Paul's Message is Irrefutable

Author: Fruit_Inspector

Posts

Total: 244
#121
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Logic is an abstract and impersonal concept. You apply logic by means of your personal reasoning. However, logic by itself is not infallible. Zeno's paradoxes demonstrate that logic can be unreasonable.
Zeno's paradox is a paradox in name only, but I take your point - logic is a tool, and like all tools there are some situations where it does not work well. To that, I say "so what?" Does that mean it has no value or that is isn't a very versatile tool? No.

You can add whatever qualifications you want, but what I read here is, "My circular reasoning is reasonable, and your circular reasoning is fallacious."
You can read it however you like, but there is a reason your Biblical standard of justification is a textbook example of circular reasoning and logic is not. I am apparently incapable of explaining it in a way you can understand.

Again, if you use logic as your point of final authority and circular reasoning, you should never be able to move (because moving from one spot to another requires you to first reach a halfway point. But to reach the first halfway point, you have to reach the next halfway point. And there are an infinite number of halfway points....).

That is an awful analogy. I don't see how it can be applied to this scenario at all

Topic's author
#122
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
First, it's not "my reason" - it's logic. ...and we (ie. Humanity) accept it because no observation has ever contradicted it - it has withstood considerable scrutiny.
...
Zeno's paradox is a paradox in name only, but I take your point - logic is a tool, and like all tools there are some situations where it does not work well. To that, I say "so what?" Does that mean it has no value or that is isn't a very versatile tool? No.
So is logic an infallible truth that has never been contradicted, or is it a versatile tool that can sometimes be paradoxical?

You can read it however you like, but there is a reason your Biblical standard of justification is a textbook example of circular reasoning and logic is not. I am apparently incapable of explaining it in a way you can understand.
You said previously, "To your point we all rely on circular reasoning of some sort, thats true..." as you went on to justify your version of circular reasoning while claiming mine is fallacious. I however disagree and think that my circular reasoning of appealing to the Bible as my final authority is completely reasonable. So how do we objectively determine who is right? We obviously wouldn't just appeal to a textbook to establish the validity of a claim...

That is an awful analogy. I don't see how it can be applied to this scenario at all
It's not an analogy. I was referencing one of Zeno's paradoxes in which logic can be used to justify the claim you can never move from point A to point B. You and I both know that is ridiculous, but logic would tell us otherwise.
#123
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So is logic an infallible truth that has never been contradicted, or is it a versatile tool that can sometimes be paradoxical?
I choose C: none of the above. The laws of logic are, by every way we can measure, true. Not failing (so far) is not the same thing as being infallible. Logic is a versatile tool, but paradoxical? ...thats you trying to put words in my mouth. Speak for yourself. ;-)

You said previously, "To your point we all rely on circular reasoning of some sort, thats true..." as you went on to justify your version of circular reasoning while claiming mine is fallacious. I however disagree and think that my circular reasoning of appealing to the Bible as my final authority is completely reasonable. So how do we objectively determine who is right? We obviously wouldn't just appeal to a textbook to establish the validity of a claim...
There really isn't a comparison here. Logic isn't the basis for logic, but the Bible is being used to prop up the Bible. 

It's not an analogy. I was referencing one of Zeno's paradoxes in which logic can be used to justify the claim you can never move from point A to point B. You and I both know that is ridiculous, but logic would tell us otherwise.
If you, for whatever reason, decide to move shorter and shorter distances (ad infinitum) while moving slower and slower velocities (ad infinitum), you won't reach your destination. That follows. In the real world we don't do that and arrive at our destinations. That follows. I don't see the problem...
Topic's author
#124
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Are you using logic and reason synonymously? Because I am making a distinction between logic (an objective tool, including laws of logic) and reason (the subjective process by which we arrive at conclusions using logic and other means). You seem to be using the term logic to refer to both. Clarification would be helpful.

If you, for whatever reason, decide to move shorter and shorter distances (ad infinitum) while moving slower and slower velocities (ad infinitum), you won't reach your destination. That follows. In the real world we don't do that and arrive at our destinations. That follows. I don't see the problem...
Are you familiar with Zeno's dichotomy paradox? I am simply saying that using logic alone, the premise holds up. You need to appeal to some other form of reasoning to disprove it.
#125
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Are you using logic and reason synonymously? Because I am making a distinction between logic (an objective tool, including laws of logic) and reason (the subjective process by which we arrive at conclusions using logic and other means). You seem to be using the term logic to refer to both. Clarification would be helpful.
I've probably been sloppy with my language. I agree to your definitions.

Are you familiar with Zeno's dichotomy paradox? I am simply saying that using logic alone, the premise holds up. You need to appeal to some other form of reasoning to disprove it.
I think you're using 'logic' and 'reasoning' synonymously here. 
Topic's author
#126
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
I think you're using 'logic' and 'reasoning' synonymously here.

I don't think so. I'm just making the point that logic, as I have defined it, is an abstract concept. It is an objective tool that we use in our subjective reasoning. I am also distinguishing logic from empirical data. Information we receive through our senses is not an abstract concept. Rather, it is a particular phenomenon that we experience. If you appeal to logic alone (the objective tool) in your reasoning process, Zeno's dichotomy paradox seems like a reasonable conclusion. However, when you appeal to empirical evidence (as you did), the conclusion of the dichotomy paradox no longer seems reasonable.

So, if you appeal to logic alone (the objective tool) without also appealing to empirical evidence, it can lead you to absurd conclusions. But it doesn't seem then that logic (the objective tool) is your final authority.

It seems rather that your subjective reasoning uses a combination of logic and empirical evidence. And this subjective reasoning is the final authority that you appeal to as the foundation for validating a truth claim. It is worth noting that I am not saying this position is unreasonable.

#127
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So, if you appeal to logic alone (the objective tool) without also appealing to empirical evidence, it can lead you to absurd conclusions.
You can't have it both ways. There is no absurd conclusion without comparing it to (a misrepresentation of) reality. On the other hand (as you've conceded) reality (empirical evidence) nullifies the paradox. Either way, I don't think this leads where you want it to go.
Topic's author
#128
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I only brought up the paradox as a response to highlight the distinction between logic and reason after you said logic (as opposed to "personal reason") was your final authority. But we can drop the paradox issue because, unless I am misunderstanding you, you have since made clear that it is not objective logic that you appeal to. Rather, you appeal to subjective reasoning as your final authority. And subjective here is not meant to carry a negative connotation.

But to make sure I am not misunderstanding you, would this summary from my last post be an accurate representation of your view:

"It seems rather that your subjective reasoning uses a combination of logic and empirical evidence. And this subjective reasoning is the final authority that you appeal to as the foundation for validating a truth claim."
#129
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Eh? 
Topic's author
#130
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
What was confusing? While we've perhaps taken the roundabout way of getting there, it seems like that would be accurate to say now that we've cleared up some terminology issues. And the idea of using reason based on logic and empirical evidence is also the foundation of the scientific method. I'm just trying to see if you would agree about that being an accurate representation of your position so as not to make too many assumptions.
#131
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
"It seems rather that your subjective reasoning uses a combination of logic and empirical evidence. And this subjective reasoning is the final authority that you appeal to as the foundation for validating a truth claim."

Isn't this what everyone's reasoning uses?  I'm really wondering where you're going...it doesn't seem to be toward the OP. Get to the point, please.
#132
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm really wondering where you're going...it doesn't seem to be toward the OP. Get to the point, please.

 That is because it isn't.

.

Hasn't not already denied the title of this thread, his own thread? And the reason he created the thread? #59



#133
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
No doubt, but I was hopeful there was some relevance.
#134
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
Well he was nailed to the wall the second Polytheist - Witch posted this:


#3  Polytheist-Witch  "Paul is a liar and corruptor of the messages of Jesus Christ you are either a Christian or Pauline".

He was just far too up himself to see where that was going .



Topic's author
#135
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
Then why did Polytheist-Witch fail to respond when asked to provide an example of how Paul contradicts Christ in Acts 17:24-31? #14
Topic's author
#136
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Isn't this what everyone's reasoning uses?
No, it's not. Perhaps practically they do as they live their lives, but empiricists and rationalists do not adhere to that line of reasoning as a foundation for validating truth.


Get to the point, please.
I'm trying, but you used the term "logic" in such a way that it seemed like you were a rationalist. We have since clarified you are not. But straightforward answers instead of "Eh?" would also be helpful.


To your point we all rely on circular reasoning of some sort, thats true #119
Is this true? If so, what is the authority that you appeal to in your circular reasoning, however justified you think it may be?

Note, I am not arguing it is always fallacious to use circular reasoning. I am making the point that your final authority in determining what is true is you. As long as you can convince yourself something is reasonable, you can accept it as true.
#137
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Isn't this what everyone's reasoning uses?
No, it's not. Perhaps practically they do as they live their lives, 
You say "no" and provide the exception...which applies to everyone. It sounds like a 'yes' to me...

To your point we all rely on circular reasoning of some sort, thats true #119
Is this true? If so, what is the authority that you appeal to in your circular reasoning, however justified you think it may be?
I take it this IS your point?

It is simply a matter of practicality. Without some basic axioms, we would not be able to function in the world. It seems you are trying to shoehorn your beliefs in here, but what the 'Bible says is true and false' really isn't a necessary to function as evidenced by billions of people functioning without this presupposition. 

[...]As long as you can convince yourself something is reasonable, you can accept it as true.
Irony. I love it. :-)

Topic's author
#138
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
You say "no" and provide the exception...which applies to everyone. It sounds like a 'yes' to me...
Does a rationalist base their foundation of a truth claim on empirical data or experience? If not, then not everyone reasons that way, even if there is inconsistency in how they act.

It is simply a matter of practicality. Without some basic axioms, we would not be able to function in the world. It seems you are trying to shoehorn your beliefs in here, but what the 'Bible says is true and false' really isn't a necessary to function as evidenced by billions of people functioning without this presupposition.
You did not actually answer the question. I assume you meant your own subjective reasoning since you did not disagree, but I don't want to misrepresent you. What is the final authority that you appeal to in your circular reasoning? You don't have to compare it to my position. A straightforward answer will suffice.
#139
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Does a rationalist base their foundation of a truth claim on empirical data or experience?
I think you mean, "Does a rationalist *say* they base their foundation of a truth claim on empirical data?". Because everyone uses empirical data, logic, and reasoning as a default to operate in their daily lives....

You did not actually answer the question.
I've answered your question. If you believe there is a better answer, that's your argument to make rather than trying to get me to utter your conclusion with a loaded question. 

You don't have to compare it to my position. A straightforward answer will suffice.
Comparing it to your position is reasonable. If you think logic and rational thinking is insufficient in some way, then you'll need something to replace it or make it better. Does your position replace or add to logic and reason? I submit "no" (for the reasons stated) and that seems to be a problem you want to push under the rug. If your views can't withstand the questions you lob at others...you should probably be silent. 
Topic's author
#140
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
I think you mean, "Does a rationalist *say* they base their foundation of a truth claim on empirical data?". Because everyone uses empirical data, logic, and reasoning as a default to operate in their daily lives....
Well since we have already established that you are not a rationalist, there is no reason to continue discussing this point since I don't think we are going to agree and it is really no longer relevant.

I've answered your question.
Where specifically? Why is it so difficult to provide a clear answer? You said yourself that everyone appeals to circular reasoning. I asked, "What is the final authority that you appeal to in your circular reasoning?" A clear answer would look something like, "_________ is my final authority that I appeal to." This was your answer:

It is simply a matter of practicality. Without some basic axioms, we would not be able to function in the world. It seems you are trying to shoehorn your beliefs in here, but what the 'Bible says is true and false' really isn't a necessary to function as evidenced by billions of people functioning without this presupposition.

Where is the specific "what" that would fill in the blank to answer my question? The only two possible options might be "It" or "some basic axioms" and neither of those are specific.

Is it true, as you said, that everyone appeals to circular reasoning? If so, that means you appeal to circular reasoning, even if it is a justified appeal. So unless you disagree with what you previously said, that means there is some final authority that you appeal to in your circular reasoning. In the clearest possible terms, are you willing to tell me what the final authority is that you appeal to in your circular reasoning?

"My final authority is ___________."
#141
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Has our conversation really com to pete and repeat? I've gone as much into this as I care to. It seems clear you're running away from the OP as fast as you can at this point. ;-)  
#142
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne

It seems clear you're running away from the OP as fast as you can at this point. ;-)  



Indeed . He totally went to pieces when I put this question to him, it was the final nail in his coffin..#43


And unbeknownst to you, you helped him run away from his OP. He was more than happy to let you help him bury his embarrassment.


Topic's author
#143
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
What have I run away from? Even if you disagree with my approach in posting in the forum, I have clearly stated my intentions from the beginning and have clearly and honestly answered your questions.

This is a voluntary discussion so you are not obligated to continue. But out of curiosity, was it your intention not to provide a clear and simple answer ("My final authority is _______."), or are you just unwilling to clarify what the answer was? Because if you provided it, it is not apparent to me and I would prefer not to assume the answer.
Topic's author
#144
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
"You don't strike me as an honest person who is actually interested in a conversation. So go ahead and count this as another "fundie" destroyed by your towering intellect if you like. If you won't tell me your point after I answered your question, there is no reason to continue. Dialogue is a two way street." #44

#145
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I do not disagree with this. But if that is the case, how can you know with absolute certainty that there is an ice cream truck outside your house?
I mean, it was there. I saw it. I mentioned that I know optical illusions exist but you are making it sound like I should go full solipsist lol.
Topic's author
#146
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Not at all. I am not saying it is unreasonable for you to believe there is an ice cream truck because you saw it. I made the point with SkepticalOne that your reasoning seems to take into account empirical evidence and logic, which is the foundation of the scientific method. But just like the scientific method, you can have varied levels of certainty, but you cannot know anything with absolute certainty. This is not particularly problematic when interpreting reality around us (like knowing when the ice cream truck arrives), but it does create problems when you enter other realms of knowledge.

For example, can you tell me why it is objectively wrong - or evil - to commit adultery?

*Adultery being defined as voluntarily having sex with someone besides your spouse
#147
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
For example, can you tell me why it is objectively wrong - or evil - to commit adultery?
Not sure I would use the word "evil" precisely, but the fact that it causes emotional distress to the spouse would be reason enough to say it is bad/immoral behavior.

Take for example open marriages, that would be adultery under your definition yet is not considered immortal by the people involved. Why? Precisely because of the fact that it involves activities agreed to beforehand by those involved and therefore causes no harm.

Therefore since it is the lack of harm which makes adultery in open marriages not immoral it is logical to conclude that in cases where it is considered immoral it is considered such due to the harm done to the victim.
Topic's author
#148
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
So with reason as your final authority, you have justified adultery as a morally neutral, or possibly even a morally good, action. As long as there is no perceived harm (a moving goalpost), an action can be seen as good.

With the Bible as my final authority, there is no question as to the moral nature of adultery. It doesn't matter what the man and woman agree to, sex outside that marriage is evil. God's Law is explicit: "You shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14). Jesus was also clear on the issue: "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:27-28).

There is a key difference. With your subjective reasoning as your final authority, you can justify the act of adultery by reasoning that it fits into your subjective standard of morality. If it's reasonable, it's permissable. On the other hand, there is no amount of reasoning I can do to justify adultery. Even a lack of perceived harm would not justify it (though evil always causes harm). The Bible acts as an objective standard that can be appealed to that defines morality and is not subject to changing human opinions.

But I think there is one more clarification to make in your attempt at reasoning your way to morality apart from God. I assume you distinguish between humans and animals in the moral realm, particularly when it comes to determining human rights. So, can you tell me who gets to define what a human is?
#149
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Since God had a wife, Asherah, whom the Book of Kings suggests was worshipped alongside Yahweh in his temple in Israel, I don't think he was worried about sex outside of marriage. You know, that Mary thing.
Topic's author
#150
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@FLRW
I would not be the least bit surprised if you believed that to be true.