Begging the Question

[JerryL]

Another way to say this is that the conclusion (or one of the sub-conclusions leading to the main conclusion) is taken to be true—

I think you mean "premise". Presupposing the conclusion to be true is "assuming the consequent".

Enter the atheist. He wants to establish neo-Darwinism as the one true way and to replace standard Christian theology. How does he do so? He starts by either stating or assuming that the standard Christian worldview is a bunch of bull**** invented by primitive goat herders who couldn’t find their derrieres with both hands. Then the argument proceeds blah…blah…blah…radioactivity. Blah…blah…blah…carbon dating. Blah…blah…blah half-life. Blah…blah…blah…U238. Blah…blah…blah…fission track dating. Therefore, the standard Christian worldview is a bunch of bull**** invented by primitive goat herders.

You are too vague there to actually respond to.

That is to say: I get the general thrust of what you are saying; but when I try to understand the specifics it becomes nonsensical. For example: it seems to suggest that neo-Darwinism is a form of theology. Since it is not: I'm not sure which assumptions to make for the rest of your paragraph to respond.

I have heard a lot of arguments, but I have yet to hear one against YEC that doesn’t start with the assumption that YEC is wrong.

Try : "The physical evidence does not support the claims of YEC."

Of course: It begs the question "Can we trust our senses to be reasonably accurate and the evidence to indicative of reality?"; but if the answer to either of those is "no", we can't have a rational discussion on anything.

 

[JerryL]

To paraphrase Dr Ben Carson, he's God, he can create a universe that appears older than it is. And why not? In a created world, reality is determined only by the will of the creator- Likewise every human story, book, movie, begins with an established backstory to give the created world context. The backstory is created as is, it does not need to unfold in 'real time'

Of course. Ignoring the internal issues with the Abrhamic God, such a being would indeed be able to fake all the evidence that the scientific community has used to make a model of the history of the universe.

But that begs its own question: How do you get from "possible" to "evidenced"?

Heck: Some all-powerful diety of little blue creatures on a planet orbiting alpha centauri's God could have faked your god.

Or you could just be a brain in a jar on a lab table.

The list of "possible" things is endless. The list of evidenced things is a bit shorter.

 

[JerryL]

Young or old, can't anybody go back and verify any evidence. Neither can science reproduce creating something out of nothing, therefore has no more verifiable, demonstrable evidence better than God creating everything.

That's a bit of a logic fail.

There's something.
So that something must have been created.
By God.
Who is also something.
So must have been created.

Then you apologize around why God doesn't need to have been created, ignoring that you could apply the same apology at any abstraction level you like. Turtles all the way down.

 

[Zosimus]

Either argument is ultimately unprovable, but the difference is normally your atheist won't accept anything they cannot prove or see. It's not on the atheist to disprove the Christian (or other religions with creation myths) claims, it is on them prove their claims.

"God created the world in seven days?"
"How do you know, and who created God?"

The answers to those questions cannot be, "it's in the book", or "God created himself." Neither of those comments are acceptable answers in any case. There are no facts that support the idea...

You said: “It's not on the atheist to disprove the Christian (or other religions with creation myths) claims, it is on them prove their claims.”

Wicked pronoun errors you’ve got going on there. By “them” and “their” do you mean the atheist (presumably one person) or the Christian (again, presumably one person). Or do you mean that it’s up to the atheist to prove the Christian’s claims?

What you seem to be claiming is that the burden of proof is on the person making the claims. Yet, how do you justify the claim “the burden of proof is on the person making the claims?” Or are we just supposed to take that on faith?

 

[Zosimus]

You wrote this:



In a thread about begging the question and circular logic...

Really?

Please, show your supporting references for any one of those claims.

I said: “Standard Christian theology starts with the premise that ...Nothing got old or died.”


You said: “Please show …supporting references for [this claim].”

I refer you to Did Death of Any Kind Exist Before the Fall?

“The orthodox Christian understanding of the origin of death has been commonly understood in terms of the ‘Fall’ of mankind found in Genesis 3. Death was brought about as a result of Adam’s disobedience to the command of God in Genesis 2:17.”

 

[Zosimus]

I have yet to hear one argument for YEC that doesn't start with the assumption that it is right.

So, starting from that level playing field, let's go with the evidence. None of the empirically derived or supportable evidence supports the YEC model. As a rational person, I will go with that. Other people are free to be as rational or irrational as they wish.

You said: “None of the empirically derived or supportable evidence supports the YEC model. As a rational person, I will go with that.”

So, your argument is that evidence is rational? In other words, you believe that evidence is necessary not based on the evidence but based on your own idea of what is rational? Isn’t that self-refuting? How could you argue against someone who said that belief in God is rational and requires no more evidence than does your belief that evidence is required?


P.S. There’s a difference between “a man eating alligator” and “a man-eating alligator.” You might want to try putting in hyphens next time.

 

[Zosimus]

I think you mean "premise". Presupposing the conclusion to be true is "assuming the consequent".


You are too vague there to actually respond to.

That is to say: I get the general thrust of what you are saying; but when I try to understand the specifics it becomes nonsensical. For example: it seems to suggest that neo-Darwinism is a form of theology. Since it is not: I'm not sure which assumptions to make for the rest of your paragraph to respond.


Try : "The physical evidence does not support the claims of YEC."

