Begging the Question

[Zosimus]

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.

Yes, you are an idiot. Or at the very least, you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Zosimus]

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...

That's a very interesting filed. However, I don't see what it has to do with my argument.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes, you are an idiot. Or at the very least, you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

You're supposedly a teacher, if I am not mistaken? A fact that I believe I remember you touting with a didactic glee, and as if it meant something particularly profound by your estimation. Are you as condescending with your students, I wonder?

I also don't remember you responding to my post about being without "sense" from the beginning. I thought it an interesting turn, considering how earnestly you seem to want to be the one with "the last word" most of the time. I have my own opinions as to why you didn't respond. Again... simply interesting.

 

[Zosimus]

You're supposedly a teacher, if I am not mistaken? A fact that I believe I remember you touting with a didactic glee, and as if it meant something particularly profound by your estimation. Are you as condescending with your students, I wonder?

I also don't remember you responding to my post about being without "sense" from the beginning. I thought it an interesting turn, considering how earnestly you seem to want to be the one with "the last word" most of the time. I have my own opinions as to why you didn't respond. Again... simply interesting.

Well, there are some very important differences between you and my students.

First of all, my students actually want to learn something. Second, my students have started by taking an evaluation test, so they know right from the beginning that they need serious help. Third, my students have at least some aptitude for these things. They're aspiring lawyers or high-powered business executives. Finally, most of my students have tried to study for these things on their own previously, so they're not totally green–they don't commit obviously stupid oversights as you do.

For example, your "argument" included this part:

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.

Well, your ridiculous example is refuted adequately by Negating Assumptions on the LSAT - LSAT
As the article points out the statement "The cat jumped over the mat" is not properly negated by the statement "No cat jumped over the mat." Why not? As the article points out:

–Changing “the” to “no” misreads the meaning of the original in a way that does not simply negate the sentence. Since I used “the” in the original case (1), I was really only writing about a specific cat. I should have only cared about whether that cat had jumped over the mat. If all I wanted to say was that the specific cat did not jump over the mat, I did not need to prove the broad statement above, that no cat, ever, has jumped over that mat. Essentially, trying to negate in the second version I over-negated, a potentially fatal mistake in LSAT practice and law alike. I never want to do more heavy lifting (read negating) than I absolutely must.–

So your supposed "negation" aka "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" is more a sure sign that you are not cut out for logic than any kind of a comment on the argument I made.

 

[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.

Again. Do you think the earth could be flat? Yes/no/I don't know.

Oh, silly me. I am sorry. I forgot you need multiple alternatives. I hope you would excuse me for forgetting that. Let me correct that.

To which of the following objects would you associate the earth, because of its geometrical properties?

1) A cigarette
2) A soccer ball
3) A billiard table

Please justify your answer: is that because of evidence, observation with unrelieable senses, pictures, ... logical inference, etc. (let me know whether you need multiple choices for your justification, too).

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

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

Are you trying to win a context on how much errors you can pack on a German sentence?

First of all, die Erde is feminine, not neutral. So, it is not das Erde, it is die Erde. Like every German first grader kid would know.

Und Wasser is neutral, not femine. So, it is not der Wasser, but des Wassers. Like, again, any kid would know.

May I suggest that you stick with your mother language? You Are embarassing yourself by venturing into others.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

Again. Do you think the earth could be flat? Yes/no/I don't know.

Yes, it is flat in places.

Oh, silly me. I am sorry. I forgot you need multiple alternatives. I hope you would excuse me for forgetting that. Let me correct that.

To which of the following objects would you associate the earth, because of its geometrical properties?

1) A cigarette
2) A soccer ball
3) A billiard table

None of the above.

Please justify your answer: is that because of evidence, observation with unrelieable senses, pictures, ... logical inference, etc. (let me know whether you need multiple choices for your justification, too).

Well, here is a topographical map of Chorrillos. As you can see, it does not resemble any of the three objects you referenced.

 

[Zosimus]

Are you trying to win a context on how much errors you can pack on a German sentence?

