The circular argumentation revisited
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-08-2016, 05:28 AM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(12-08-2016 05:15 AM)theBorg Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 04:45 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Citation required for where Einstein said that time is a physical object
I simply read the Einstein's definition of time "between the lines". The word "time" is the projection of an event on the time-axis of spacetime, latter is background for any current physical system.

So he didn't say that time was a physical object and what you posted was simply wrong.

Got it.

Quote:The time measured by the clock.

I don't understand why you seem to conflate the measurement with what is being measured. You seem to be unable to distinguish between conceptual and tangible.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 09:13 AM
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?

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
12-08-2016, 09:37 AM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
Well the theists generally don't believe in God because the bible says so; However they believe that God is the God of the bible because the bible says so. they believe that there must be a God because the brain naturally defaults to that position until it is reprogrammed. Yes the brain naturally recognizes design when it sees 'function' and more so 'complexity with function'. 'where there is function; there is design'- Ernest Chwabena Owusu[Echo]. That's why we don't go about arguing whether the cars or houses we see where designed or not because the brain recognizes design when it sees one. so the theists are just being the rationale persons they are because all their lives they've never seen anything come out of nothing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 09:55 AM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
At work.

Slightly flawed analogy Echo.

That reads as an argument from ignorance.

"I don't know how/have an explanation. ....... therefore deity."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 10:25 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
Don't we recognize something is designed/built because we compare it to nature (well one of the ways, I mean if I witness it I know it was built)? For example I can look at a house and know it was designed and built because a house has never been observed to form naturally; I know a human built that because compared to the rest of the environment, it stands out as different. So what is nature being compared to as to get a determination that it was "designed"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ResidentEvilFan's post
12-08-2016, 10:59 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(12-08-2016 10:25 PM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  it was "designed"?
We have nothing, we need to call the Designer then. We can label anything as we like. Letters "TRUE GOD" are the label, correct?
We use this label to label the very first life in history. What is wrong with this? Why then I am "Poe"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 06:39 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2016 08:32 AM by unfogged.)
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(12-08-2016 10:59 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 10:25 PM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  it was "designed"?
We have nothing, we need to call the Designer then. We can label anything as we like. Letters "TRUE GOD" are the label, correct?
We use this label to label the very first life in history. What is wrong with this? Why then I am "Poe"?

We can label label anything as we like. Letters "POE" are the label, correct? We use this label to label theBorg. What is wrong with this? Why then are you here?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 08:20 AM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(12-08-2016 10:59 PM)theBorg Wrote:  Letters "TRUE GOD" are the label, correct?
We use this label to label the very first life in history. What is wrong with this?
What's wrong? Well the fact that we DON'T use the label "true god" for the first life.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 09:03 AM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(12-08-2016 10:59 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 10:25 PM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  it was "designed"?
We have nothing, we need to call the Designer then. We can label anything as we like. Letters "TRUE GOD" are the label, correct?
We use this label to label the very first life in history. What is wrong with this? Why then I am "Poe"?

who is "we?" because the vast majority of people who use the term god/true god don't. Labels are meaningless, they only have agreed upon acceptance. you should try to think beyond just pointless labeling and focus merely on the concepts.

the labels that way, just using them as it pleases you leads to meaningless drivel and pointless statements like your post and this post having to go on to express how it's not what others use the term for.

Again, what value is there to use the term god to refer to first life? When the term God rarely means that instead usually refers to deities of "supernatural" or classical powers like omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, or a prime mover of universal existence(not life)

"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
13-08-2016, 10:06 AM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(12-08-2016 10:59 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 10:25 PM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  it was "designed"?
We have nothing, we need to call the Designer then. We can label anything as we like. Letters "TRUE GOD" are the label, correct?
We use this label to label the very first life in history. What is wrong with this? Why then I am "Poe"?

Who is "we"? I don't. But to that, you can call it whatever the fuck you want.

As far as calling the "Designer", I tried, several times. He never answers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: