Begging the Question

[Revoltingest]

I never said that YEC is wrong. But that is me.

What I could say, like W. Pauli, is that it is not even wrong.

I was thinking along the same lines, but in an overly wordy way.
It's not about logic (formal or informal) at all.
YEC simply isn't useful, ie, it cannot be disproven (the old "nicht einmal falsch" shortcoming).
Take the premise that the laws of physics can radically change at any time....6000 years ago
being one occasion. Assuming this, we couldn't predict anything because tomorrow, God
might get up on the wrong side of the bed, & decide to reboot the whole shebang.

 

[viole]

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?

Do you think the earth could be flat? If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[dust1n]

First of all, bro, appeals to Wikipedia are inappropriate. Especially when the Wikipedia entry admits that it’s a stub and that it is desperately in need of someone to fix it. All of the sources for the information are basically dictionaries. You cannot come up with something better than that? Truly pathetic.

This is such common knowledge about Logic, I thought Wiki would work. But at your request:

IEP: (emphasis added)

"According to the definition of a deductive argument (see the Deduction and Induction), the author of a deductive argument always intends that the premises provide the sort of justification for the conclusion whereby if the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true as well. Loosely speaking, if the author's process of reasoning is a good one, if the premises actually do provide this sort of justification for the conclusion, then the argument is valid.

In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The following argument is valid, because it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to nevertheless be false:

Either Elizabeth owns a Honda or she owns a Saturn.
Elizabeth does not own a Honda.
Therefore, Elizabeth owns a Saturn.

It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well. We can recognize in the above case that even if one of the premises is actually false, that if they had been true the conclusion would have been true as well. Consider, then an argument such as the following:

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

Obviously, the premises in this argument are not true. It may be hard to imagine these premises being true, but it is not hard to see that if they were true, their truth would logically guarantee the conclusion's truth...

Whether or not the premises of an argument are true depends on their specific content. However, according to the dominant understanding among logicians, the validity or invalidity of an argument is determined entirely by its logical form. The logical form of an argument is that which remains of it when one abstracts away from the specific content of the premises and the conclusion, i.e., words naming things, their properties and relations, leaving only those elements that are common to discourse and reasoning about any subject matter, i.e., words such as "all", "and", "not", "some", etc. One can represent the logical form of an argument by replacing the specific content words with letters used as place-holders or variables."

Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Also referred to as:

"Premises (the ideas that argument is assuming to be true and advancing as evidence for the ultimate conclusion)"

Dr. Dona Warren Department of Philosophy The University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point

http://www4.uwsp.edu/philosophy/dwarren/whatisformallogic/whatisformallogicslides.pdf

Etc.... etc....

Second, your claim that changing laws of physics invalidate all of logic is absurd. Logic has nothing to do with physics.

No it isn't. The problem isn't what physics is or isn't. The problem is asserting that one is begging the question by assuming as a premise that the laws of physics didn't conveniently change some 6000 years ago...

You seem to be unaware that all logical premises are assumptions... at least for the purposes of logic. If we can not accept as a fact any given assumptions at which to arrive at conclusions, than you and I can create entirely different valid arguments with radically different conclusions, because the premises from which the argument is made is not the same...

Finally, you seem to be putting words in my mouth. I have never claimed that the laws of physics weren’t real. The problem is that you think you know what the laws of physics are because you’ve observed some things, but how do you really know what the laws of physics are? In 200 years, everything that you think is true about physics will be considered laughably obsolete.

I didn't say you claimed the laws of physics weren't real. You are suggesting that it is impossible to know that the laws of physicians have been more consistent than over 200 years ago. Which is fine. But I'd wouldn't generally assume the same things to be true that you do. I acknowledge it's entirely possible that the laws of physics entirely changed 12 seconds ago, but I can't see it, because the new laws of physics only makes it look like stuff is much older than it is.

By the way, Newton wrote about "physics" 300 years ago. The majority of calculus is entirely legitimate. It didn't turn out to be wrong... it just didn't tell the whole story, nor explain everything that humans had seen in the universe or at a microscopic scale.

You know this, but you want to run around pretending that the latest scientific fad should enjoy some holy place of worship. Well, I’m not interested in drinking the Kool-aid. Go peddle your cult to someone else.

Talk about putting words in some one else's mouth. Personally I don't attend any place of worship, whether it's the worship of the scientific method for arriving at truth claims about the physical reality we exist in, or a fictitious entity written a book than no one has any more access to or proof of.

P1: The laws of physics are not subject to whimsical change or purposeful change from an outside agent.
P2: Radiometric dating is consistent if and only is the laws of physics are not subject to change.
P3: Radiometric dating of various forums show that the age of various rocks on the planet date back nearly 4 billion years.

Conclusion: The planet is nearly 4 billion years old.

I mean, if P1 is too much of an assumption for you, I can see why you think my argument is unsound. But it's not less valid whether or not P1 is true or not.

 

[dust1n]

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?

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

So it is irrational to demand evidence from others while exempting yourself, and yet you demand evidence that evidence is necessary to believe something (why would you need evidence for that?) all while exempting yourself from needing to provide any sort of evidence for the hundreds of claims in the forums.

 

[Zosimus]

Do you think the earth could be flat? If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

The earth is flat, in areas, and mountainous, in others.

 

[Zosimus]

This is such common knowledge about Logic, I thought Wiki would work. But at your request:

IEP: (emphasis added)

"According to the definition of a deductive argument (see the Deduction and Induction), the author of a deductive argument always intends that the premises provide the sort of justification for the conclusion whereby if the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true as well. Loosely speaking, if the author's process of reasoning is a good one, if the premises actually do provide this sort of justification for the conclusion, then the argument is valid.

In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The following argument is valid, because it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to nevertheless be false:

Either Elizabeth owns a Honda or she owns a Saturn.
Elizabeth does not own a Honda.
Therefore, Elizabeth owns a Saturn.

It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well. We can recognize in the above case that even if one of the premises is actually false, that if they had been true the conclusion would have been true as well. Consider, then an argument such as the following:

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

Obviously, the premises in this argument are not true. It may be hard to imagine these premises being true, but it is not hard to see that if they were true, their truth would logically guarantee the conclusion's truth...

Whether or not the premises of an argument are true depends on their specific content. However, according to the dominant understanding among logicians, the validity or invalidity of an argument is determined entirely by its logical form. The logical form of an argument is that which remains of it when one abstracts away from the specific content of the premises and the conclusion, i.e., words naming things, their properties and relations, leaving only those elements that are common to discourse and reasoning about any subject matter, i.e., words such as "all", "and", "not", "some", etc. One can represent the logical form of an argument by replacing the specific content words with letters used as place-holders or variables."

Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Also referred to as:

"Premises (the ideas that argument is assuming to be true and advancing as evidence for the ultimate conclusion)"

Dr. Dona Warren Department of Philosophy The University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point

http://www4.uwsp.edu/philosophy/dwarren/whatisformallogic/whatisformallogicslides.pdf

Etc.... etc....



No it isn't. The problem isn't what physics is or isn't. The problem is asserting that one is begging the question by assuming as a premise that the laws of physics didn't conveniently change some 6000 years ago...

You seem to be unaware that all logical premises are assumptions... at least for the purposes of logic. If we can not accept as a fact any given assumptions at which to arrive at conclusions, than you and I can create entirely different valid arguments with radically different conclusions, because the premises from which the argument is made is not the same...



I didn't say you claimed the laws of physics weren't real. You are suggesting that it is impossible to know that the laws of physicians have been more consistent than over 200 years ago. Which is fine. But I'd wouldn't generally assume the same things to be true that you do. I acknowledge it's entirely possible that the laws of physics entirely changed 12 seconds ago, but I can't see it, because the new laws of physics only makes it look like stuff is much older than it is.

By the way, Newton wrote about "physics" 300 years ago. The majority of calculus is entirely legitimate. It didn't turn out to be wrong... it just didn't tell the whole story, nor explain everything that humans had seen in the universe or at a microscopic scale.



Talk about putting words in some one else's mouth. Personally I don't attend any place of worship, whether it's the worship of the scientific method for arriving at truth claims about the physical reality we exist in, or a fictitious entity written a book than no one has any more access to or proof of.

P1: The laws of physics are not subject to whimsical change or purposeful change from an outside agent.
P2: Radiometric dating is consistent if and only is the laws of physics are not subject to change.
P3: Radiometric dating of various forums show that the age of various rocks on the planet date back nearly 4 billion years.