First of all, die Erde is feminine, not neutral. So, it is not das Erde, it is die Erde. Like every German first grader kid would know.

Und Wasser is neutral, not femine. So, it is not der Wasser, but des Wassers. Like, again, any kid would know.

May I suggest that you stick with your mother language? You Are embarassing yourself by venturing into others.

Ciao

- viole

"Und Gott nannte das Trockene Erde, und die Ansammlung des Wassers nannte er Meere. Und Gott sah, dass es gut war."

This is a verbatim quote from 1.Mose 1 - Elberfelder Bibel :: BibleServer aka the Elberfelder version of the Bible.

You can read more about this version of the Bible at Read the Elberfelder 1905 (German) Free Online wherein we read: "The Elberfelder German Bible translation distinguishes itself by its ... literalness." It is a literal translation of the lower Masoretic text (warts and all). If you don't like it, feel free to translate the Hebrew yourself.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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."

Me either. No trap.

 

[viole]

"Und Gott nannte das Trockene Erde, und die Ansammlung des Wassers nannte er Meere. Und Gott sah, dass es gut war."

This is a verbatim quote from 1.Mose 1 - Elberfelder Bibel :: BibleServer aka the Elberfelder version of the Bible.

You can read more about this version of the Bible at Read the Elberfelder 1905 (German) Free Online wherein we read: "The Elberfelder German Bible translation distinguishes itself by its ... literalness." It is a literal translation of the lower Masoretic text (warts and all). If you don't like it, feel free to translate the Hebrew yourself.

Except that you originally wrote "der Wasser" (wrong), not "des Wassers" (correct). For some reason.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Yes, it is flat in places.


None of the above.


Well, here is a topographical map of Chorrillos. As you can see, it does not resemble any of the three objects you referenced.

What you are showing me, in order to prove your claim, is empirical evidence. Like topographical maps and stuff.

Don't you have anything more convincing? You know, something like an a-priori logical deduction of the form and shape of Chorrillos.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

Except that you originally wrote "der Wasser" (wrong), not "des Wassers" (correct). For some reason.

Ciao

- viole

It may surprise you to learn that there exists a tool called Google, which you can use to find things on the Internet.

It turns out that the exact text I cut and pasted has no fewer than 1,210 results. See for yourself at https://www.google.com/search?q=Und...nnte+er+Meere.+Und+Gott+sah,+daß+es+gut+war."

 

[Zosimus]

What you are showing me, in order to prove your claim, is empirical evidence. Like topographical maps and stuff.

Don't you have anything more convincing? You know, something like an a-priori logical deduction of the form and shape of Chorrillos.

Ciao

- viole

Of course.

Chorrillos is not perfectly flat.

If Chorrillos were perfectly flat, photos such as

would not exist.

However, this photo does exist. Therefore, Chorrillos is not perfectly flat.
Q.E.D.

 

[viole]

Of course.

Chorrillos is not perfectly flat.

If Chorrillos were perfectly flat, photos such as

would not exist.

However, this photo does exist. Therefore, Chorrillos is not perfectly flat.
Q.E.D.

Obviously not. Even if pictures could prove anything, this particular picture would, at best, prove that Chorrillos WAS not perfectly flat (when the picture was taken).

There is a difference between IS and WAS.

BTW. Do you trust your senses (eyes) when evaluating this sort of things?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

Obviously not. Even if pictures could prove anything, this particular picture would, at best, prove that Chorrillos WAS not perfectly flat (when the picture was taken).

There is a difference between IS and WAS.

BTW. Do you trust your senses (eyes) when evaluating this sort of things?

Ciao

- viole

You remind me of the days in which I argued with Christians. You see, Christians often ask questions–not because they want to know the answers. Rather, the Christians hope to find a question that you cannot answer. However, when you start to answer the question and they see that you can do so, they quickly change the topic to something else.

