The circular argumentation revisited
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-08-2016, 11:48 AM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2016 10:02 PM by theBorg.)
Exclamation The circular argumentation revisited
The Creation Scientists are way too limited in the research area. Therefore, let us call a Science, which studies the metaphysical limits of the Secular Science, as the Creationism.

The Secular Science is based on the circular reasoning, e.g. "time is that what the clock measures, and the clock is what shows the time."

Therefore the Creationism can use following scientific baseground: "The Bible exists, because God thinks so, and God exists, because the Bible tells so."

Your comments are welcome. What do the people think?

Yes, the circular reasoning could be not a fallacy. See: "the temperature is that what the thermometer measures, and the thermometer shows the temperature."

The same way in Creationism: "The living objects exist, because God thinks so, and the God exists, because He is very first life in history."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 12:06 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 11:48 AM)theBorg Wrote:  The Creation Scientists are way too limited in the research area. Therefore, let us call a Science, which studies the metaphysical limits of the Secular Science, as the Creationism.

The Secular Science is based on the circular reasoning, e.g. "time is that what the clock measures, and the clock is what shows the time."

Therefore the Creationism can use following scientific baseground: "The Bible exists, because God thinks so, and God exists, because the Bible tells so."

Your comments are welcome. What do the people think?

We know time exists, we have studied, and shown it to exist. A clock is just one of many ways to display it.

We know the Bible was written by humans and contains many stories, most adapted from other religions. We know this because of researching history and archeology.


Creationism will never have any legitimate scientific backbone because if it did, it wouldn't work.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 12:08 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 11:48 AM)theBorg Wrote:  The Creation Scientists are way too limited in the research area. Therefore, let us call a Science, which studies the metaphysical limits of the Secular Science, as the Creationism.

Why don't we just call it the Philosophy of Science like everybody else? And studying the metaphysical limits of anything is not a "Science". Why you so silly?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
10-08-2016, 12:14 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 12:08 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Why you so silly?
I am not the God, that's why. I am not perfect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 12:15 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 12:14 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 12:08 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Why you so silly?
I am not the God, that's why.

I AM.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 12:19 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 12:15 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I AM.
Wishful thinking: I bet I have solved more Millennium Prize Problems than you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 12:25 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2016 12:32 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 12:19 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 12:15 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I AM.
Wishful thinking: I bet I have solved more Millennium Prize Problems than you.

nanana boo boo and I bet I make a shitload ton more money than you and could sumo the shit outta you. So fucking what?

You fail to even understand what God is. Why is it so hard to understand the meaning of I AM?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 12:26 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
What studies are studies of metaphysical limits of science?

I've seen creationist scientific studies which are nothing remotely close to that, they're mainly attempts to study scientific findings and look for flaws. Like questioning the method of carbon dating(nothing from a metaphysical angle) or studying genetic similarity of genes to other life animals in the various layers a genome goes. (like questioning genetic connection between human & chimp, again not metaphysics)

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 12:29 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 12:25 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You fail to even understand what God is.
You called yourself a god. How can I not understand this? The atheists prefer to be called "humans", not "gods".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 12:31 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 12:29 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 12:25 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You fail to even understand what God is.
You called yourself a god. How can I not understand this? The atheists prefer to be called "humans", not "gods".

What relevance is what "the atheists" prefer?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: