Quote:So just for the sake of argument, let's both assume my worldview is correct and scripture is in fact inerrant.

They have medication for that kind of insanity now, Waldork. You should really make an appointment with a shrink and start taking some.

(June 15, 2011 at 3:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It's not special pleading at all, if you have another source in mind that is inerrant please provide me with it. If you do not, then I am not making a false assumption.

Logical Fallacy: Non Sequitur "It does not follow"
SW Statement: If you can't name something that is inerrant, it means the Bible is inerrant.

Quote:Secondly, everyone has to resort to circular logic eventually (circular reasoning is not invalid, it just doesn't progress), if you do not believe me, give me a reason as to why we should argue logically; remember not to give me a logical reason though or else you will be using circular reasoning!

Logic delivers the goods. No alternative way of thinking has proven so useful. That's why we use it. Not because it's logical.

Quote:So again, I presuppose scripture is the ultimate standard of truth, you presuppose human reason is.

Scripture had roughly 1,200 years to deliver the goods and kept us in darkness. Reason has been ascendant for 200 years and accomplished more in that time than all the 1,200 years of superstition combined.

Quote:I believe human reasoning can be derived from scripture.

Good luck with that.

Quote:I can use outside sources to help refine my understanding of scripture, but I cannot compromise on the fact that scripture is God’s word.

Burden of proof on the claim that the Bible is God's Word is on you.

Quote:So just for the sake of argument, let's both assume my worldview is correct and scripture is in fact inerrant. Why would you try and test its inerrancy with sources you know to be capable of committing error?

The Bible contradicts itself, and so it is not inerrant.

(June 15, 2011 at 4:09 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

---

Logical Fallacy: Non Sequitur "It does not follow"
SW Statement: If you can't name something that is inerrant, it means the Bible is inerrant.

---

I am well aware what Non Sequitur means. You misrepresented my argument though.

(June 15, 2011 at 4:09 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

---

Logic delivers the goods. No alternative way of thinking has proven so useful. That's why we use it. Not because it's logical.

---

You are using a logical argument, “logic works therefore we should continue to use it” to answer the question why we should use logic. Circular argument.

(June 15, 2011 at 4:09 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

---

Scripture had roughly 1,200 years to deliver the goods and kept us in darkness. Reason has been ascendant for 200 years and accomplished more in that time than all the 1,200 years of superstition combined.

---

Straw man argument, falsely assumes that Christianity and human reason are mutually exclusive.

(June 15, 2011 at 4:09 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

---

Good luck with that.

---

I have a lack of belief in luck.

(June 15, 2011 at 4:09 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

---

Burden of proof on the claim that the Bible is God's Word is on you.

---

Says who? You?

(June 15, 2011 at 4:09 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

---

The Bible contradicts itself, and so it is not inerrant.

---

This is an assertion, not an argument.

“one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.” - Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370 -

I know you understand this Statler. Please modify your question to be logical or provide the evidence for your claims. we have been going back and forth about fallacies and you havent even tried to modify your question. See Red herring btw ;d

(June 16, 2011 at 7:07 pm)eric209 Wrote:

---

“one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.” - Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370 -

I know you understand this Statler. Please modify your question to be logical or provide the evidence for your claims. we have been going back and forth about fallacies and you havent even tried to modify your question. See Red herring btw ;d

---

I said that we were assuming the Bible was the word of God for the purpose of the discussion, so I have no burden of proof because we are only assuming it for discussion. So I will ask again, if we assumed that scripture is the word of God for the purpose of discussion, how would you prove or disprove this?

Your thought experiment is illogical in it's premise. Your asking me to prove the fallability of my infallible source according to the premise. This is impossible.

Now that I have responded to your thought experiment do you have any questions that aren't illogical thought experiments?

Quote:I said that we were assuming the Bible was the word of God for the purpose of the discussion,

You can say whatever you like....it does not prevent the rest of us from telling you to blow your bible out your ass.

(June 16, 2011 at 7:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I am well aware what Non Sequitur means. You misrepresented my argument though.

Please clarify it for me then. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

Quote:You are using a logical argument, “logic works therefore we should continue to use it” to answer the question why we should use logic. Circular argument.

Actually, "because it works for us" isn't a logical argument for why something is true.

Some believers say "I was addicted to drugs and then I found Jesus. Christianity works for my life. Therefore it's true." This is not a rational argument to convert to Christianity. This may be the reason he chose to be a Christian but it's not a rational one. It's a value judgment. It depends both on the presumption of cause/effect (that "finding Jesus" broke his addiction) and on someone deciding that being addicted to drugs is a bad thing. Personally, I agree but that's based on my value judgment on what I want to get out of my own life.

Maybe an someone might decide they like living in the Dark Ages, in which case the magical thinking of Christianity would work better to that end than science and reason. The fact that I like the results that science and reason seem to offer is not a rational reason to choose science and reason. It's based on my desires of the kind of world I want to live in.

Quote:Straw man argument, falsely assumes that Christianity and human reason are mutually exclusive.

We're discussing why we should use secular reason as opposed to Christian thinking.

Quote:This is an assertion, not an argument.

It's an assertion you dispute? Fine. Turn to page 1 of the Bible and tell me if Yahweh created plants and animals before or after creating man. Your answer must be consistent with both chapter 1 and chapter 2 of Genesis.

May the Hold Spirit telepathically guide you to the correct answer.

(June 15, 2011 at 3:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:So just for the sake of argument, let's both assume my worldview is correct and scripture is in fact inerrant.

They have medication for that kind of insanity now, Waldork. You should really make an appointment with a shrink and start taking some.

Talking to Waldork on this subject is like talking a crackhead out of hitting the glass dick again... It aint workin!

P.S> Speaking of Waldork..Dont feed the trolls and they will go away

(June 17, 2011 at 8:58 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

(June 15, 2011 at 3:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:So just for the sake of argument, let's both assume my worldview is correct and scripture is in fact inerrant.

They have medication for that kind of insanity now, Waldork. You should really make an appointment with a shrink and start taking some.

Talking to Waldork on this subject is like talking a crackhead out of hitting the glass dick again... It aint workin!

P.S> Speaking of Waldork..Dont feed the trolls and they will go away

If I had a reasonable expectation of rational discussion with a creationist that would be one thing. I don't.