The topic of this thread is begging the question. Yet, now, we are discussing whether a picture of Chorrillos is truly proof that Chorrillos is not perfectly flat. Now, you know basically nothing about Chorrillos whereas I live here (at least for 24 hours more). Arguably, therefore, I know more about Chorrillos than you do. However, you want to claim that your ignorance about Chorrillos entitles you to set yourself up as some kind of an ultimate judge as to whether any evidence about Chorrillos is accurate. Naturally, you plan to be contrary and refuse assent to even the most modest claim about Chorrillos, such as the claim that Chorrillos is not perfectly flat. This is a formal logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance–to wit, you wish to say that since I have not proved, to your complete satisfaction, that the photo in question still accurately resembles the state of Chorrillos, that you are entitled to claim that it does not represent Chorrillos in any way, shape, or form.

I cannot help but wonder what your justification procedure is. Is the claim that the photo is not a true depiction of Chorrillos a necessary truth? Or is the claim backed by your personal experience? Or is it based on the testimony of others?

Even assuming that the photo is no longer accurate about Chorrillos, do you honestly think that 100% of the cliffs have eroded away in the past 12 months leaving Chorrillos perfectly flat as a pancake without even the slightest bump in the road or depression where a truck happened by? Based on what, exactly?

 

[viole]

You remind me of the days in which I argued with Christians. You see, Christians often ask questions–not because they want to know the answers. Rather, the Christians hope to find a question that you cannot answer. However, when you start to answer the question and they see that you can do so, they quickly change the topic to something else.

The topic of this thread is begging the question. Yet, now, we are discussing whether a picture of Chorrillos is truly proof that Chorrillos is not perfectly flat. Now, you know basically nothing about Chorrillos whereas I live here (at least for 24 hours more). Arguably, therefore, I know more about Chorrillos than you do. However, you want to claim that your ignorance about Chorrillos entitles you to set yourself up as some kind of an ultimate judge as to whether any evidence about Chorrillos is accurate. Naturally, you plan to be contrary and refuse assent to even the most modest claim about Chorrillos, such as the claim that Chorrillos is not perfectly flat. This is a formal logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance–to wit, you wish to say that since I have not proved, to your complete satisfaction, that the photo in question still accurately resembles the state of Chorrillos, that you are entitled to claim that it does not represent Chorrillos in any way, shape, or form.

I cannot help but wonder what your justification procedure is. Is the claim that the photo is not a true depiction of Chorrillos a necessary truth? Or is the claim backed by your personal experience? Or is it based on the testimony of others?

Even assuming that the photo is no longer accurate about Chorrillos, do you honestly think that 100% of the cliffs have eroded away in the past 12 months leaving Chorrillos perfectly flat as a pancake without even the slightest bump in the road or depression where a truck happened by? Based on what, exactly?

Based on the same kind of arguments that the orthodox Christian would use concerning the laws of physics changing after the ingestion of apples. And what I really honestly think is not relevant, since I am not making any claim about Chorrillos form and shape. Like you, with YEC, remember?

You are defending the shape of Chorrillos using basically the same arguments that a geologist would use to defend an old earth.

Isn't that obvious? It is actually quite puzzling that you ask. Even more puzzling is that you use evidential arguments after claiming that senses, empirical evidence etc. are not reliable guides toward truth.

I could claim that all the evidence you are showing concerning Chorrillos not being flat is easy to defeat, with a bit of imagination. For yours is not a valid logical inference that implies the necessity of Chorrillos not being flat, obviously, since "Chorrillos is not flat" is not an analytic proposition. Surprising that a self declared teacher of logic could make such errors.

I could say: my religion (I just had a divine inspiration) teaches that the physical world we perceive with our senses is an illusion. We are like brains constrained to see and sense only lies, created by a cruel God whose reasons to do that are inscrutable. What we see, feel about Chorrillos, or any of its pictures, is manipulated by this evil God. The true Chorrillos could be indeed very flat.

Please, defeat this without begging the question.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Koldo]

Critical Reasoning 101

Welcome to Zosimus’ critical reasoning primer. Since you don’t seem to have the slightest clue about logic and since I am a critical reasoning teacher, I figured I would write this little post to try to help you get a clue of some sort.

