@kevin-eleven saidI'm not worried.
Careful, Doggie. You might get throttled by the site's new tone-checker or whatever Russ is coming up with. 😉
It's been seen by the intended audience.
@eladar saidWhat you posted is not understandable. Please render your thought in complete, grammatically correct, sentences.
Rational explanation for a within one's beliefs. If the explanathion for a within the assumptions of the worldview, then it is rational. All you can ask for is consistency within assumptions, not bowing down to your personal beliefs.
Just goes to show the inconsistentency of your position. Your way or the highway for any rational discussion.
@BigDoggProblem
Yes, you're right, a futile endeavor. I'm going over to Mixed Metaphors.
Thread 189882
1 edit
@moonbus saidCircular reasoning means you support your position with things you believe are true to say that your position is true. In this case true is rational.
@BigDoggProblem
Yes, you're right, a futile endeavor. I'm going over to Mixed Metaphors.
Thread 189882
The only escape for you and those like you is to pretend that my obviously true observation is to belittle me. Sad internet "debate" tactic.
Circular reasoning is useful when like minded people want to support each other in their common self evident truths.
@eladar saidYou do not know what circular reasoning is. So I will provide you with an historical example of it. Descartes maintained the following propositions.
Circular reasoning means you support your position with things you believe are true to say that your position is true. In this case true is rational.
The only escape for you and those like you is to pretend that my obviously true observation is to belittle me. Sad internet "debate" tactic.
Circular reasoning is useful when like minded people want to support each other in their common self evident truths.
1. Whatever he (Descartes) clearly and distinctly conceived must be true.
2. Descartes clearly and distinctly conceived that God is not a deceiver.
3. Descartes clearly and distinctly conceived that God would not let him be deceived that whatever he clearly and distinctly conceives must be true.
That is circular reasoning.
I have engaged in no such thing.
What I have presented is called argument from analogy. The two analogous arguments are:
1. God created the universe and everything in it on some particular date (it could be 6,000 years ago or 100,000 years ago or one million years ago, it does not matter exactly when) and made it look older than it was, with growth rings in trees from a past which never happened and fossils from dinosaurs which never lived and light only seemingly emanating from 'stars' billions of ly away but which was created midway in space because the universe was a only few minutes old when God said 'let there be light' and space wasn't big enough for light to have travelled from stars billions of ly away.
2. God created the universe this morning after breakfast and made it look older than it is (with memories from previous days which never happened and sunken ships on the sea bed from battles which never occurred).
The logic of argument from analogy is this: if 1 is valid, then so is 2; if 2 is not valid, then neither is 1 -- because they have the same logical structure.
@eladar saidCareful, if you "bring it to light", then God might have created that light a nanosecond ago, so it doesn't prove anything. 😆
@moonbus
Circular reason is unavoidable when discussing theories about things that can never be observed.
You believe your point of view is not rooted in circular reasoning, which is all I am bringing to light.
@bigdoggproblem saidYou think I am trying to prove anything? I am proving nothing. I make no claim about proof for anything. I am simply asking people to keep assumptions within the theory that the assumption applies. I am also reminding people that all assumptions are assumption and no assumption has been demonstrated to be true.
Careful, if you "bring it to light", then God might have created that light a nanosecond ago, so it doesn't prove anything. 😆
@eladar saidYou don't know how the scientific method works, either, do you?
You think I am trying to prove anything? I am proving nothing. I make no claim about proof for anything. I am simply asking people to keep assumptions within the theory that the assumption applies. I am also reminding people that all assumptions are assumption and no assumption has been demonstrated to be true.
@eladar saidYou said this before; you think people cannot know anything not directly observed. By that reasoning, you’ve never seen the inside of your own skull, so don’t know you have a brain. It’s nothing but an assumption that you’ve got one.
@moonbus
Circular reason is unavoidable when discussing theories about things that can never be observed.
You believe your point of view is not rooted in circular reasoning, which is all I am bringing to light.
Ok, I’ll buy that; you’ve finally converted me.