(October 4, 2011 at 2:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: To me as someone who doesn't hold the same rational [given] conclusions as you do, your assertions are without rational support: ie irrational. I don't assume that you are irrational, I consider your position to be rationally formed and endeavour to find the reasoning.
This has sweet-fuck-all to do with the point at hand, in DP's example there was a premise that was asserted as true without any substantiation, it is a 'Bare Assertion' by it's very nature. Just as if someone 2000 years ago was to make the argument "(1) Subatomic particles exist, therefore; (2) Atoms are not the fundamental building-block of matter" they would be guilty of committing the exact same fallacy, irrespective of whether or not it would later be shown that subatomic particles do in-fact exist.
If you have something to say about the premise in question (You want to show support for the claim that "Moral goodness is grounded in the very nature of Yahweh") that is entirely another discussion and has nothing to do with the DP's question, that being "What is the classification of this fallacy?".
Quote:Therefore: a POV contrary to your own would indeed be merely an assertion for you to assess.
Whether or not I agree with said proposition is simply irrelevant, an agreement with an asserted premise does not change the fact the premise is an assertion. That is exactly what was presented in the example. As far as I am aware this holds true for not just the example in question but to all instances where it has been claimed that "Moral goodness is grounded in the very nature of Yahweh", if you would like to enlighten me on that issue feel free.
.
