no rational basis for accepting---or even trying---science to begin with).
                The epistemology of science works no problem. Where can you cite the failure of science in predicting the nature of our physical existence?



                ]quote] Science is not basic basic knowledge. A=A, A is not Non-A, and Either A or Non-A would be examples of basic knowledge.
                Another piece of knowledge more basic than science would be that nature is uniform, because without that guarantee science is destroyed.
                So what's the basis for the uniformity of nature in your worldview?[/QUOTE]

                The basis of for the belief in the uniformity is based on the fact that it has never been shown that our physical existence has ever been non-uniform, This trumps 'what IF?'

                What is your basis for saying that the nature of our physical existence is not uniform other then hypothetical 'What IF?'
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-04-2014, 05:21 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mr. Black
                  There's no such thing as "scientific epistemology".
                  There isn't?

                  http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/publica...istemology.pdf

                  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categ...ogy_of_science

                  Originally posted by Mr. Black
                  Logical fallacy: appeal to majority.
                  I was appealing to the minority, actually. Most Christians take Genesis literally. The point being you could learn from the minority. Pick their fruit.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    If you can provide verifiable citations, I'll withdraw the objection.
                    Josephus writes,

                    "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The earth had not come into sight, but was
                    hidden in thick darkness, and a breath from above sped over it, when God commanded that there should
                    be light. It came, and, surveying the whole of matter, he divided the light from the darkness, calling the
                    latter night and the former day, and naming morning and evening the dawn of the light and its cessation.
                    This then should be the first day, but Moses spoke of it as 'one' day; I could explain why he did so now, but
                    having promised to render an account of the causes of everything in a special work, I defer till then the
                    explanation of this point also." (from H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus in Nine Volumes (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
                    1978). Thackeray adds on p. 13 n. b, "This projected work on 'Customs and Causes' . . . was apparently never
                    completed.")



                    Josephus, in Ant. 8:60-62, thought that the text allows by simple addition to come the year of the deluge
                    and even the year of creation,

                    "Solomon began the building of the temple in the fourth year of his reign, in the second month, which the
                    Macedonians call Artemisios and the Hebrews Iar, five hundred and ninety-two years after the Israelites'
                    exodus from Egypt, one thousand and twenty years after the coming of Abraham to Canaan from
                    Mesopotamia, one thousand four hundred and forty years after the deluge; and from the creation of
                    Adam the first man to the time when Solomon built the temple there elapsed altogether three thousand
                    one hundred and two years." (Thackeray and Marcus, Josephus, 5:603. See too Josephus, Ant. 1.33, 48 and 109.)

                    There are a number of similar texts from the Babylonian Talmud as well,

                    Pesahim 88a
                    Said R. Yohanan, “The ingathering of the exiles is as great as the day on which heaven and earth were
                    created: ‘And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and they
                    shall appoint themselves one head and shall go up out of the land, for great shall be the day of
                    Jezreel’ (Hos. 2:2), and ‘and there was evening and there was morning, one day’ (Gen. 1:4).” (Neusner, Babylonian, 4:423)

                    Hagigah 12a
                    And said R. Judah said Rab, “Ten things were created on the first day, and these are they: heaven and
                    earth, chaos and desolation, light and darkness, wind and water, the length of day and the length of
                    night. . . . “the length of day and the length of night: ‘And there was evening and there was morning,
                    one day’ (Gen. 1:5).” (Neusner, Babylonian, 7:45-46)

                    Shabbat 10a
                    R. Hisda and Rabbah bar R. Huna were in session in court all day long. They felt weak. R. Hiyya bar
                    Rab of Difti repeated for them the following Tannaite statement: “ ‘And the people stood about
                    Moses from the morning unto the evening’ (Ex. 18:13)—now can it enter your mind that Moses was
                    sitting and judging cases all day long? When would his study of Torah be carried out? But it is to tell
                    you: Any judge who judges a case in truth and fidelity even for a single moment is regarded by
                    Scripture as though he were turned into a partner of the Holy One, blessed be He, in the works of
                    creation. For here it is written, ‘And the people stood about Moses from the morning unto the
                    evening’ (Ex. 18:13), and elsewhere, ‘And there was evening, and there was morning, one day.” (Neusner, Babylonian, 2:33)

                    Berakhot 2a
                    And this is the sense of the passage: When is the time for the recitation of the Shema when one lies
                    down? It is from the hour that the priests enter [a state of cleanness so as] to eat their heave-offering
                    [M. 1:1B]. And if you prefer, I may propose that the usage derives from the order of the description of
                    creation, for it is said, “And there was evening, and there was morning, one day” (Gen. 1:5). (Neusner, Babylonian, 1:2)
                    Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      The humility to realize that you may be wrong and accept change in the light of new knowledge is far from conceit.
                      1.) You took that statement out of context. I was addressing his claim that I was out to "impress" him.
                      2.) But just for the record, saying that you could be wrong about everything, and then turning around and making knowledge claims is self-refuting nonsense. There's nothing humble about it.


