God the Geometry Guy?

[SithDoughnut]

But why would any reasonable person assume the truth of the Bible? The Bible, after all, is not a statement. It is not an argument. It is a collection of myths, poetry, religious law, ritual, biased history (Is there any other kind?) and stories designed more to influence behavior (i.e. fables, parables) than to depict literal truth. (e.g. Job, Jonah) It isn't "true" or "false" as a whole. You have to take it piece by piece.

Again, several assumptions. More blocks missing from the giant Jenga tower of the argument (I like that metaphor, leave me alone ).

 

[chris4243]

Again, several assumptions. More blocks missing from the giant Jenga tower of the argument (I like that metaphor, leave me alone ).

Why should I care what someone who denounces all of mathematics and logic and science has to say? Go ahead, justify one assumption, any assumption you like other than the tautology. Anything that you think has been justified, if you can find one example. I'll prove that you either haven't proven your assumption (so it's unjustified), or that it is equivalent to a tautology.

As for tautology, any theory B derived from any consistent axiom system A can be used to construct a useful tautology, If A then B, regardless of how "unjustified" you feel the axioms were.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Why should I care what someone who denounces all of mathematics and logic and science has to say? Go ahead, justify one assumption, any assumption you like other than the tautology. Anything that you think has been justified, if you can find one example. I'll prove that you either haven't proven your assumption (so it's unjustified), or that it is equivalent to a tautology.

As for tautology, any theory B derived from any consistent axiom system A can be used to construct a useful tautology, If A then B, regardless of how "unjustified" you feel the axioms were.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with that. The problem comes when you try to make a point with your tautology.

 

[chris4243]

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with that. The problem comes when you try to make a point with your tautology.

OK, the problem comes when you try to make a point with your tautology. Shall we agree to never discuss science, logic, theology, nor philosophy?

 

[SithDoughnut]

OK, the problem comes when you try to make a point with your tautology. Shall we agree to never discuss science, logic, theology, nor philosophy?

Why?

 

[chris4243]

Why?

All reasoning depends on unjustified assumptions. You can pretend the assumptions are justified by using circular reasoning (the Bible is true because it says it is, science is true because data acquired via the scientific method shows that to be the case), but that's not valid evidence. Yet, you complain about my suggesting an assumption and trying to draw conclusions from it, like anyone who has ever reasoned does. It seems to me that you are in denial, that you cannot accept the fact that your own assumptions are unjustified. But a clear thinker can deduce from any set of assumptions.

 

[SithDoughnut]

All reasoning depends on unjustified assumptions. You can pretend the assumptions are justified by using circular reasoning (the Bible is true because it says it is, science is true because data acquired via the scientific method shows that to be the case), but that's not valid evidence. Yet, you complain about my suggesting an assumption and trying to draw conclusions from it, like anyone who has ever reasoned does. It seems to me that you are in denial, that you cannot accept the fact that your own assumptions are unjustified. But a clear thinker can deduce from any set of assumptions.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with that. The problem in your OP came when you tried to present it as an argument that applies to reality. You can't just assume reality and expect it to be the way you want it to be.