Of course: It begs the question "Can we trust our senses to be reasonably accurate and the evidence to indicative of reality?"; but if the answer to either of those is "no", we can't have a rational discussion on anything.

You said: “Presupposing the conclusion to be true is ‘assuming the consequent’.”

That’s weird. Google can’t find any hits for the phrase “assuming the consequent.” What should I conclude from that?


You said: “it seems to suggest that neo-Darwinism is a form of theology…”

I could have sworn that I specifically used the word worldview.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You said: “None of the empirically derived or supportable evidence supports the YEC model. As a rational person, I will go with that.”

So, your argument is that evidence is rational? In other words, you believe that evidence is necessary not based on the evidence but based on your own idea of what is rational? Isn’t that self-refuting? How could you argue against someone who said that belief in God is rational and requires no more evidence than does your belief that evidence is required?


P.S. There’s a difference between “a man eating alligator” and “a man-eating alligator.” You might want to try putting in hyphens next time.

Still waiting for any empirical evidence which supports YEC, if anyone has any. I do understand that rationality isn't a necessary variable for belief for everyone, of course.

 

[Zosimus]

Still waiting for any empirical evidence which supports YEC, if anyone has any. I do understand that rationality isn't a necessary variable for belief for everyone, of course.

Whereas I am waiting for YOU to provide evidence that supports the idea that evidence is necessary to believe something. You seem enamored with the idea of evidence, but where's the evidence for evidence?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Whereas I am waiting for YOU to provide evidence that supports the idea that evidence is necessary to believe something. You seem enamored with the idea of evidence, but where's the evidence for evidence?

So, just to be clear, you have no evidence which supports the claims of YEC? Am I hearing you correctly?

 

[Zosimus]

So, just to be clear, you have no evidence which supports the claims of YEC? Am I hearing you correctly?

So, just to be clear, you have no evidence that supports the claim that evidence is or should be required to believe in something?

P.S. I never made any claim about YEC. I simply criticized the faulty logic employed by many while attempting to refute a belief system that is not open to scientific inquiry.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So, just to be clear, you have no evidence that supports the claim that evidence is or should be required to believe in something?

I don't mind if people are irrational. In fact, I generally expect it.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I said: “Standard Christian theology starts with the premise that ...Nothing got old or died.”


You said: “Please show …supporting references for [this claim].”

I refer you to Did Death of Any Kind Exist Before the Fall?

“The orthodox Christian understanding of the origin of death has been commonly understood in terms of the ‘Fall’ of mankind found in Genesis 3. Death was brought about as a result of Adam’s disobedience to the command of God in Genesis 2:17.”

.....

Do you really not recognize your own set of logical fallacies here?

 

[Zosimus]

I don't mind if people are irrational. In fact, I generally expect it.

It is irrational to demand evidence from others while exempting yourself from the same requirement.

 

[JerryL]

You said: “Presupposing the conclusion to be true is ‘assuming the consequent’.”

That’s weird. Google can’t find any hits for the phrase “assuming the consequent.” What should I conclude from that?

My recommendation is "don't worry about it because it's not really the thrust of my post but rather it is an aside".

You said: “it seems to suggest that neo-Darwinism is a form of theology…”

I could have sworn that I specifically used the word worldview.

It's not that either: so if you did, it doesn't solve the problem.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It is irrational to demand evidence from others while exempting yourself from the same requirement.

No, that would be hypocritical. If that was what I was actually doing.

Irrational would be believing things without having any rational reason (i.e., evidence) for doing so.

Knowing your vocabulary, and how to apply it, is very important for effective communication.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

How could you argue against someone who said that belief in God is rational and requires no more evidence than does your belief that evidence is required?

It's as easy as this: You want me to believe what you're spouting off about? Show me why I should. And if I don't like what you have to say or show, if I don't find your "evidence" compelling - as in ME, personally - then I don't have to subscribe. Even your God grants me this.

The difference between what you believe and portray to others and what I believe and portray is that there are things to look to as evidence for what supports my notion of reality - some of that comes from scientific evaluations that others have shared, some from personal observation, and some from human interaction. As others have pointed out, our reality is fed to us through our senses... that's all we've really got to discern the world around us - to make our way, and to survive. If we can't trust or believe in our own senses, then what are we to trust? My every sense and intuition informs me that God does not exist. I am, literally bound not to believe - that is, unless something truly worthwhile compels me. And believe me when I say I have seen plenty of the paltry excuses for such "evidence" and "witnessing" that exist to have already easily (too easily) dismissed them as unconvincing.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Whereas I am waiting for YOU to provide evidence that supports the idea that evidence is necessary to believe something. You seem enamored with the idea of evidence, but where's the evidence for evidence?

Can I interject and just simply ask why you believe young earth creationism is true? If your reasons are rationalist as opposed to empirical, then that's where the discussion begins.

So why do you believe that YEC is true?

 

[Zosimus]

.....

Do you really not recognize your own set of logical fallacies here?

I'm not engaging in any logical fallacies because I'm not drawing any conclusions. I'm simply commenting on the logic commonly employed in this forum.

 

[Zosimus]

No, that would be hypocritical. If that was what I was actually doing.

Irrational would be believing things without having any rational reason (i.e., evidence) for doing so.

Evidence is not a rational reason.

I think you are very confused about the difference between rationalism and empiricism.