The circular argumentation revisited
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2016, 09:21 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 09:09 PM)theBorg Wrote:  Why are you using my old text? I have already changed the text.

Because that was the text present when I hit reply. Editting your argument because it sucks is considered dishonest. If you need to clarify a point kindly make a new post.

Quote:Definition A:
What is time?
Einstein: "the time is a physical object, which is measured by clock."

I'm doubting that Einstein ever suggested that time was a physical object. What is the mass and location of midnight?

Quote:Definition B:
What is clock?
"clock is the unchanging Metrology Standard for measuring time."

A: Time is measured by clock
B: Clock measures time

A = B

I have to give credit where credit is due though. You're one of the very few Evangelicals that I've met that couldn't construct a circular reference.

---
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
11-08-2016, 09:24 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 09:18 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 09:16 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  I had a history of religious fanaticism.
Perhaps not the sinful fanaticism, but the holy fundamentalism?

What I became was not good. I felt constantly angry, almost getting to the point of wishing death on people. I felt like I knew with absolute certainty that I was going to hell, which meant that nothing I did mattered. The story of Jesus meant nothing to me. I thought that I must choose hell to be a good person.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 09:30 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 09:12 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  How does a circular definition relate to a circular argument? Am I missing something?

Borg seems to think that the definition of time used by "secular science" is circular because his definition of time is circular. He's trying to use that to justify circular Bible-proving-God-proving-Bible-proving-God reasoning.

---
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
11-08-2016, 09:33 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 09:21 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  A: Time is measured by clock
B: Clock measures time
A = B
On what level they are equal? Is it deep philosophical level? Are you suggesting, what space-time is my ruler and my clock? Then what about your clock and your ruler? Are your possession my?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 09:34 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 09:30 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 09:12 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  How does a circular definition relate to a circular argument? Am I missing something?

Borg seems to think that the definition of time used by "secular science" is circular because his definition of time is circular. He's trying to use that to justify circular Bible-proving-God-proving-Bible-proving-God reasoning.

A circular definition is completely different from a circular proof. I think we're witnessing the worst argumentation of presuppositionalism here.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 09:48 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 09:34 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  I think we're witnessing the worst argumentation of presuppositionalism here.
Einstein: "the time is a physical object, which is measured by clock."
"clock is the unchanging Metrology Standard for measuring time."
Please insert this into one sentence:

"the time is a physical object, which is measured by the unchanging Metrology Standard for measuring time." The circle is closed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 09:50 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 09:34 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 09:30 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Borg seems to think that the definition of time used by "secular science" is circular because his definition of time is circular. He's trying to use that to justify circular Bible-proving-God-proving-Bible-proving-God reasoning.

A circular definition is completely different from a circular proof. I think we're witnessing the worst argumentation of presuppositionalism here.

No, we're witnessing an attempt at the worst of presup. Seeing as he can't even manage to construct a circular argument properly it isn't even that. It's almost in that B-movie category of 'so bad it's funny'.

---
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
11-08-2016, 10:00 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 09:48 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 09:34 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  I think we're witnessing the worst argumentation of presuppositionalism here.
Einstein: "the time is a physical object, which is measured by clock."
"clock is the unchanging Metrology Standard for measuring time."
Please insert this into one sentence:

"the time is a physical object, which is measured by the unchanging Metrology Standard for measuring time." The circle is closed.

You can mangle language. Unimpressive.

My computer has a keyboard.
A keyboard is what my computer has.
My computer has what my computer has.

Congratulations, you have anaged to reduce your single premise to a tautology. Thumbsup That is a step in the wrong direction. No

Here's what your argument looks like so far:

Time is what clocks measure.
What clocks measure is time.
Time is what time is. Facepalm

Formally:

Time ---> Clocks
Clocks <--- Time (Never write symbolic logic like this or they'll chop your fingers off)
Time ---> Time Laughat

What you need is:

Time ---> Clocks (OK, no sense in clocks without time)
Clocks ---> Time (No. Clocks do not produce time)

This would be circular.

---
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
11-08-2016, 10:03 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 09:33 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 09:21 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  A: Time is measured by clock
B: Clock measures time
A = B
On what level they are equal? Is it deep philosophical level? Are you suggesting, what space-time is my ruler and my clock? Then what about your clock and your ruler? Are your possession my?

They make the same statement, only the grammar is different.

The sky is blue.
Blue is the colour of the sky.

Identical statements with words in different order.

---
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
11-08-2016, 10:45 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
Borg is typing in another language... feeding the results through a translator program.. (Maybe more than one.. maybe passing the words through more than once) and hoping what comes out and what they post is English.

I, for one, wish they'd go and get a friend who can speak English, even a little, and get them to help correct things.

The posts would be come hopefully more understandable. Well.. maybe less weird and strange and slightly amusing though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: