The circular argumentation revisited
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-08-2016, 02:13 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 12:43 PM)cactus Wrote:  Oh, I just wandered in here to catch a rare Butterfree.
Gotta catch em all. Carry on.
Chase

And look what you found. A loony tune.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 03:00 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 01:21 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Metheist is more accurate and descriptive.

Crystal Metheist? Tongue

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
10-08-2016, 03:11 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited



---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
10-08-2016, 03:19 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
First Q, now The Borg!

Just leave my Star Trek alone, theists, pleeez! Sadcryface2

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheGulegon's post
10-08-2016, 03:52 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 11:48 AM)theBorg Wrote:  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."

Entirely wrong. Your entire argument is based on a single misunderstanding of what time is to try to excuse flawed theistic circular reasoning.

Have you even heard of the scientific method? How come you haven't mentioned falsifiability? Reproducibility? Peer review? Evidence?

You have no understanding of what science is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
10-08-2016, 06:51 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 11:48 AM)theBorg Wrote:  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."

The first part is true, but the latter is not: the clock is not the evidence for time, linear progression is evident in many, many ways beyond merely pointing to a clock. Your premise is false.

Moreover... is that really all you've got? At best, you're demonstrating that one single scientific claim is based in circular reasoning- and that's assuming your oversimplification to be true- and because of that you're willing to throw the entirety of science into the same category? That's a fallacy of composition, dude.

Not to mention, plainly idiotic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Esquilax's post
10-08-2016, 06:52 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 06:51 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 11:48 AM)theBorg Wrote:  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."

The first part is true, but the latter is not: the clock is not the evidence for time, linear progression is evident in many, many ways beyond merely pointing to a clock. Your premise is false.

Moreover... is that really all you've got? At best, you're demonstrating that one single scientific claim is based in circular reasoning- and that's assuming your oversimplification to be true- and because of that you're willing to throw the entirety of science into the same category? That's a fallacy of composition, dude.

Not to mention, plainly idiotic.

You don't really think he understood any of that, do you?

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, 07:04 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 12:29 PM)theBorg Wrote:  The atheists prefer to be called "humans", not "gods".

Which are these atheists of whom you speak?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 08:34 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 06:52 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You don't really think he understood any of that, do you?

I mean... no, but that doesn't mean it didn't feel good to say it. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Esquilax's post
10-08-2016, 09:29 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 02:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  time is not only what a clock can measure.
The clock is designed for measuring the time, because its scale shows: 1 AM, 2 AM, ... 1PM, 2 PM... the values of time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: