Origin of Articles

[Epimethean]

You are giving circular reasoning its own spin cycle.

[elunico13]

Raising the Bar:
"Explain why we use reason without using reason, otherwise, I'll say 'that's circular reasoning'."

Viscous circular reasoning is:
Using your reasoning as an ultimate standard. I validate my reasoning by using my reasoning. I know my reasoning is correct because of my reasoning.

A person's reasoning isn't always correct. How do you determine then when your reasoning is accurate. Maybe, by using my reason.

The whole thing begs the very question. Why???

---

You are giving circular reasoning its own spin cycle.

Explain

[Epimethean]

You continue to cite the bible as evidence and continue to suggest that this evidence supports the bible as fact.

Done.

[elunico13]

If you want to know why laws of logic are the nature of God (universal, immaterial, invariant) then your going to have to find my answer to that in the thread.

OK, so let me see if I got this straight.

Logic is universal, immaterial and invariant. Your idea of God is universal, immaterial and invariant. Therefore, logic = God, since they share three common features?

Am I following your line of "logic" correctly here?

Are you seriously proposing that if two things, one of which has yet to be demonstrated to actually exist, share three common features, they are one and the same?

Btw, the god of the OT has a physical body.

You have left out all of the pre-conditions of intelligibilty.
Remember though I am the only one who has given a rational and logical justification for laws of logic.

You have attempted multiple times along with others. You never catch the flaws in your arguments. All I do is simply correct your way of thinking using logic.

---

You continue to cite the bible as evidence and continue to suggest that this evidence supports the bible as fact.

Done.

Can your ultimate standard attest for itself (your senses, memory, science)? Is it axiomatic like the Bible?
I don't infer that the Bible is true, but rather it proves itself.

[Epimethean]

You are making my statement more true with every post.

[DeistPaladin]

Its secular science because of the assumption that science equals naturalism which seems to be the lie you've bought into. You could answer alot of your own questions by reading my thread here.

The reason science only studies the natural universe is because that's all that can be studied. Science doesn't assume a naturalistic world or deny the existence of God or the supernatural. Science merely restricts itself to what can be studied.

Do you know what they call the "supernatural" once it is accepted by and studied by science?

"Natural"

For example, if ghosts really existed, science would include Dr. Venkman stuff. We could study ghosts and invent detectors that could read their ecoplasmic energies to let us know when a place was haunted. There would be an entire field of science devoted to the study and understanding of this phenomena.

As an aside, this is why I can be a deist and a naturalist at the same time. God is not supernatural. If we had infinite knowledge, we could understand Its nature, properties and limitations.

This is the exact reasoning process that refutes itself.
example: "if empiricists tell me so, then I empirically accept it as reality."
Also how does a theory like the big bang "lead to something that works"???

As others have patiently explained to you, we don't believe in evolution because Dr. Dawkins says so. We accept evolution because it has been proven. There is an entire body of knowledge that can be studied, inspected and fully learned by anyone willing to take the time.

Compare science to religion in this way. There is no information to be learned in the study of theology. You can't run tests to confirm the effect of faith healing or exorcism. We can't contact angels or interview them. All we can do is read claims of ancient superstitious people.

Hence why apologists can only offer philoso-babble, not evidence.

[Cyberman]

Its secular science because of the assumption that science equals naturalism which seems to be the lie you've bought into. You could answer alot of your own questions by reading my thread here.

Anything that can exert an influence, however small, on the Universe falls squarely within the purview of scientific investigation, whether or not we have sufficient means to do so right now. "To the rational mind, nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained." Unless and until you can present something of any substance to support the concept of non-secular science, we'd do better to remove all that poison from the well and simply refer to "science".

Also how does a theory like the big bang "lead to something that works"???

Plural question marks don't increase the authority of your query; they are not cumulative. The glib answer to your question is: you're sitting in the thing that works, it's popularly referred to as the Universe. On the other hand, if I were to take one example it would be the discovery of the CMB (a prediction of BBT) leading to the development of microwave astronomy. It's the technological equivalent of speciation; a new field of astronomy where there wasn't one before, purely as a result of Big Bang cosmology.

Interesting though this digression has been, it's clearly a creative way of avoiding the issue. Where's my miracle?

[DeistPaladin]

A person's reasoning isn't always correct. How do you determine then when your reasoning is accurate. Maybe, by using my reason.

The whole thing begs the very question. Why???

Same way science is self-correcting. When inconsistencies are detected or new facts are introduced. opinions can be changed to suit the new findings. For example, I reason that believers in Yahweh-Jesus have not met their burden of proof that this deity exists. What can you offer me to convince me otherwise?

---

You have left out all of the pre-conditions of intelligibilty.

Elaborate please?

Remember though I am the only one who has given a rational and logical justification for laws of logic.

As we've patiently explained to you, "GodDidIt" does not explain anything.

[Mister Agenda]

That's like saying a total lunar eclipse makes it impossible to predict the sunset or sunrise.

Lunar eclipses are entirely predictable because of the consistency of physics, so it's more like saying someone who can stop the rotation of the earth at will and has been known to do so reduces the confidence level of sunset predictions.

If water turns into wine does that make it impossible for astronomers to study the night sky? Of course not.

It would certainly do a number on chemistry if the possibility were taken seriously.

If God halts the Earth's rotation for a day he can do it because he sustains the universe and established the laws of uniformity. And as a result of such a miracle scientists can detect a the "time change" by using the law of uniformity sustained by God to calculate it. (Only if we had an accurate earth-based clock with which to compare our astronomical observations going back to the time of Joshua.)
Joshua 10:13

News flash: no such time change can be detected (despite the hoax email that has been going around for years that has taken some gullible people in) nor did any other civilization of the time record the supposed event. It's just a story.

The bible never says the trinity is 3 separate beings. 1 John 5:7 KJV
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Where's your excluded middle when it could show you have some integrity? Are they three or is it one?

[Angrboda]

You and I are done. You piss and moan that I don't devote hours reading your previous argument and then you have the audacity to use a cheap and lame excuse to ignore my own. I have at my side here the reader, "Philosophy of Science," M. Curd and J.A. Cuver, ed., which has a nice 18 page essay on the Duhem-Quine Thesis, part of a 100+ page section on Duhem-Quine and underdetermination of theory which I could scan and post, but we both know what the result of that would be. You'd simply find some other lame evasion to avoid answering the question. This isn't my first exposure to epistemological holism and while Wikipedia may be faulted at times for errant scholarship, I know from my own study of the issue that there was nothing wrong or improper in the Wikipedia summation that I posted. But then, far be at from you to actually make a substantive response and make a valid criticism of the account of epistemological holism given. If you actually had a problem with the substance of my summary, I have to wonder why you didn't use it? Because you don't have any substantive criticism, because if you had, that would have killed my argument more dead than complaining about the material being from Wikipedia. Which means that you don't have a substantive response. Thanks for the confession.

Which I guess demonstrates that you're unwilling to account for yourself and use any cheap whine to evade your responsibilities.

Enjoy your silly evasions and fallacy ridden dancing. I've got better things to do with my time.



Oh, as long as I'm still here, I'll contribute one parting shot for the benefit of those who wish to continue. You are conflating the assumption of methodological naturalism, which is a procedural limitation on the type of explanations that the scientific method can uncover, with metaphysical naturalism, which is the assumption that only natural, material causes exist.