                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      The statement I simply accept is probably not the best way to express why one supports the Methodological Naturalism methods of science to understand our physical existence.



                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      The foundation of science is not an appeal to the majority.
                      I didnt say it was. I said that his statements, "I simply accept", and "--as do many Christians here, such as tabibito" was, and it is, a subtle appeal to the majority.


                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      It is an appeal to the consistent evidence that supports the scientific view of our physical existence.
                      Scientific evidence can never settle the matter on basic issues like this. Science itself operates on the assumption of certain general principles which are believes to be universal and invariant, hence those beliefs come prior to scientific investigations. If one wants to push this answer anyway, I'd like them to explain how one's limited experience of partciulars = certainty of universals. No scientist has been everywhere, so how can he/she know that the laws of logic or physics apply everywhere on earth, let alone in the universe? Nor have they experienced every moment of the past, so how can they know these laws haven't changed in the past? Nor have they experienced the future, so how can they know for sure these laws won't change 5 seconds from now?


                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Belief in the knowledge of science and the uniformity of nature is based on the fact that the Methodological Naturalism methods have been overwhelmingly consistent and have never failed show a uniform continuity of natural law.
                      Notice that this begs the question. My question is not about the past, it's about the future. What I'm essentially asking is, on what basis do you say that the laws of physics are of such a nature that they do not change? When you respond by essentially saying, "Well, they've never changed in the past, so I suspect they never will in the future," you subtly assume that the laws of physics are of such a nature that they do not change---which is the very thing you're trying to prove.

                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      IF ten seconds from now this fails, so be it,
                      Exactly. You have no guarantee of the uniformity of nature, nor a guarantee that nature is likely uniform. Your worldview makes nonsense out of the scidntific enterprise, whereas mine provides a metaphysic in which it grows and flourishes.

                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      but at present a science epistemology has been 100% accurate...
                      Really? Could you be wrong about that?
                      Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by whag View Post
                        There isn't?
                        No, there isn't. Science does not---and cannot---tell us whether the laws of logic and laws of physics...
                        (1) exist,
                        (2) are what we profess them to be,
                        (3) apply everywhere,
                        (4) always have applied everywhere,
                        (5) always will apply everywhere.
                        Nor can it tell us...
                        (6) whether or not our sensory organs are working properly, so that we can be sure we're viewing something real and not an illusion,
                        (7)whether our cognitive faculties are working properly, so that we can be sure our reasoning (on any issue at all) is valid, nor
                        (8) whether our memory of the evidence and of our having examined that evidence properly is accurate, and not a false memory.

                        Science assumes every single one of those, and thus cannot be the basis for any of them. That would be viciously circular. You would have to assume all of them to do science, and then appeal to scientific "findings" after the fact in an attempt to justify the assumptions on which science itself---and therefore those alleged findings---stands.
                        What the basis for those in your worldview?



                        Originally posted by whag View Post
                        I was appealing to the minority, actually.
                        Then it's even more irrational than I thought.

                        Originally posted by whag View Post
                        Most Christians take Genesis literally.
                        I've seen studies that indicate otherwise, but I hope you're right about that. :)

                        Originally posted by whag View Post
                        The point being you could learn from the minority. Pick their fruit.
                        No one has the right to "pick" what they want to be true. We're all responsible to God to handle His Word properly and honestly.
                        Last edited by Mr. Black; 09-06-2014, 05:40 PM.
                        Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                          1.) You took that statement out of context. I was addressing his claim that I was out to "impress" him.
                          2.) But just for the record, saying that you could be wrong about everything, and then turning around and making knowledge claims is self-refuting nonsense. There's nothing humble about it.
                          Make your statements and stand by them instead of playing Duck, Bob and Weave.

                          You have failed to present any evidence what so ever that your view has a consistent ontic basis other then the anecdotal 'I believe.' Still waiting . . .

                          Your appealing to an unknown negative assumption about what could or could not possibly take place in the future.


                          I didnt say it was. I said that his statements, "I simply accept", and "--as do many Christians here, such as tabibito" was, and it is, a subtle appeal to the majority.
                          You hedging. The scientific knowledge is not nor has ever been an appeal to the majority. You need to clarify yourself instead of hedging.