Let’s imagine that you’re going to take a test that involves critical reasoning. It may be the GMAT, GRE, LSAT, or another test. It really doesn’t matter. Most of them are structured in a similar way. To start, let’s look at the simplified problem below:


John lives in Chicago. He is 7’ tall (2.13m). Therefore, he must be great at basketball.

The conclusion above relies on which of the following assumptions?


When doing a problem such as this one, we should always read the question first. This is important because it tells us what we need to do with the information in the stimulus. The question here tells us two important things: we are looking for an assumption and the argument has a conclusion. Therefore, our first goal will be to find the conclusion.

Conclusions generally have the following characteristics:

1. At the end of the stimulus.
2. Contain an indicator word such as therefore, hence, thus, so, etc.
3. Contain a modal verb such as must, will, should, can, may, etc.
4. Contain a form of the verb to be such as be, is, are, was, were, etc.
5. Can pass the why? test.


As you can probably see, the conclusion of the stimulus is: John must be great at basketball. This sentence is at the end, contains an indicator word (therefore), contains a modal verb (must), contains a form of the verb to be (be), and can pass the why? test.

What is the why? test? Basically, we should be able to state the conclusion and use other parts of the argument to answer the question why? In this case, we can say:

John must be great at basketball. Why? Because he is 7’ tall.

Accordingly, we see that the why? test not only confirms that we have the right conclusion but also reveals the reason that supports the conclusion. The statement “He is 7’ tall” is a reason that supports the conclusion. If you know something of logic, you may know these reasons by the word premises. Premises are the reasons that are explicitly stated in the stimulus. You may also note that the stimulus contains the sentence “John lives in Chicago.” Does this answer the why? test? No. Accordingly, this is useless information that we do not need to solve the problem.

The argument also relies on assumptions. For our purposes, assumptions are reasons that are not stated in the stimulus. Like premises, assumptions can be elicited using the why? test. In this case, the argument relies on two assumptions:

1. Tall people are great at basketball.
2. A person who is 7’ tall is a tall person.

Exact methods for discovering assumptions are out of the scope of this article, but for simplicity sake, I’ll simply point out that the conclusion contains new, surprising words (great at basketball), which are not mentioned in the premise. Thus, an assumption is required as a kind of a bridge to connect the facts in the premise to the claims in the conclusion.

Perhaps, however, you are skeptical that these two reasons really are assumptions. There is a simple test to determine whether they are assumptions. It is called the negation test. Basically, if either of the assumptions is negated, the conclusion will be disproved. Let’s try it.

1. Tall people are TERRIBLE at basketball.

Does this statement, if true, disprove the conclusion? Absolutely!

2. A person who is 7’ tall is NOT a tall person.

Does this statement, if true, disprove the conclusion? Without a doubt!


With these principles in mind, let us turn to the post you have made. Your post contains no conclusion—so we’ll have to infer the intent of the author. In this case, I will assume that the author’s conclusion is: Radiometric dating that produces dates older than 6,000 years is correct most of the time. I think we can determine that this claim, if true, would effectively require orthodox Christianity to rethink its position on a number of crucial theological points.

Now, I claim that this conclusion (Radiometric dating that produces dates older than 6,000 years is correct most of the time) relies on the assumption that “The laws of physics did not radically change at the time that Adam ate the forbidden fruit.” How can we determine whether this statement really is an assumption that the argument relies on? That’s right—the negation test.

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

Clearly, if I am speaking to someone that takes it for granted the laws of physics were changed after Adam ate the forbidden fruit, showing that the dating methods point towards a much older Earth wouldn't work. I don't know why I should assume that I am talking to someone that holds that to be true though.

 

[Zosimus]

Based on the same kind of arguments that the orthodox Christian would use concerning the laws of physics changing after the ingestion of apples.

This is not a sentence. It lacks a subject.

And what I really honestly think is not relevant, since I am not making any claim about Chorrillos form and shape. Like you, with YEC, remember?

No, it's completely different. I was making the claim that the logic in use is bad whereas you are asking questions designed to tear down a straw man.

You are defending the shape of Chorrillos using basically the same arguments that a geologist would use to defend an old earth.

