The Power Of Circular Reasoning

[usfan]

A common straw man, is all.

Is that all you have? False narratives and caricatures of Christianity that you sit back and shoot full of arrows, as if that makes you a brilliant debater?

 

[LuisDantas]

in this condition.....you are led

but whatever leads you......I do not know

so

make a choice

are you in control.....having choice to say as you decide
or are you compelled?
by a greater force you do not understand

Neither, far as I can figure.

I just find situations, attempt to analyse them rationally to the best of my ability, and far more often than not there is a very clear direction to follow.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I reason.....there is no point in generating several billion copies of a learning device
only to have each and everyone shut down and fail.....completely

That is no more true for a brain than it is for all those billions of hearts, lungs, kidneys, skeletons nor hand, nor foot, nor arm, nor face, nor any other part belonging to a man. (Forgive me, lapsed into Romeo and Juliet for a moment ). And if mind CAN indeed exist without a brain, then really, there is no need for generating any brains at all. So this seems to me a very poor argument.

and I suspect
your frame of mind and belief
have some influence to your ability to continue

you might be able to call it quits

and it looks like you already have

I have not "called it quits." I have accepted the truth that I see about myself, and therefore I do my best to live my life, this one life that I have, to the best of my ability, and to my greatest enjoyment. And perhaps with even a little bit of use to those I share my world with, and who will come after me.

 

[Thief]

here is no need for generating any brains at all.

each occasion of life produces a unique spirit

no two are the same

hence the entertainment value

 

[Riders]

I think that is self explanatory.....people like the OP can't believe in God or the Christian faith, so they have to tear down those beliefs because they might be true. No one else is allowed to have the kind of faith that they lack. Misery loves company and so do unbelievers, apparently.

I liken it to the days of Noah as Jesus said in the Bible.....everyone thought that they were safe because no one believed Noah. I wonder what they were thinking as the water swirled around their knees getting deeper and deeper with nowhere to go to escape the flood of God's anger? Jesus said it was going to happen again....(Matthew 24:37-39)

No one is forced to believe anything....but it doesn't hurt to consider the possibilities given man's past track record IMO.

This is a debate room. This is a place where those who believe one way can challenge those who believe another way.Sense conservative Christianity condemns everyone who does not believe exactly like you guys, your in a position to get a lot of challenges in debate, you condemn everyone except yourselves. Its us against them, so you have really put yourself into a situation where you can easily be challenged.

Sense this is the place to challenge others on their faith there's no reason why those who challenge you to a debate should not. pointing fingers and screaming about being persecuted is sad and pathetic and shows me how desperate you are.I can say the same about you guys that you said about the OP." I liken it to the days of Noah as Jesus said in the Bible.....everyone thought that they were safe because no one believed Noah. I wonder what they were thinking as the water swirled around their knees getting deeper and deeper with nowhere to go to escape the flood of God's anger? Jesus said it was going to happen again.." Right back at you.

What makes you think your religion is so special you should not be challenged in a debate room?You could be challenging other religions. I'm a Universalist and I can think of a few debates I can challenge my own church on though I have not been in awhile.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

This is a debate room. This is a place where those who believe one way can challenge those who believe another way.Sense conservative Christianity condemns everyone who does not believe exactly like you guys, your in a position to get a lot of challenges in debate, you condemn everyone except yourselves. Its us against them, so you have really put yourself into a situation where you can easily be challenged.

Sense this is the place to challenge others on their faith there's no reason why those who challenge you to a debate should not. pointing fingers and screaming about being persecuted is sad and pathetic and shows me how desperate you are.I can say the same about you guys that you said about the OP." I liken it to the days of Noah as Jesus said in the Bible.....everyone thought that they were safe because no one believed Noah. I wonder what they were thinking as the water swirled around their knees getting deeper and deeper with nowhere to go to escape the flood of God's anger? Jesus said it was going to happen again.." Right back at you.

What makes you think your religion is so special you should not be challenged in a debate room?You could be challenging other religions. I'm a Universalist and I can think of a few debates I can challenge my own church on though I have not been in awhile.

Responding to this from the point of view of a long-time JW who has left the organization, a JW believes that because they are "God's people" they WILL be persecuted and they often revel in what they perceive as persecution because, to them, the "persecution" proves that they are special and the "only true religion."

