RE: Does Modern Science Owe Its Existence to Religion?
August 18, 2011 at 8:07 pm
(This post was last modified: August 18, 2011 at 8:12 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(August 18, 2011 at 6:02 pm)Rhythm Wrote: A question, you believe the argument to be sound, but wouldn't use it in a debate? That's a strange place to be in. If I had a sound argument for something people were giving me shit about, I'd be all over it. Are there any other "sound arguments" that you WOULD use in a debate?
If I were more of a classical apologist I would use an argument similar to that one, but I am not, I prefer presuppositionalism. So I have my reasons for not using the argument. At least you are now using proper terminology now and no longer mixing up valid and sound, I am proud of you Rhythm. :-)
Quote: I never liked that argument either by the way. Biblical inerrancy is more a conclusion than a premise.
According to? You still have not given me your inerrant standard you use to judge other truth claims by.
Quote: May valid arguments contain fallacies? Would it not be accurate to say that presuppositionalism commits the informal fallacy of begging the question?
I don't see why it would, so you are going to have to elaborate more on that one.
Quote: Is the comparison of logic, or reason, and scripture specifically the fallacy of false analogy?
Where did I compare the too? You asked for examples of other presuppositions so I gave you the example of logic. I believe that logical reasoning is justified by scripture; it has no justification in an atheistic world though.
(August 18, 2011 at 8:02 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm glad we had this conversation. I did learn a lot about logic.
Yes I am glad we did too, and I am glad you learned a few things. It's very difficult to discuss such things if the other person doens't know the basics (such as the difference between validity and soundness). So it's been a productive day.
