RE: Who throws the dice for you?
April 14, 2014 at 12:40 pm
(This post was last modified: April 14, 2014 at 12:52 pm by Heywood.)
(April 14, 2014 at 12:34 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:(April 14, 2014 at 12:29 pm)Heywood Wrote: Negative Ben,
A begging the question fallacy requires the assumption of a conclusion. I reach 4 conclusions(which I weight differently for reasons I have yet to explain) none of which is an assumption I make.
Oh so your lack of explanation as to how one reaches these conclusions suddenly makes your obviously fallacious reasoning not fallacious?
Pull the other one mate.
Here is an argument:
Premise 1: We will see events which cannot be explained by local physical causes only if God exists.
Premise 2: We do see events that cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.
Now you can argue that premise 1 or premise 2 is not true. But if premise 1 and premise 2 are true then the conclusion follows.
In order to "beg the question", the conclusion would have to be contained within one of the premises. This is not the case here.
For the record...I think premise 1 is not true....but that's besides the point. The point is that when Ben claimed I was begging the question....He was talking out of his crack.
