Begging the Question

[Zosimus]

Begging the question is a formal logical fallacy in which the argument proceeds in a circle. Another way to say this is that the conclusion (or one of the sub-conclusions leading to the main conclusion) is taken to be true—perhaps it is stated as one of the explicit premises or perhaps merely assumed.

For example, assume that we are in a debate between an abortion-on-demand proponent and an anti-abortionist. Imagine that the anti-abortionist says, “Since the fetus is a person, she has certain inalienable rights both legally and morally. Denying this is like denying that blacks are people. These kinds of assumptions are indefensible. Accordingly, abortion should be illegal.”

Since the very crux of the argument is whether a fetus is a person, starting the argument with the phrase “Since the fetus is a person…” is begging the question. The argument is wholly unconvincing.

So, what does any of this have to do with evolution? Bear with me.

Standard Christian theology starts with the premise that a supernatural being, called God, created the Heaven and the Earth in a quasi-perfect form. Nothing got old or died. Things, including the human body, did not break down or wear out. Did radioactivity exist under these circumstances? That is highly unlikely. Did cosmic radiation exist and, if so, did it create C14 in the atmosphere? Unknown. The only thing that is certain under this scenario is that the laws of physics were quite different from the ones that we experience on a daily basis.

Enter the atheist. He wants to establish neo-Darwinism as the one true way and to replace standard Christian theology. How does he do so? He starts by either stating or assuming that the standard Christian worldview is a bunch of bull**** invented by primitive goat herders who couldn’t find their derrieres with both hands. Then the argument proceeds blah…blah…blah…radioactivity. Blah…blah…blah…carbon dating. Blah…blah…blah half-life. Blah…blah…blah…U238. Blah…blah…blah…fission track dating. Therefore, the standard Christian worldview is a bunch of bull**** invented by primitive goat herders.

Clearly, the argument is logically flawed—it is a classic example of begging the question. Regardless of the amount of circular logic bandied about by our atheist friends, the argument is thoroughly unconvincing.

I have heard a lot of arguments, but I have yet to hear one against YEC that doesn’t start with the assumption that YEC is wrong.

 

[Kirran]

I've seen plenty of examples of YEC ideas criticised directly, rather that starting from a basis of their invalidity. One might bring up examples of observation of evolution, of fossil records etc and say how this doesn't fit the YEC view.

 

[Mindmaster]

Enter the atheist. He wants to establish neo-Darwinism as the one true way and to replace standard Christian theology. How does he do so? He starts by either stating or assuming that the standard Christian worldview is a bunch of bull**** invented by primitive goat herders who couldn’t find their derrieres with both hands. Then the argument proceeds blah…blah…blah…radioactivity. Blah…blah…blah…carbon dating. Blah…blah…blah half-life. Blah…blah…blah…U238. Blah…blah…blah…fission track dating. Therefore, the standard Christian worldview is a bunch of bull**** invented by primitive goat herders.

Clearly, the argument is logically flawed—it is a classic example of begging the question. Regardless of the amount of circular logic bandied about by our atheist friends, the argument is thoroughly unconvincing.

I have heard a lot of arguments, but I have yet to hear one against YEC that doesn’t start with the assumption that YEC is wrong.

Either argument is ultimately unprovable, but the difference is normally your atheist won't accept anything they cannot prove or see. It's not on the atheist to disprove the Christian (or other religions with creation myths) claims, it is on them prove their claims.

"God created the world in seven days?"
"How do you know, and who created God?"

The answers to those questions cannot be, "it's in the book", or "God created himself." Neither of those comments are acceptable answers in any case. There are no facts that support the idea...

 

[jonathan180iq]

You wrote this:

Standard Christian theology starts with the premise that a supernatural being, called God, created the Heaven and the Earth in a quasi-perfect form. Nothing got old or died. Things, including the human body, did not break down or wear out. Did radioactivity exist under these circumstances? That is highly unlikely. Did cosmic radiation exist and, if so, did it create C14 in the atmosphere? Unknown. The only thing that is certain under this scenario is that the laws of physics were quite different from the ones that we experience on a daily basis.

In a thread about begging the question and circular logic...

Really?

Please, show your supporting references for any one of those claims.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Begging the question is a formal logical fallacy in which the argument proceeds in a circle. Another way to say this is that the conclusion (or one of the sub-conclusions leading to the main conclusion) is taken to be true—perhaps it is stated as one of the explicit premises or perhaps merely assumed.

