(April 29, 2010 at 2:53 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:Paul the Human Wrote:1.) That isn't what 'begging the question' means.That's debatable. There are different types of 'begging the question,' and different usages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
But let's not get sidetracked.
That Wiki page says: “Begging the Question is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.”
That is not what I’ve been doing, but I agree… no need to be side-tracked by semantic arguments like that.
(April 29, 2010 at 2:53 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:Paul the Human Wrote:2.) The difference is that my conclusion is based upon the rational observation...It's rational because you 'believe' it is so. (I keep getting that here, too.)
The conclusion is rational because it is based on what the evidence shows, as opposed to being despite evidence to the contrary or by dismissing the evidence because it does not fit my preconceived notion.
(April 29, 2010 at 2:53 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:Paul the Human Wrote:...of demonstrable, empirical evidence...Can you point out what these are?
I could. I’m not going to take the time to type up all the evidence that supports evolution as the ‘way it works’, though. Especially since you are already aware of it and have chosen to dismiss it, as it does not fit your preconceived notion.
(April 29, 2010 at 2:53 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:Quote:...That means it is not circular. There is no presupposition.You say that there is life out there because life happened here. But in order for this theory to work, you would have to believe that life happened on its own based on the the conditions of the planet, which you believe without proof, and I don't. You're trying to make your argument fit your own belief. Therefore it is circular.
I have not said life is out there. I said it is probable… specifically… more probable than the existence of god. As for believing that life happened on this planet due to the conditions of the planet, you have to admit, it is a far more rational explanation than ‘godidit’.
I accept that conclusion, because that is what the scientific evidence has shown. It was not done with the preconceived conclusion that god does not exist, instead it was done as a quest for answers and has discovered zero evidence that god exists, while also showing that god does not appear to be necessary at all. Nothing circular about it.