Conclusion: The planet is nearly 4 billion years old.

I mean, if P1 is too much of an assumption for you, I can see why you think my argument is unsound. But it's not less valid whether or not P1 is true or not.

Oh, great. You switch from one encyclopedia to another.

Since you don’t seem to get it, I will explain it to you as simply as possible. Invalid logical arguments are not persuasive. If I present the argument: Most roses are red; therefore, God exists. I’m sure you won’t be convinced. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.

Your argument seems to be that since the premises might be assumptions or merely hypothetical that it’s all right to make invalid logical arguments.

If, for example, I say: Barrack Obama is the current president of the United States. Barrack Obama is a man. Therefore, the current president of the United States is a man—are you really going to say that the premises of this argument are just assumptions? I’m only assuming that Barrack Obama is a man? I’m only assuming that he is the current president of the United States?

Now, I have pointed out that your argument is unsound because it is begging the question. Since you seem to like the IEP, I will link you to Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wherein we see that one example of begging the question is to say “Women shouldn’t be bullfighters because bullfighters should be men.” The conclusion is the same as the premise.

Accordingly, if you start your chain of logic against Christianity by assuming that Christianity is false, then you are begging the question. This is a formal logical fallacy that generates an unsound and unconvincing argument.

Finally, you start with a chain of logic that is ridiculous. P1: The laws of physics are not subject to…change…from an outside agent. Since the entire point of my argument is that starting with this premise is BEGGING THE QUESTION I cannot help but wonder whether you are trying to strengthen my argument by putting this premise up. P2: Radiometric dating is consistent(!) if and only is (sic) the laws of physics are not subject to change. What in the world do you mean by consistent? Things can be consistent without being true. P3: Radiometric dating of various forums(!) show that the age of various rocks on the planet date back nearly 4 billion years.

Then you say “…if P1 is too much of an assumption for you, I can see why you think my argument is unsound. But it's not less valid whether or not P1 is true or not.” But it is invalid because it commits the logical fallacy of begging the question.

 

[Zosimus]

So it is irrational to demand evidence from others while exempting yourself, and yet you demand evidence that evidence is necessary to believe something (why would you need evidence for that?) all while exempting yourself from needing to providence any sort of evidence for the hundreds of claims in the forums.

Another stupid argument.

Imagine that a man comes up to you and says: All truth is contained in the Bible.

You reply: If all truth is contained in the Bible, where in the Bible does it say that all truth is contained in the Bible? If the Bible doesn’t say it, you cannot, by your own logic claim that this statement is true.

He replies: You don’t believe in the Bible, so you cannot make that argument.

Tell me—what do you think of his argument?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No, the “very definition of begging the question” is “Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.”

I think you need to rethink your argument. You may think that repeating “I know you are, but what am I?” every time someone criticizes your argument is a convincing response. I’m sorry to have to inform you that it isn’t.

And once again you choose the option that avoids having to discuss your position in favour of self-righteous response.

OK, let's break my response down. Do you think science is capable of measuring things outside the realm of the material?

 

[dust1n]

Oh, great. You switch from one encyclopedia to another.

One that is peer-reviewed and maintained by a university... and it wasn't the only thing. I guess it was lost on you though that attacking the source as opposed to attacking the content is a form of ad hominem, another logical fallacy.

Since you don’t seem to get it, I will explain it to you as simply as possible. Invalid logical arguments are not persuasive.

No kidding. But Valid logical arguments are not necessarily Sound logical arguments. That distinction seems to be lost to y ou.

If I present the argument: Most roses are red; therefore, God exists. I’m sure you won’t be convinced. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.

Sure, it's both unsound and invalid.

Your argument seems to be that since the premises might be assumptions or merely hypothetical that it’s all right to make invalid logical arguments.

No. I am saying that all premises, for the purposes of a logical argument, a premise IS an assumption or merely hypothetical. The premises provide valid reasoning for the conclusion. The premises are themselves not being argued to being for as a truth claim. The only way to prove that a premise is actually true, is by making it a conclusion for another set of premises, which themselves would be assumed.