JWs definitely challenge other religions, however, they dare not challenge the leaders or the beliefs of their religion. Doing so would put them on a very slippery slope where they could, at the very least, be considered to be "spiritually weak" or a "bad association" or at worst, be disfellowshipped for "apostasy" if they refused to "adjust their thinking" when counseled by the elders concerning any challenges they might make against the JW organization.

 

[Riders]

Responding to this from the point of view of a long-time JW who has left the organization, a JW believes that because they are "God's people" they WILL be persecuted and they often revel in what they perceive as persecution because, to them, the "persecution" proves that they are special and the "only true religion."

JWs definitely challenge other religions, however, they dare not challenge the leaders or the beliefs of their religion. Doing so would put them on a very slippery slope where they could, at the very least, be considered to be "spiritually weak" or a "bad association" or at worst, be disfellowshipped for "apostasy" if they refused to "adjust their thinking" when counseled by the elders concerning any challenges they might make against the JW organization.

Responding to this from the point of view of a long-time JW who has left the organization, a JW believes that because they are "God's people" they WILL be persecuted and they often revel in what they perceive as persecution because, to them, the "persecution" proves that they are special and the "only true religion."

JWs definitely challenge other religions, however, they dare not challenge the leaders or the beliefs of their religion. Doing so would put them on a very slippery slope where they could, at the very least, be considered to be "spiritually weak" or a "bad association" or at worst, be disfellowshipped for "apostasy" if they refused to "adjust their thinking" when counseled by the elders concerning any challenges they might make against the JW organization.

Thank you for a thoughtful reply in answering my question.

 

[Catholicus]

Yes and so did many others who have saved others and died in the attempt. They didn't come back to life again as Jesus was supposed to have done.

Precisely; they weren't resurrected. - not being God, as Jesus is.

Only Jesus has died for ALL humanity. Only Jesus's sacrifice continues to take effect in the present.

 

[JJ50]

Precisely; they weren't resurrected. - not being God, as Jesus is.

Only Jesus has died for ALL humanity. Only Jesus's sacrifice continues to take effect in the present.

There is no evidence whatsoever that is so.

 

[Riders]

Precisely; they weren't resurrected. - not being God, as Jesus is.

Only Jesus has died for ALL humanity. Only Jesus's sacrifice continues to take effect in the present.

Well I disagree many saviors were raised from the dead.

 

[JJ50]

Well I disagree many saviors were raised from the dead.

Ehhhhhhhhhhh?

 

[nPeace]

To clarify, a supernatural event is not just one that baffles the observer - lots of natural stuff baffles observers all the time. Same with measurement - there's lots of stuff out there in the physical universe that we haven't measured and can't currently measure. Something supernatural would, presumably, violate the laws of nature or be completely beyond measurement because by definition it is beyond nature.

Some define supernatural, as something above nature, but to me, this seems vague, and complicated.
However, I suppose it is a matter of how terminologies are used and defined.
When asked what is nature, one may respond with... the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
I suppose that means everything known to man.

What makes something supernatural, as I understand it, is not that it is above nature, because what one is doing is defining nature as anything one can understand, and therefore if one cannot understand it, it is then considered supernatural. Additionally if it does not fit into the bracket of laws in nature, which are currently known to them.

If for example, scientists discovered a force, or law, which governs the universe, and they then understand something once considered 'supernatural', they would then refer to it as natural.
This is why supernatural is defined as, some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
This is the official definition from a dictionary. It not made up by me.

Is it not the case that electricity and magnetism were once considered supernatural, until... ?

So here's the critical decision point: if we observe something that we can't explain, or can't measure, how do we know if it's something supernatural, or something natural that we just don't have enough information about yet?

Good question.

I think this question is unanswerable, which is why I don't think we can ever conclude that something is supernatural. There is always a possibility it will turn out to be natural once we learn more about it - which has happened many, many times in the history of human discovery. Feel free to tell me if you think I've got it wrong.

I almost agreed with you, except for one thing.
I think if man would stop using words so inconsistently, things would be a lot less confusing.
I think men - some, not all - who think they have reached a level of absolute wisdom, because he has a higher learning or degrees in XYZ, become as describe at Romans 1:21 - empty-headed in their reasonings.

If something is what it is, it is what it is. Law of logic.
It can't be A, and yet not A.
So yes. The way I see it, their reasoning is illogical.

