Science, Metaphysics, and "God of the Gaps" Arguments

[leibowde84]

no circles....straight line.....right back to God

Someone had to be first

Nope. It's circular reasoning, a.k.a. Flawed reasoning.

 

[Thief]

Nope. It's circular reasoning, a.k.a. Flawed reasoning.

denial noted.

linear reasoning....straight line.....right back to the beginning...
Someone had to be First

 

[Desert Snake]

Nope. It's circular reasoning, a.k.a. Flawed reasoning.

By circular, you mean, assumed, since there isn't another incident of creation, that we can compare anything to. We have to either

/assume it's creation //
/or rearrange the existing mode of determining probability.

Now, I know that no one who is arguing against, Creation belief, is going to modify their mode for determining probability, so, it is really a moot point.

//

 

[Thief]

we have at least one incident we can be sure of.....and here we are.

 

[leibowde84]

denial noted.

linear reasoning....straight line.....right back to the beginning...
Someone had to be First

So, I guess you don't understand the concept of "circular reasoning". I am not pointing out a flaw in your assumption that something had to come first. I am pointing out a flaw in how you arrived there by assuming God's existence and that God is the almighty without doing any of the work required to support those claims. Here, this should help.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/67-circular-reasoning

 

[leibowde84]

By circular, you mean, assumed, since there isn't another incident of creation, that we can compare anything to. We have to either

/assume it's creation //
/or rearrange the existing mode of determining probability.

Now, I know that no one who is arguing against, Creation belief, is going to modify their mode for determining probability, so, it is really a moot point.

//

I agree in part, but I am not in favor of "modifying the mode for determining probability" of anything merely to strengthen any argument. It is fraudulent.

 

[Thief]

So, I guess you don't understand the concept of "circular reasoning". I am not pointing out a flaw in your assumption that something had to come first. I am pointing out a flaw in how you arrived there by assuming God's existence and that God is the almighty without doing any of the work required to support those claims. Here, this should help.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/67-circular-reasoning

denial noted.....
and it will remain.....Someone had to be First

would you like to appoint someone other than God?

 

[leibowde84]

denial noted.....
and it will remain.....Someone had to be First

would you like to appoint someone other than God?

You have yet to support your claim that "someone had to be first". You have merely repeated that came without substantiation up till now.

 

[Thief]

You have yet to support your claim that "someone had to be first". You have merely repeated that came without substantiation up till now.

some items should be realized....when you see them.....as self evident

at this point....I think lightning from above is the only thing you might consider as 'substantial'.

may it be so

 

[leibowde84]

some items should be realized....when you see them.....as self evident

at this point....I think lightning from above is the only thing you might consider as 'substantial'.

may it be so

Seems like a cop-out to me.

 

[Thief]

and your previous postwork runs in that direction.

 

[McBell]

By circular, you mean, assumed, since there isn't another incident of creation, that we can compare anything to. We have to either

/assume it's creation //
/or rearrange the existing mode of determining probability.

Now, I know that no one who is arguing against, Creation belief, is going to modify their mode for determining probability, so, it is really a moot point.

//

Yet no one will show their math...
Funny that

 

[McBell]

denial noted.....

What is it exactly you claim is being denied?

and it will remain.....Someone had to be First

Dogmatically repeating this does not make it true.
Nor does a claim of faith...

would you like to appoint someone other than God?

You make two bold empty claims:

someone had to be first
that someone is god​

 

[McBell]

Seems like a cop-out to me.

That is exactly what it is, a cop out.

I have yet to see the term "self evident" used in a discussion where it was not a cop out.

 

[leibowde84]

and your previous postwork runs in that direction.

Hey, I'm not the one who backed up their claim with the other claim that it is "self-evident".

 

[Thief]

Hey, I'm not the one who backed up their claim with the other claim that it is "self-evident".

and I'm not the one who fails to see an item....self evident

 

[Thief]

That is exactly what it is, a cop out.

I have yet to see the term "self evident" used in a discussion where it was not a cop out.

that goes for you too

 

[McBell]

and I'm not the one who fails to see an item....self evident

If it were self evident he wouldn't fail to see it.
So now that we have established your failed self evident cop out....

 

[leibowde84]

and I'm not the one who fails to see an item....self evident

Because it obviously isn't self evident.

 

[McBell]

that goes for you too

yes it does.
Now please be so kind to present the post where I used the term "self evident" outside of explaining the cop out factor of it?

Hint:
I haven't...