If, for example, I say: Barrack Obama is the current president of the United States. Barrack Obama is a man. Therefore, the current president of the United States is a man—are you really going to say that the premises of this argument are just assumptions? I’m only assuming that Barrack Obama is a man? I’m only assuming that he is the current president of the United States?

Correct. Because you have not proven that BHO is a man, or that he is the current president. In order to do that, you would need to make an entirely different argument. The premises are assumed to be true, and for all intents and purposes, they are reasonable assumptions to make. But I have no reason to believe they are true unless you can prove they are.

Now, I have pointed out that your argument is unsound because it is begging the question. Since you seem to like the IEP, I will link you to Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wherein we see that one example of begging the question is to say “Women shouldn’t be bullfighters because bullfighters should be men.” The conclusion is the same as the premise.

Using a fallacy would make an argument invalid, not unsound (though by being invalid it would be unsound).

Accordingly, if you start your chain of logic against Christianity by assuming that Christianity is false, then you are begging the question. This is a formal logical fallacy that generates an unsound and unconvincing argument.

Correct. But if you notice in my argument, it makes no reference to Christianity, assumes nothing about Christianity being right or wrong, and yet still shows that a logical argument can made for a planet that is nearly 4 billion years old. Nothing in any of my premises assumes anything about the conclusion... so how is it begging the question?

Finally, you start with a chain of logic that is ridiculous. P1: The laws of physics are not subject to…change…from an outside agent. Since the entire point of my argument is that starting with this premise is BEGGING THE QUESTION I cannot help but wonder whether you are trying to strengthen my argument by putting this premise up.

Not really. The assumption that the laws of physics are not subject to change from an outside agent is an assumption. Just because I am assuming one thing for the purposes of establishing a premise, doesn't mean I am assuming the conclusion...

P2: Radiometric dating is consistent(!) if and only is (sic) the laws of physics are not subject to change. What in the world do you mean by consistent? Things can be consistent without being true.

That's true... I would need another premise that radioactive decay is actually a thing that occurs, and then when this is measured, that the measurement is actually reflecting an event happening in real time; as opposed to having the devil trick our eyes.

P3: Radiometric dating of various forums(!) show that the age of various rocks on the planet date back nearly 4 billion years.

Then you say “…if P1 is too much of an assumption for you, I can see why you think my argument is unsound. But it's not less valid whether or not P1 is true or not.” But it is invalid because it commits the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Except it doesn't commit the logical fallacy of begging the question... the shoddy argument I put together may be committing a number of fallacies I am unaware of, but it isn't begging the question, and you certainly haven't demonstrated that to be true.

You seem to be thinking that making an assumption of any kind means that one is assuming the conclusion to be true; which makes no sense.




EDIT: Hold on... I messed something up here...... Now fixed.

 

[dust1n]

Another stupid argument.

It wasn't even an argument... just pointing out your one-sided standard for legitimate truth claims. Everyone's claims require an intense scrutiny that apparently should never be applied to any claim you make.

Imagine that a man comes up to you and says: All truth is contained in the Bible.

You reply: If all truth is contained in the Bible, where in the Bible does it say that all truth is contained in the Bible? If the Bible doesn’t say it, you cannot, by your own logic claim that this statement is true.

He replies: You don’t believe in the Bible, so you cannot make that argument.

Tell me—what do you think of his argument?

It's a contradiction.

If all truth is contained in the Bible, and the statement "all truth is contained in the Bible" is not included in the Bible, then either not all truth is contained in the Bible, or the statement "all truth is contained in the Bible" is not true.

 

[viole]

The earth is flat, in areas, and mountainous, in others.

Are you sure? How do you know that?

But what I mean is: do you think the earth could be globally flat? You know, like the Bible says, like a disc.

Ciao

- viole

 

[JerryL]

Dust1n seems to have my bases covered; so I'll just get the popcorn.

I will add that that pretty much any example of deduction includes both states and unstated premises. A common way to end up with a fallacious argument is to rely on an unstated premise that is not true (or, at least, not accepted).

 

[RedDragon94]

"God created the world in seven days?"

That's why theistic evolution makes sense.

"How do you know, and who created God?"

Well, I trust what the majority of scientists are saying but I don't think it rules out the Bible's testimony. Now, God in my mind is self existent. He just very simply is. This coincides with the fact that there's something instead of nothing. It comes to this, either God is the unseen creator or the seen creation. I think it's the former because matter is not eternal.