Dark energy is a proposed natural explanation for a phenomenon we've observed. The difference between that and a supernatural explanation is that dark energy can at least some day, once we get the proper technology, be tested and/or falsified. Supernatural explanations can't, they're unfalsifiable.

May I ask why you saw a need to describe an explanation as natural. Natural explanation?
Oh you meant, not that the explanation is natural... Never mind.

You see what you said here.
The difference between that and a supernatural explanation is that dark energy can at least some day, once we get the proper technology, be tested and/or falsified. Supernatural explanations can't, they're unfalsifiable.
Did you not just make some contradictory statements?

What makes dark energy not supernatural?
This will be a good opportunity to answer your own question above... I think.
So here's the critical decision point: if we observe something that we can't explain, or can't measure, how do we know if it's something supernatural, or something natural that we just don't have enough information about yet?

Correct. And we would be wrong to ascribe a supernatural explanation to them simply because we don't understand them. That would be an argument from ignorance.

I'm confused.
I'll allow you to clear things up.

Full disclosure, I have only done minimal research on this topic. So I really don't know that much. So when you ask, do I "accept these hypotheses" - I think they're plausible? They could very well be wrong. I don't know, because I don't have the physics knowledge to really understand the complexities of these ideas. I should do more reading on them, I just haven't.

I believe there is something causing this phenomenon yes. And I'm highly confident that something is going to be a natural rather than a supernatural thing, because all the other verified causes of everything else we know of in the universe have been natural.

Remember, you said earlier,
I don't think we can ever conclude that something is supernatural. There is always a possibility it will turn out to be natural once we learn more about it - which has happened many, many times in the history of human discovery
Of course they will never say, "We discovered something supernatural "
Everything is natural, isn't that true?

That depends on what you mean by faith. Confidence? Yes, I have confidence that physicists are the most capable people on the planet of accurately answering these questions. Belief in the absence of evidence? No.

But I say that as well.
Only, there is often an absence of evidence where the physicist are concerned. A lot of theories yes. Accurate? No, not necessarily.

Let me think...let's take the Loch Ness monster. The idea that there's a plesiosaur hanging out in a loch in Scotland can be tested by - going and looking in Loch Ness, and say, seeing him and videoing him (not the crappy home videos of floating logs, I mean like Nat Geo quality video).
We can't do that with, say, I don't know, what's inside a black hole. I'm just spit balling here. I just mean that different hypotheses require different tests to verify them.

Sorry, by directly observe I was thinking of actually seeing something with my own eyes. "Empirically detecting" would be like using instruments.

But directly observing is not dependent on whether one is using, their eyes alone, or aided by an instrument.
Or so I thought.
So you are saying that using a video camera does not allow for direct observation?

 

[JJ50]

Science is where it is at, not religion, imo.

 

[Left Coast]

What makes something supernatural, as I understand it, is not that it is above nature, because what one is doing is defining nature as anything one can understand, and therefore if one cannot understand it, it is then considered supernatural. Additionally if it does not fit into the bracket of laws in nature, which are currently known to them.

I think you're getting confused between what natural and supernatural mean, and how we know whether any given phenomenon fits into one category or another. There are things about nature we don't yet understand. So we can't simply define the supernatural as things we don't understand. Generally the supernatural is considered to exist beyond the boundaries of the physical universe, and therefore beyond our ability, even hypothetically, to detect it through empirical observation or measurement. The problem I'm pointing out is that it is therefore impossible, as far as I can tell, to determine that anything is actually supernatural. Because it could just be something natural we don't understand (yet).

If for example, scientists discovered a force, or law, which governs the universe, and they then understand something once considered 'supernatural', they would then refer to it as natural.
This is why supernatural is defined as, some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
This is the official definition from a dictionary. It not made up by me.

Right, so therefore the people who originally called those things supernatural were incorrect. The forces or phenomena they observed were natural all along.

I almost agreed with you, except for one thing.
I think if man would stop using words so inconsistently, things would be a lot less confusing.
I think men - some, not all - who think they have reached a level of absolute wisdom, because he has a higher learning or degrees in XYZ, become as describe at Romans 1:21 - empty-headed in their reasonings.

If something is what it is, it is what it is. Law of logic.
It can't be A, and yet not A.
So yes. The way I see it, their reasoning is illogical.

