11 Apr 05
Originally posted by pcaspian
A recent post made me think about the role of God in a Christian's every day life. The post suggested that Christians need to pray for a sunny day, pray for a salary increase, and pray for a good hair day.
This made me think, what does God do in my life. Other than one occasion where I prayed and experience an "out of world experience", I can't say ...[text shortened]... tell you, I've seen this happen and for some it takes years to deal with such a tragedy.
pc
Don't ask what God can do for you, but ask what you can do for God.
With thanks to JFK
11 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Coletti
Well said.
Many Christians see God as a giant slot machine and prayers are the coins. If you plug in enough coins (pray over and over and over), then God will give you what you want.
Right, things like an "informed" conscience for instance ....... know what I'm saying .....
11 Apr 05
I don't wish to go on and on in an off-topic semantical debate. The logic sources and textbooks say "begging the question" is a fallacy. My dictionary defines a fallacy as "an argument failing to satisfy the conditions of valid or correct inference". Apparently I should have used the term "incorrect" rather than "invalid" to describe Coletti's "argument". Be that as it may, I was trained not to use "circular arguments" because they are fallacious and unpersuasive. If the best "argument" Coletti has is admitted by himself to be circular then it is at the very least completely unpersuasive, even if it is "valid" in a technical sense since his conclusion is not a "correct inference" from the premises since it is not an inference from the premises at all.
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderDo these help any?
I don't wish to go on and on in an off-topic semantical debate. The logic sources and textbooks say "begging the question" is a fallacy. My dictionary defines a fallacy as "an argument failing to satisfy the conditions of valid or correct inference". Apparently I should have used the term "incorrect" rather than "invalid" to describe ...[text shortened]... a "correct inference" from the premises since it is not an inference from the premises at all.
Appeal to Authority
(argumentum ad verecundiam)
Definition:
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to
support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to
authority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert
opinion on the subject,
(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.
(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or
otherwise not being serious
Begging the Question
( petitio principii )
Definition:
The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a
slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is
a consequence of the conclusion.
Circular Reasoning: The fallacy of circular reasoning occurs when a speaker asserts a conclusion that is based on a premise that requires the conclusion to be true before it can be accepted. Officially, this is a syllogistic fallacy.
Ad Hominem: Ad hominem is a Latin phrase meaning "against the man." This fallacy should not be confused with simple name calling, which is normally not an "ad hominem" fallacy as much as it is simply "being a jerk." Nor should the ad hominem fallacy be confused with the legitimate challenge of an authority. If someone asserts a point based on their own authority, then it is very logical to call that authority into question. The ad hominem fallacy is the specific assertion that someone's argument or viewpoint should be discounted because of character flaws that have nothing to do with the arguments at issue.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://webpages.shepherd.edu/maustin/rhetoric/fallacies.htm
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by chinking58We can, as long it's understood that absolute truth and relative truth are not mutually exclusive.
One thought though: There is but one absolute truth. Without this premise between us there is no point to any of these discussions. can we agree on that?