Hmmm... I think the point of this thread is to see if something really is above scrutiny rather than to assert that nothing is. Interesting point, though. I think all things seem to have exceptions.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is above scrutiny?
- Thread starter SigurdReginson
- Start date
Hmmm... I think the point of this thread is to see if something really is above scrutiny rather than to assert that nothing is. Interesting point, though. I think all things seem to have exceptions.
ppp
Well-Known Member
You have given no reasons why we should believe your claim could be true.
You are committing the logical fallacy of "argument by assertion".
Merely claiming that "truth is something else" doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is.
This also makes you in violation of Rule #8, where you dogmatically state your opinion as a fact without any reasons or evidence to back up why you believe it is not just your opinion.
I don't understand what issue you have with what God did prior to and during creation.
Why do you want to ask him that particular question?
You are again committing the logical fallacy of "argument by assertion" and "argument by repetition".
You don't prove your claim is true just by asserting it is true. Nor do you prove it's true just by repeating it.
You haven't given us any reason why we should believe your claims about what happened are true.
But what we can say for sure is that the Bible directly contradicts what you claim and says the opposite. And I don't get the impression you are trying to dispute that the Bible disagrees with what you claim. You just seem to be rejecting the Bible as authoritative but then providing no evidence or reasons for why you think you can claim something opposing the Bible is true.
At this point all you're doing is stating your opinion as though it were a fact, without any supporting reasoning or evidence, which is in violation of Rule #8.
Last edited:
I already answered your question of "so what" with:
Your personal expression of doubt, unqualified by supporting reasons or evidence, doesn't mean anything as far as debate goes and does nothing to advance debate.
It would be pointless and improper for you to go around to debate threads simply proclaiming "I doubt this" and say nothing else of substance, because you have failed to offer any argumentation or evidence in support of your belief or in contrary to what you doubt.
To that I will add:
That would qualify as a failure to meet the "burden of rejoinder". If you want to partake in a debate setting by expressing your doubt of something, the burden is on you to give reasons why you think what the other person said isn't true. To simply go around throwing out your disbelief of something is improper as it implies your word carries with it the weight of authority without the need to back up your conclusions with reasons and evidence; or implies you are entitled to dismiss valid reasons and evidence simply because you decide you're not convinced, without being able to articulate why you think you have valid reason to not be convinced.
If you are not willing to meet the burden of rejoinder you should not attempt to engage in a debate setting to begin with by expressing your disbelief of a certain position.
Last edited:
ppp
Well-Known Member
You summarized what the Bible says. I didn't doubt your summary. What I doubt are the bald Biblical assertions themselves.
Dr. Jackson Crawford's translation is great when it comes to the most accurate translation, imo. It lacks the poetry that some other translations have (minus his cowboy Havamal, of coarse).
From what I understand of it, it's supposed to be more like recited poetry. There is form and structure in the way it's presented. Even the last section where Odin speaks of his magic is written in galdralag (Dr. Jackson Crawford has a video on that if you aren't already aware of what that is exactly).
Your statement is irrelevant to the points I made, and does not refute them nor defend your original actions.
I pointed out that it was pointless and improper for you to simply state you doubt something in a debate forum without attempting to give any reasons why you think you have grounds to doubt it.
You don't resolve that issue by clarifying what specifically you were doubting - because you still haven't given any arguments why you would feel entitled to doubt that.
Which makes what you did a type of fallacy of "argument by assertion". Merely stating you doubt something means nothing as far as debate goes unless you're willing to provide reasons why you think you can doubt it. Otherwise it's just implied that you think you have a reason to doubt it, but you're not stating what it is, so you are committing a type of "argument by assertion".
You don't prove you have reason to doubt it simply by proclaiming you doubt it. Although you didn't explicitly state you think you have reason to doubt it, that conclusion is still implied by your statement.
And you didn't even clarify what specifically you are doubting.
You also don't specify what assertions you are talking about.
Assertions the Bible makes?
Assertions I made?
What exactly are you trying to refer to?
ppp
Well-Known Member
What you feel is "inappropriate" or "pointless" doesn't really matter to me.
Nothing I said was based on my opinion or feeling. I gave objective reasons why what you did was inappropriate in a debate setting. And you are not able to refute those.
And trying to claim that what I said is just based on feeling, not logical fact, without giving reasons why you think you can make that claim, again makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of "argument by assertion".
You originally committed a form of the logical fallacy of "argument by assertion" by implying a claim that you thought you had reason to doubt what I posted was true, without offering any support for your assertion.
If abiding by proper logic in a debate doesn't matter to you then you are engaging in a debate in bad faith. Because to engage in a debate presupposes you want to use logic to arrive at the truth.
If you are interested in neither arriving at the truth nor using valid logic, but just want to assert what you believe is true against valid logic, then you were never attempting to debate in good faith.
ppp
Well-Known Member
I don't see objective reasons. But then I quit reading when I hit extraneous gaff. Just state your reasons. Or don't.
Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely asserting that I gave no objective reasons doesn't make it true just because you claim it is so.
You would have to demonstrate with reason and evidence why anything I said doesn't qualify as an objective reason in order to prove your claim is true.
The burden of proof is on you as the one making the claim to prove your claim is true.
The reason you probably didn't "see objective reasons" is because you admitted that you didn't even read my post.
You have no basis for making claims about a post you haven't even read.
You are engaging in "arguing in bad faith" by not reading valid counter arguments to your claim and then making stuff up about what you didn't read and insisting the stuff you made up is true.
There are two fatal flaws with your statement:
1. You commit the logical fallacy of "argument by assertion". Merely asserting that anything I said was not relevant doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is.
You would have to demonstrate with reason and evidence why anything I said is not relevant (ie extraneous) in order to prove your claim is true.
2. You also demonstrate you are "arguing in bad faith" by not even reading the counter arguments to your claim, yet you still want to insist they are wrong without reading them let alone raising a valid counter argument against them.
I already gave you reasons to back up what I said was true in my previous posts - You admitted you didn't even read them. So you can't claim reasons don't exist in my post when you admit you haven't even read it.
You take arguing in bad faith to a new level by not only refusing to read the counter arguments, but then trying to argue against them as though you had read them and asserting things about what I said that aren't true.
Your statement is also ironic given the fact hat you have refused to state the reasons for your implied claim that you think you were justified in doubting what I posted.
Take your own advice and state your reasons for what you think is true instead of just committing the fallacy of assertion.
Here are the reasons you ignored:
I already answered your question of "so what" with:
Your personal expression of doubt, unqualified by supporting reasons or evidence, doesn't mean anything as far as debate goes and does nothing to advance debate.
It would be pointless and improper for you to go around to debate threads simply proclaiming "I doubt this" and say nothing else of substance, because you have failed to offer any argumentation or evidence in support of your belief or in contrary to what you doubt.
To that I will add:
That would qualify as a failure to meet the "burden of rejoinder". If you want to partake in a debate setting by expressing your doubt of something, the burden is on you to give reasons why you think what the other person said isn't true. To simply go around throwing out your disbelief of something is improper as it implies your word carries with it the weight of authority without the need to back up your conclusions with reasons and evidence; or implies you are entitled to dismiss valid reasons and evidence simply because you decide you're not convinced, without being able to articulate why you think you have valid reason to not be convinced.
If you are not willing to meet the burden of rejoinder you should not attempt to engage in a debate setting to begin with by expressing your disbelief of a certain position.
Your statement is irrelevant to the points I made, and does not refute them nor defend your original actions.
I pointed out that it was pointless and improper for you to simply state you doubt something in a debate forum without attempting to give any reasons why you think you have grounds to doubt it.
You don't resolve that issue by clarifying what specifically you were doubting - because you still haven't given any arguments why you would feel entitled to doubt that.
Which makes what you did a type of fallacy of "argument by assertion". Merely stating you doubt something means nothing as far as debate goes unless you're willing to provide reasons why you think you can doubt it. Otherwise it's just implied that you think you have a reason to doubt it, but you're not stating what it is, so you are committing a type of "argument by assertion".
You don't prove you have reason to doubt it simply by proclaiming you doubt it. Although you didn't explicitly state you think you have reason to doubt it, that conclusion is still implied by your statement.
And you didn't even clarify what specifically you are doubting.
You also don't specify what assertions you are talking about.
Assertions the Bible makes?
Assertions I made?
What exactly are you trying to refer to?
Nothing I said was based on my opinion or feeling. I gave objective reasons why what you did was inappropriate in a debate setting. And you are not able to refute those.
And trying to claim that what I said is just based on feeling, not logical fact, without giving reasons why you think you can make that claim, again makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of "argument by assertion".
You originally committed a form of the logical fallacy of "argument by assertion" by implying a claim that you thought you had reason to doubt what I posted was true, without offering any support for your assertion.
If abiding by proper logic in a debate doesn't matter to you then you are engaging in a debate in bad faith. Because to engage in a debate presupposes you want to use logic to arrive at the truth.
If you are interested in neither arriving at the truth nor using valid logic, but just want to assert what you believe is true against valid logic, then you were never attempting to debate in good faith.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Bloviation bores me. I'll take you off ignore when and if I remember and you can try again.
You have failed the "burden of rejoinder" which was on you to offer a valid counter argument against my arguments.
As such, you have tacitly conceded your claims are refuted and you cannot defend them.
You also demonstrate you were arguing in bad faith all along with no intention of even reading the counter arguments against your claim, let alone offering a valid counter argument to them.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
yep.....you don't understand
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I was asking you in a polite way what reason you have to think there's a problem with what God did prior to and during creation. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might have a reason.
Since you did not take that hint and provide a reason, I will be more blunt:
You have no reason to claim that there is anything wrong with what we see in the Bible about God and the creation event.
Merely asserting that there is a problem with it doesn't make it true just because you assert it is. You are committing the logical fallacy of "argument by assertion".
Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely claiming that you have given supporting reasons for your conclusions in your post doesn't make it true just because you claim it is.
I already outlined why your post failed to provide any supporting reasons for your claims of what is true. You don't refute those arguments by merely claiming the opposite is true without a valid counter argument to support your claim.
You cannot point to a single quote of yours where you supported the following claims with logical reasoning or evidence:
1. "truth is something else"
2. "hence the garden event
which is not a fail
Adam and Eve passed the test
...
Man was always an item to die"
"nay.....
the test was done to be sure the alteration of Man.....in mind and body
had taken hold"
The onus is on you as the one making the claim to prove your claim is true.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
there is nothing wrong
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I make no claim
only observation
you may post cause to not say yeah
and I don't have to agree with you
ppp
Well-Known Member
You are claiming that what your observation is true.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and you prefer I claim my observation to be false?
if you have discussion to say it is false.....that is YOUR option