So...you do agree with me? I'm not seeing the disagreement.

You see what you said here.
The difference between that and a supernatural explanation is that dark energy can at least some day, once we get the proper technology, be tested and/or falsified. Supernatural explanations can't, they're unfalsifiable.
Did you not just make some contradictory statements?

I don't see how. Again, you're confusing the way people assume things are supernatural with what the supernatural actually is/would be if it existed.

What makes dark energy not supernatural?

It's an explanation that posits a force that acts according to the laws of nature. A supernatural explanation (magic did it, an angel did it, God did it, etc.) does not have to follow any natural laws or be falsifiable in any way.

I'm confused.
I'll allow you to clear things up.

I'm sorry, I hope I'm clearing the issue up for you. Asserting that a phenomenon is supernatural simply because we don't know how it could occur naturally is an argument from ignorance.

Argument from Ignorance

Everything is natural, isn't that true?

I don't know. If anything supernatural exists, I don't think we can ever confirm it.

But I say that as well.
Only, there is often an absence of evidence where the physicist are concerned. A lot of theories yes. Accurate? No, not necessarily.

If you really want to understand dark matter/energy better I would suggest you ask a physicist or cosmologist. Perhoas there is a local college class you can take or audit near you.

But directly observing is not dependent on whether one is using, their eyes alone, or aided by an instrument.
Or so I thought.
So you are saying that using a video camera does not allow for direct observation?

I don't necessarily care about the semantics here. The original question was about evidence sufficient to demonstrate a god. The answer hinges on in what way the god in question is detectable. Can we see it? Can we measure it? Is there any way to detect it empirically at all?

If there isn't, how in the world can we conclude that such a thing exists?

 

[Riders]

I think you're getting confused between what natural and supernatural mean, and how we know whether any given phenomenon fits into one category or another. There are things about nature we don't yet understand. So we can't simply define the supernatural as things we don't understand. Generally the supernatural is considered to exist beyond the boundaries of the physical universe, and therefore beyond our ability, even hypothetically, to detect it through empirical observation or measurement. The problem I'm pointing out is that it is therefore impossible, as far as I can tell, to determine that anything is actually supernatural. Because it could just be something natural we don't understand (yet).


Right, so therefore the people who originally called those things supernatural were incorrect. The forces or phenomena they observed were natural all along.


So...you do agree with me? I'm not seeing the disagreement.



I don't see how. Again, you're confusing the way people assume things are supernatural with what the supernatural actually is/would be if it existed.



It's an explanation that posits a force that acts according to the laws of nature. A supernatural explanation (magic did it, an angel did it, God did it, etc.) does not have to follow any natural laws or be falsifiable in any way.



I'm sorry, I hope I'm clearing the issue up for you. Asserting that a phenomenon is supernatural simply because we don't know how it could occur naturally is an argument from ignorance.

Argument from Ignorance


I don't know. If anything supernatural exists, I don't think we can ever confirm it.




If you really want to understand dark matter/energy better I would suggest you ask a physicist or cosmologist. Perhoas there is a local college class you can take or audit near you.



I don't necessarily care about the semantics here. The original question was about evidence sufficient to demonstrate a god. The answer hinges on in what way the god in question is detectable. Can we see it? Can we measure it? Is there any way to detect it empirically at all?

If there isn't, how in the world can we conclude that such a thing exists?

Nature is supernatural its stronger then all of us!

 

[JJ50]

Nature is supernatural its stronger then all of us!

What does that mean?

 

[Catholicus]

There is no evidence whatsoever that is so.

The evidence for Jesus's resurrection is that people made the claim that it had happened (and in some cases died for that claim).

As the claim is - at first sight - absurd, why would they have made that claim, unless it were true ?

BTW there is no evidence whatsoever that the Resurrection did NOT occur.

 

[Catholicus]

Well I disagree many saviors were raised from the dead.

There are many stories of death and resurrection, but few relating to actual human beings (rather than poetic figures like, say, Adonis).

So examples, please, of Saviours who are both human and divine, who died to save us, then rose from the dead.

The existence of such stories shows how high the death-and-resurrection story looms in the human mind and soul.

 

[JJ50]

The evidence for Jesus's resurrection is that people made the claim that it had happened (and in some cases died for that claim).

As the claim is - at first sight - absurd, why would they have made that claim, unless it were true ?