                          Scientific evidence can never settle the matter on basic issues like this. Science itself operates on the assumption of certain general principles which are believes to be universal and invariant, hence those beliefs come prior to scientific investigations. If one wants to push this answer anyway, I'd like them to explain how one's limited experience of partciulars = certainty of universals. No scientist has been everywhere, so how can he/she know that the laws of logic or physics apply everywhere on earth, let alone in the universe? Nor have they experienced every moment of the past, so how can they know these laws haven't changed in the past? Nor have they experienced the future, so how can they know for sure these laws won't change 5 seconds from now?
                          No problem the ontic base of the physical evidence has never, and I mean never indicated one shred of evidence nor event that has indicated that our physical existence is not universally consistent. This is a far more consistent ontic basis then anything you have presented.

                          Notice the logical fallacies described below your are committing her in your appeal to the negative and unknowns.

                          You have failed to present any evidence what so ever that your view has a consistent ontic basis other then the anecdotal 'I believe.' Still waiting . . .

                          Notice that this begs the question. My question is not about the past, it's about the future. What I'm essentially asking is, on what basis do you say that the laws of physics are of such a nature that they do not change? When you respond by essentially saying, "Well, they've never changed in the past, so I suspect they never will in the future," you subtly assume that the laws of physics are of such a nature that they do not change---which is the very thing you're trying to prove.
                          Your misusing logic here. You are appealing to hypothetical unknowns of the future to justify your argument, and this is a logical fallacy 'Big time.'

                          Take your pick

                          Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Formal_fallacies



                          Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise

                          or Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          Really? Could you be wrong about that?
                          Actually, your appealing to an unknown negative here like a broken record and committing the same fallacy as above. Your avoiding a consistent positive argument concerning what you believe and why.

                          Same applies to you Really? Could you be wrong about that?




                          Exactly. You have no guarantee of the uniformity of nature, nor a guarantee that nature is likely uniform. Your worldview makes nonsense out of the scidntific enterprise, whereas mine provides a metaphysic in which it grows and flourishes.
                          Not exactly, not even close, we have as much a certainty as possible that nature is indeed uniform, Again, this far more grounded in a consistent ontic base then any thing you have presently.

                          You have failed to present any evidence what so ever that your view has a consistent ontic basis other then the anecdotal 'I believe.' Still waiting . . .

                          The reverse is most likely true. unfortunately you fail to back up your claims with an intelligent argument. Please give me any evidence for your assertion the nature of our physical existence is not uniform. Scientific enterprise?!?!?!



                          Really? Could you be wrong about that?
                          Really!?!?!?! In the current context of the knowledge of science is much more reliable then yours.

                          You have failed to present any evidence what so ever that your view has a consistent ontic basis other then the anecdotal 'I believe.' Still waiting . . .
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-07-2014, 04:03 PM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post


                            The scientific knowledge is not nor has ever been an appeal to the majority.
                            Then how come all we hear is about the scientific consensus on man made global warming? And how those who disagree are deniers, virtual heretics.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Then how come all we hear is about the scientific consensus on man made global warming? And how those who disagree are deniers, virtual heretics.
                              Please check your definitions as to what is the 'appeal to the majority' in logic, because it refers to an appeal to personal opinions and views. The scientific knowledge is based not on consensus, but on the collective peer reviewed research that developed the knowledge over a period of time, and not an appeal to consensus alone. There is disagreement and differing conclusions among scientists, but to be accepted as alternatives they have to have peer reviewed research to back it up performed by sound scientific methods, and not of just opinions of deniers and virtual heretics, which yes are not taken seriously. The knowledge of science will always be open to sound well reasoned skepticism and new research through the process of falsification by sound scientific methods. Over time there has been fraud and unsound sloppy research, but this has been rooted out by scientists themselves, and not outside armchair critics.

                              As for Global Warming, it is properly called 'Climate Change.' , the evidence is overwhelming and sound science. This year recorded the highest ocean temperatures on record, and in the past ten years or so the top three years of hottest air temperatures occurred on record. The drying (aridification) bordering the arid regions are becoming catastrophic in the impact on climate.

                              There are differences and differing conclusions as to the degree of human influence, amount of change over time, but at present 'Climate Change' and human influence are well documented scientifically.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-08-2014, 06:29 AM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Then how come all we hear is about the scientific consensus on man made global warming? And how those who disagree are deniers, virtual heretics.
                                If you have a cogent argument against an authoritative consensus, then the consensus doesn't matter. In the case of anthropogenic climate change, no one has produced a cogent argument against the consensus. There still could be one, but no one seems to have discovered it yet.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                31 responses
                                107 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                79 responses
                                420 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X