 

[Mindmaster]

That's why theistic evolution makes sense.

Well, I trust what the majority of scientists are saying but I don't think it rules out the Bible's testimony. Now, God in my mind is self existent. He just very simply is. This coincides with the fact that there's something instead of nothing. It comes to this, either God is the unseen creator or the seen creation. I think it's the former because matter is not eternal.

I'm not really trying to shift the discussion into existential proofs, another subject completely for sure. It's impossible to prove whether you exist, let alone whether God does/would. I think that any book has the potential to be correct on some things, or wrong on them; the bible just has been wrong on a lot of things.

The argument of god being pantheistic or panentheistic is difficult to assertain as well, considering he might well be like Santa Claus... e.g. a little lie told to children to keep them into line... These things exist within the scope of our feelings, logic, etc... The subject and the object are inseparable, but the because of that our observation can easily be tainted by our innate preferences and biases. Most people just skip the logic bit of the situation and go with what they hope for is right, but simply realize that is what you are doing. I realize a cold hard material existence is a tough thing to accept for many people, especially people who are having a hard go of it in life.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So, let’s try negating the assumption to see what happens. The negated form is “The laws of physics radically changed at the time that Adam ate the forbidden fruit.” Will this statement, if true, disprove the conclusion? I think it will. Therefore, we have conclusively determined that the statement is an assumption on which radiometric dating is based.

Therefore, it is not possible to use radiometric dating to disprove orthodox Christianity without begging the question

So... you seriously can't see how terrible this "proof" of "assumption" is? You're seriously going to go to bat for the statement "The laws of physics radically changed at the time that Adam ate the forbidden fruit"? What does this really matter, at all?

Here's one for you:

"Zosimus was born from his mother's womb. This happened because his father had previously inserted a sperm that fertilized an egg."

Now, the conclusion is that you were born from your mother's womb... right? And the assumption being made is that your father planted sperm into your mother that fertilized an egg. How do we know this is an assumption? The negation test, of course! The negated form is "An alien with vastly greater technological know-how than we lowly humans possess, teleported the fetus that was to become 'Zosimus' into his supposed mother's womb." Does this statement, if true, disprove the conclusion? Oh, I think it will! Therefore... I am an idiot.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Begging the question is a formal logical fallacy in which the argument proceeds in a circle. 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—perhaps it is stated as one of the explicit premises or perhaps merely assumed.

For example, assume that we are in a debate between an abortion-on-demand proponent and an anti-abortionist. Imagine that the anti-abortionist says, “Since the fetus is a person, she has certain inalienable rights both legally and morally. Denying this is like denying that blacks are people. These kinds of assumptions are indefensible. Accordingly, abortion should be illegal.”

Since the very crux of the argument is whether a fetus is a person, starting the argument with the phrase “Since the fetus is a person…” is begging the question. The argument is wholly unconvincing.

So, what does any of this have to do with evolution? Bear with me.

Standard Christian theology starts with the premise that a supernatural being, called God, created the Heaven and the Earth in a quasi-perfect form. Nothing got old or died. Things, including the human body, did not break down or wear out. Did radioactivity exist under these circumstances? That is highly unlikely. Did cosmic radiation exist and, if so, did it create C14 in the atmosphere? Unknown. The only thing that is certain under this scenario is that the laws of physics were quite different from the ones that we experience on a daily basis.

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.

Clearly, the argument is logically flawed—it is a classic example of begging the question. Regardless of the amount of circular logic bandied about by our atheist friends, the argument is thoroughly unconvincing.

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.

There is a filed of apologetics called presuppositional apologetics where one assumes something is true and defends it starting at that point and may also argue other views are self contradictory where the Bible is self consistent
so .... not as simple as you make it out to be...

 

[Zosimus]

And once again you choose the option that avoids having to discuss your position in favour of self-righteous response.

OK, let's break my response down. Do you think science is capable of measuring things outside the realm of the material?

Do I think that science (whatever you mean by that) is capable (as if science had capabilities) of measuring(!!) things outside the realm of the material?

I feel like I'm walking into a trap with such a nebulous question, but I'll bite by saying "No."