BTW there is no evidence whatsoever that the Resurrection did NOT occur.

The balance of probability suggests that once a person is truly dead they don't come back to life again. As I have asked many times, if Jesus came back from the dead why did he conveniently disappear up to heaven instead of staying here on Earth? I have never had a sensible answer.

 

[nPeace]

I think you're getting confused between what natural and supernatural mean, and how we know whether any given phenomenon fits into one category or another.

Why do you think I am confused about the difference between natural and supernatural, when I referred to both definitions from a dictionary?

There are things about nature we don't yet understand. So we can't simply define the supernatural as things we don't understand. Generally the supernatural is considered to exist beyond the boundaries of the physical universe, and therefore beyond our ability, even hypothetically, to detect it through empirical observation or measurement. The problem I'm pointing out is that it is therefore impossible, as far as I can tell, to determine that anything is actually supernatural. Because it could just be something natural we don't understand (yet).

So therefore, it seems, you are of the opinion that the dictionaries have failed to give a proper definition, and needs to scrap the current definition, or update it.
Why was electricity and magnetism once considered supernatural? Was it due to they existing "beyond the boundaries of the physical universe"?

Right, so therefore the people who originally called those things supernatural were incorrect. The forces or phenomena they observed were natural all along.

So then, the same people were incorrect in how they applied the use of the word, nature?
So if it was the Christians, as it is claimed, who attributed the term supernatural to what is beyond or above nature - namely, what is divine, who was it that changed it... and were they right in doing so?
Or do you think they should just have left it to the Christians to define their God however they like, and stick to their own terms of describing their observed phenomenon - i.e. nature?

So...you do agree with me? I'm not seeing the disagreement.

I do?
So you think man uses words inconsistently, and most men who think they have reached a level of absolute wisdom, because he has a higher learning or degrees in XYZ, become as describe at Romans 1:21 - empty-headed in their reasonings.
Okay cool.

I don't see how. Again, you're confusing the way people assume things are supernatural with what the supernatural actually is/would be if it existed.

I don think I am confusing them.
I am just highlighting how it is viewed, and why I see a problem with how people try to separate phenomenon that are not much different, when you put things in the right perspective.
I understand why you are making one seem so different from the other though, but I don't think you are explaining how they are.

It's an explanation that posits a force that acts according to the laws of nature. A supernatural explanation (magic did it, an angel did it, God did it, etc.) does not have to follow any natural laws or be falsifiable in any way.

This is the problem, which I am trying my best to help you see.
Let me try to simplify it some more.

What is a natural law, and who determines what a natural law is?
If a national law is what man currently understands, what if he discovers a law he knew nothing about?
What will he then call it? Well duh, nPeace - a natural law.
So if by discovering this "natural" law he then realizes that what he once thought did not follow the laws of nature (magic did it, an angel did it, God did it, etc.) because he knew absolutely nothing about this law, what would he now call the supernatural explanation - the force that operates according to this newly discovered law?
Well um, duh, nPeace - a natural force.

He didn't understand it before, but now he does. How? New and advance instruments?
How is this different to "dark energy can at least some day, once we get the proper technology, be tested and/or falsified"?

I'm sorry, I hope I'm clearing the issue up for you.

I am sure you are trying.

Asserting that a phenomenon is supernatural simply because we don't know how it could occur naturally is an argument from ignorance.

Argument from Ignorance

Who's doing that?
In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.

Poor ignorant people.

I don't know. If anything supernatural exists, I don't think we can ever confirm it.

I understand this is because of your view, of course. See above.

If you really want to understand dark matter/energy better I would suggest you ask a physicist or cosmologist. Perhoas there is a local college class you can take or audit near you.

Huh? It seems this advice is fitting for you, since you admitted "Full disclosure, I have only done minimal research on this topic. So I really don't know that much"

You never did ask me to explain any of it to you, so I don't see any reason for you to assume, I don't understand the hypotheses.

I don't necessarily care about the semantics here. The original question was about evidence sufficient to demonstrate a god. The answer hinges on in what way the god in question is detectable. Can we see it? Can we measure it? Is there any way to detect it empirically at all?

If there isn't, how in the world can we conclude that such a thing exists?

Can you see "dark energy" and "dark matter"? Can you measure them? Is there any way to detect them empirically at all?
Why do you conclude that such things exists?