One question for Christians

[The Reality Salesman01]

You must have missed the point. Both sides must beg the question whenever they appeal to evidentialism. That’s why I do not appeal to scientific evidence in order to prove the Bible is true, and you should not try to point to scientific evidence in order to try and prove it is false. That dog won’t hunt.

Again...Horses and carts my dear sir. You seem to think that both sides stand on level footing. Because your bible has not been proven as a true source of information, it is perfectly acceptable to assume that it is not until proven otherwise. This seems to be a common mistake.

That is not part of my syllogism; my syllogism was not proving anything in regards to the truth of scripture. My syllogism was valid and sound because it affirmed the antecedent (not the consequent), and if the premises are both true then the conclusion is also true.

You pointed out that my syllogism was valid. You showed that it wasn't true. I can re-word it for you if you insist, but now your just stalling. Your flawed logic will still support its conclusion Stat...


p1- [edit]A wheel of cheese can be recognized as being a round white object.
P2-the moon is a round object that is white
p3- The moon is a wheel of cheese

-Statler's School of Logic supports this message.


Yours wasn't true either because your conclusion is not supported by the premises. Valid, yes. True? No. Your conclusion can be dismissed on account of your premises overlooking alternatives that could render your conclusion false. Your first premise is false! That's why I used it as an example! Secularists are not begging the question if the thing they are assuming is false has not been proven true by the individual bearing the burden of proof (YOU). I'm sorry dude, but no matter how you slice it, you can't use god to prove god, or the bible to prove the bible. That dog won't hunt. In fact, that dog seems to be dizzy from all the circles your logic sends it through.