 

[Zosimus]

One that is peer-reviewed and maintained by a university... and it wasn't the only thing. I guess it was lost on you though that attacking the source as opposed to attacking the content is a form of ad hominem, another logical fallacy.

Since your entire argument is an appeal to authority, which is a formal logical fallacy, I can't help but think that it's pretty cheeky to insist that others are committing logical fallacies.

No kidding. But Valid logical arguments are not necessarily Sound logical arguments. That distinction seems to be lost to y ou.

Since the whole point of my initial post was that the argument you are using is invalid, claiming that some valid arguments (not including the one you make) may be unsound is out of scope.

No. I am saying that all premises, for the purposes of a logical argument, a premise IS an assumption or merely hypothetical. The premises provide valid reasoning for the conclusion. The premises are themselves not being argued to being for as a truth claim. The only way to prove that a premise is actually true, is by making it a conclusion for another set of premises, which themselves would be assumed.

Correct. Because you have not proven that BHO is a man, or that he is the current president. In order to do that, you would need to make an entirely different argument. The premises are assumed to be true, and for all intents and purposes, they are reasonable assumptions to make. But I have no reason to believe they are true unless you can prove they are.

And people think I'm a radical skeptic.

Using a fallacy would make an argument invalid, not unsound (though by being invalid it would be unsound).

So you admit that your fallacious argument is unsound?

Correct. But if you notice in my argument, it makes no reference to Christianity, assumes nothing about Christianity being right or wrong, and yet still shows that a logical argument can made for a planet that is nearly 4 billion years old. Nothing in any of my premises assumes anything about the conclusion... so how is it begging the question?

As I have already demonstrated, the argument in question relies on an assumption–an assumption defined in this context as an unstated premise. For your argument to make sense, that premise must be explicitly stated. Once stated, we can see that your initial premises are antithetical to those employed by orthodox Christianity. Thus, no orthodox Christian would find your argument persuasive.

Not really. The assumption that the laws of physics are not subject to change from an outside agent is an assumption. Just because I am assuming one thing for the purposes of establishing a premise, doesn't mean I am assuming the conclusion...

Your conclusion (that the Earth is more or less 4.5 billion years old) is based on the assumption that the laws of physics have been constant on the Earth for at least the last 4.5 billion years. Thus, you are begging the question because your premises assume your conclusion.

That's true... I would need another premise that radioactive decay is actually a thing that occurs, and then when this is measured, that the measurement is actually reflecting an event happening in real time; as opposed to having the devil trick our eyes.

Irrelevant to the argument at hand.

Except it doesn't commit the logical fallacy of begging the question... the shoddy argument I put together may be committing a number of fallacies I am unaware of, but it isn't begging the question, and you certainly haven't demonstrated that to be true.

I have demonstrated that it has. Plugging your ears and screaming "I'm not listening" won't change that.

 

[Zosimus]

It wasn't even an argument... just pointing out your one-sided standard for legitimate truth claims. Everyone's claims require an intense scrutiny that apparently should never be applied to any claim you make.

It's a contradiction.

If all truth is contained in the Bible, and the statement "all truth is contained in the Bible" is not included in the Bible, then either not all truth is contained in the Bible, or the statement "all truth is contained in the Bible" is not true.

Ahh–there you see. We are making some progress. You see, whatever you may personally think of someone's beliefs, you seem to realize that it's unacceptable to have contradictory beliefs. A woman who says, "All men are scum" and then insists in the next breath that her husband is a wonderful man is in the throes of this malady.

Similarly, anyone who says "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" is a fool because he has just asserted something without evidence and has accepted that I am perfectly within my rights to dismiss his claim without providing any evidence of any kind.

 

[Zosimus]

Are you sure? How do you know that?

But what I mean is: do you think the earth could be globally flat? You know, like the Bible says, like a disc.

Ciao

- viole

Are we reading the same Bible? I use KJV.
Genesis 1:10

"And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good."

Earth = dry land. This part does not include the water, which was labeled Seas.

Confused? Try this:

Und Gott nannte das Trockene Erde, und die Sammlung der Wasser nannte er Meere. Und Gott sah, daß es gut war.

As for whether the Earth is flat... it is flat where I live. On the other hand, I can see hills and mountains from my porch, so I know that parts of the Earth are hilly and mountainous. Plus, I've been to Pastoruri.