Incorrect. The arguments used to defend an old Earth are completely different from the ones I use. They are as different as night and day, but you are too ignorant about logic to understand that. Here's the argument for an old Earth.

Let P=The Earth is old.
Let Q=U238 dating shows a certain ratio of parent to daughter isotopes.

If P, then Q
Q
Therefore, P.

Here's my argument for a non-perfectly-flat Chorrillos.

Let P=Chorrillos is perfectly flat.
Let Q=A picture exists that shows otherwise.

If P, then ~Q
Q
Therefore, ~P.

Are they the same argument? No, they are completely different. The first argument is a formal logical fallacy called affirming the consequent. The second argument is a valid logical chain known as modus tollens. Since you have all the logical ability of a wet noodle, you think they are the same for no reason other than that they both contain premises.

Isn't that obvious? It is actually quite puzzling that you ask. Even more puzzling is that you use evidential arguments after claiming that senses, empirical evidence etc. are not reliable guides toward truth.

You are a liar. I said quite specifically that eyes were not reliable. You have decided to extend this to an attack on all senses. Yet, that is not what I said. Were you here, you could walk from the beach up to the top of the cliffs and you would quite clearly know that Chorrillos is not perfectly flat. You would feel the strain in your muscles as you climbed. You would hear the grunts from your mouth as you exerted yourself. You could place a ball on the ground, release it, and when it bumped into your hand further downhill you would know that Chorrillos is not flat. Your argument seems to be that since some trivial knowledge can be gained through the senses, that this knowledge can be plugged into all kinds of bad logic forms and come up with true outcomes.

I could claim that all the evidence you are showing concerning Chorrillos not being flat is easy to defeat, with a bit of imagination. For yours is not a valid logical inference that implies the necessity of Chorrillos not being flat, obviously, since "Chorrillos is not flat" is not an analytic proposition. Surprising that a self declared teacher of logic could make such errors.

Whether "Chorrillos is not flat" is an analytic proposition is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. What we are discussing is formal logical fallacies such as the ones you and your ilk rely on advance your fiction. Begging the question, straw man arguments, false dichotomies, and affirming the consequent are formal logical fallacies that are committed by pro-Darwinists with jaw-dropping regularity. These fallacies are bad because even if all the inputs are true, there is no guarantee that the conclusion will be true. The only response you can make is "Chorrillos is not flat is not an analytic proposition." Pathetic.

I could say: my religion (I just had a divine inspiration) teaches that the physical world we perceive with our senses is an illusion. We are like brains constrained to see and sense only lies, created by a cruel God whose reasons to do that are inscrutable. What we see, feel about Chorrillos, or any of its pictures, is manipulated by this evil God. The true Chorrillos could be indeed very flat.

Please, defeat this without begging the question.

You are so stupid that you have constructed a self-defeating argument. You have just said that a cruel God has created you with a brain designed to see and sense only lies, but then you follow it up with the idea that you just had a divine inspiration from this cruel God revealing the truth of all of this to you. Yet, what makes you think that this cruel God is revealing the truth to you? If you have been created to see and sense only lies, then the divine inspiration you have just received is just one more of the only lies that you have been designed to sense.

Your problem is the Dunning-Kruger effect. In layman's terms, you are too stupid to realize that you are stupid. You are like the person who inspired the study, a man who knew that lemon juice could be made to create invisible ink. He, therefore, smeared lemon juice on his face and robbed a bank falsely believing that the lemon juice would make it impossible for the security cameras to record his image.

The point is, if you're incompetent, you cannot know that you're incompetent, because the very skills you need to assess your own competence are the skills that would lead you the right answer in the first place.

 

[Zosimus]

Clearly, if I am speaking to someone that takes it for granted the laws of physics were changed after Adam ate the forbidden fruit, showing that the dating methods point towards a much older Earth wouldn't work. I don't know why I should assume that I am talking to someone that holds that to be true though.

Because that's the standard position of Orthodox Christianity.

 

[Koldo]

Because that's the standard position of Orthodox Christianity.

Source ?