A possibly new perspective on this thing that we know as God.

[LadyForCamus]

Do you know what circular reasoning is? This is both your initial premise and your conclusion. That’s not how it works. Your argument is fallacious. You need to go back to the drawing board.

It only gets repetitive and fallacious because you deny the concepts and evidence that I've been saying.

Like I said, that fine. You have to understand I'm not here to try and change someone's mind. This is just something that I'm sharing.

No. You’re merely asserting that these human characteristics are divine; not demonstrating that. You’ve baked your conclusion into your argument. So, you’re sharing a fallacious argument with a bunch of atheists. Gee, thanks.

[LadyForCamus]

Do you know what circular reasoning is? This is both your initial premise and your conclusion. That’s not how it works. Your argument is fallacious. You need to go back to the drawing board.

It only gets repetitive and fallacious because you deny the concepts and evidence that I've been saying.

Like I said, that's fine. You have to understand I'm not here to try and change someone's mind. This is just something that I'm sharing.

You: “These qualities are unique to humans, therefore they’re divine.” 

Me: “How do you know these qualities are divine?”

You: “Because, they’re unique to humans.” 

Can you see the circle? There’s no point in debating the truth of your premise, because even if I grant it for the sake of the argument, your structure is still invalid.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It only gets repetitive and fallacious because you deny the concepts and evidence that I've been saying.

Like I said, that's fine. You have to understand I'm not here to try and change someone's mind. This is just something that I'm sharing.

You: “These qualities are unique to humans, therefore they’re divine.” 

Me: “How do you know these qualities are divine?”

You: “Because, they’re unique to humans.” 

Can you see the circle?

I hope you have better luck than I did, LFC.

Boru

[LadyForCamus]

You: “These qualities are unique to humans, therefore they’re divine.” 

Me: “How do you know these qualities are divine?”

You: “Because, they’re unique to humans.” 

Can you see the circle?

I hope you have better luck than I did, LFC.

Boru

Somehow, I’m sure I won’t. 

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I hope you have better luck than I did, LFC.

Boru

Somehow, I’m sure I won’t. 

You sound as if you’ve done this before.

Boru

[unityconversation]

It only gets repetitive and fallacious because you deny the concepts and evidence that I've been saying.

Like I said, that fine. You have to understand I'm not here to try and change someone's mind. This is just something that I'm sharing.

No. You’re merely asserting that these human characteristics are divine; not demonstrating that. You’ve baked your conclusion into your argument. So, you’re sharing a fallacious argument with a bunch of atheists. Gee, thanks.

We demonstrate them all the time ladyforcamus.
What more need to said? What do you mean by "demonstration?"

---

It only gets repetitive and fallacious because you deny the concepts and evidence that I've been saying.

Like I said, that's fine. You have to understand I'm not here to try and change someone's mind. This is just something that I'm sharing.

You: “These qualities are unique to humans, therefore they’re divine.” 

Me: “How do you know these qualities are divine?”

You: “Because, they’re unique to humans.” 

Can you see the circle? There’s no point in debating the truth of your premise, because even if I grant it for the sake of the argument, your structure is still invalid.

You said: "How do you know these qualities are divine?”

Because only the human being have them and because the Prophets / Messengers / Manifestations talks about them and because we actually demonstrate them all the time.

If you deny that, then that's fine.

[LadyForCamus]

No. You’re merely asserting that these human characteristics are divine; not demonstrating that. You’ve baked your conclusion into your argument. So, you’re sharing a fallacious argument with a bunch of atheists. Gee, thanks.

We demonstrate them all the time ladyforcamus.
What more need to said? What do you mean by "demonstration?"

---

You: “These qualities are unique to humans, therefore they’re divine.” 

Me: “How do you know these qualities are divine?”

You: “Because, they’re unique to humans.” 

Can you see the circle? There’s no point in debating the truth of your premise, because even if I grant it for the sake of the argument, your structure is still invalid.

You said: "How do you know these qualities are divine?”

Because only the human being have them and because the Prophets / Messengers / Manifestations talks about them and because we actually demonstrate them all the time.

If you deny that, then that's fine.

Read it again; slower. And/or google “circular reasoning”, and then read about it until you understand your mistake.

[LadyForCamus]

Somehow, I’m sure I won’t. 

You sound as if you’ve done this before.

Boru

You sound like you have. 😉

[unityconversation]

We demonstrate them all the time ladyforcamus.
What more need to said? What do you mean by "demonstration?"

---

You said: "How do you know these qualities are divine?”

Because only the human being have them and because the Prophets / Messengers / Manifestations talks about them and because we actually demonstrate them all the time.

If you deny that, then that's fine.

Read it again; slower. And/or google “circular reasoning”, and then read about it until you understand your mistake.

You didn't answer my question of: What do you mean by "demonstration?"

Well I took your advice and looked on circular reasoning and found this: "circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade."

So it seems that once again it comes down to "proof and evidence."

What exact proof and evidence are you looking for?

[LadyForCamus]

Read it again; slower. And/or google “circular reasoning”, and then read about it until you understand your mistake.

You didn't answer my question of: What do you mean by "demonstration?"

Well I took your advice and looked on circular reasoning and found this: "circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade."

So it seems that once again it comes down to "proof and evidence."

What exact proof and evidence are you looking for?

Wow! Thank you, actually, for being the very first theist I’ve ever engaged with in 6ish years that actually looked up a fallacy I’ve called them on. I give you sincere credit for that. As far as your question: when you put together some kind of argument, either formal or informal, you need to have some evidence that your premise/premises are true, or likely to be true. That is simply an immutable fact of logic. But, even if you can demonstrate your premise to be true (that only humans possess this list X of attributes) which I don’t think you have or can, the structure of your argument still has to be valid. Yours isn’t. You’re essentially saying these attributes are divine because only humans have them, and your evidence that they’re divine is that only humans have them. In other words, you’re asserting the same thing twice without any evidence. What would count as evidence? Some demonstration of a god, and a demonstration that these human attributes are related, or caused by, or imbued with the nature of this god.