For example, assume that we are in a debate between an abortion-on-demand proponent and an anti-abortionist. Imagine that the anti-abortionist says, “Since the fetus is a person, she has certain inalienable rights both legally and morally. Denying this is like denying that blacks are people. These kinds of assumptions are indefensible. Accordingly, abortion should be illegal.”

Since the very crux of the argument is whether a fetus is a person, starting the argument with the phrase “Since the fetus is a person…” is begging the question. The argument is wholly unconvincing.

So, what does any of this have to do with evolution? Bear with me.

Standard Christian theology starts with the premise that a supernatural being, called God, created the Heaven and the Earth in a quasi-perfect form. Nothing got old or died. Things, including the human body, did not break down or wear out. Did radioactivity exist under these circumstances? That is highly unlikely. Did cosmic radiation exist and, if so, did it create C14 in the atmosphere? Unknown. The only thing that is certain under this scenario is that the laws of physics were quite different from the ones that we experience on a daily basis.

Enter the atheist. He wants to establish neo-Darwinism as the one true way and to replace standard Christian theology. How does he do so? He starts by either stating or assuming that the standard Christian worldview is a bunch of bull**** invented by primitive goat herders who couldn’t find their derrieres with both hands. Then the argument proceeds blah…blah…blah…radioactivity. Blah…blah…blah…carbon dating. Blah…blah…blah half-life. Blah…blah…blah…U238. Blah…blah…blah…fission track dating. Therefore, the standard Christian worldview is a bunch of bull**** invented by primitive goat herders.

Clearly, the argument is logically flawed—it is a classic example of begging the question. Regardless of the amount of circular logic bandied about by our atheist friends, the argument is thoroughly unconvincing.

I have heard a lot of arguments, but I have yet to hear one against YEC that doesn’t start with the assumption that YEC is wrong.

Ahh but of course..The laws of physics were completely different 6000 years ago. That explains everything!

 

[Kirran]

You wrote this:



In a thread about begging the question and circular logic...

Really?

Please, show your supporting references for any one of those claims.

To be fair, he did start with "Standard Christian theology states...".

Whether that is accurate is yet another question.

 

[jeager106]

Ahh but of course..The laws of physics were completely different 6000 years ago. That explains everything!

Finally! I premise I can live with!
Perrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrfect!
O.K. I'm kidding but that makes as much sense as anything else.
A child asks: "Where did I come from mommie?"
Mothers says: " You are a gift from God."
Child asks: "Where did God come from mommie?"
Confused mommie answers: "God has always been here."
Child is satisfied.
"God did it."

 

[Shad]

Strawman argument based on caricatures that diverge from the starting point only in order to establish a conclusion you already hold. The conflict is about which methodology is more useful; interpretation of revelation, revelation itself and modern geological methods (extended to methodologies developed within science.). Hence evolution vs creationism (biblical), carbon dating vs revelation.

Ironically you setup the very type of argument you have rejected....

 

[Kemosloby]

Begging the question is a formal logical fallacy in which the argument proceeds in a circle. Another way to say this is that the conclusion (or one of the sub-conclusions leading to the main conclusion) is taken to be true—perhaps it is stated as one of the explicit premises or perhaps merely assumed.

For example, assume that we are in a debate between an abortion-on-demand proponent and an anti-abortionist. Imagine that the anti-abortionist says, “Since the fetus is a person, she has certain inalienable rights both legally and morally. Denying this is like denying that blacks are people. These kinds of assumptions are indefensible. Accordingly, abortion should be illegal.”

Since the very crux of the argument is whether a fetus is a person, starting the argument with the phrase “Since the fetus is a person…” is begging the question. The argument is wholly unconvincing.

So, what does any of this have to do with evolution? Bear with me.

Standard Christian theology starts with the premise that a supernatural being, called God, created the Heaven and the Earth in a quasi-perfect form. Nothing got old or died. Things, including the human body, did not break down or wear out. Did radioactivity exist under these circumstances? That is highly unlikely. Did cosmic radiation exist and, if so, did it create C14 in the atmosphere? Unknown. The only thing that is certain under this scenario is that the laws of physics were quite different from the ones that we experience on a daily basis.

Enter the atheist. He wants to establish neo-Darwinism as the one true way and to replace standard Christian theology. How does he do so? He starts by either stating or assuming that the standard Christian worldview is a bunch of bull**** invented by primitive goat herders who couldn’t find their derrieres with both hands. Then the argument proceeds blah…blah…blah…radioactivity. Blah…blah…blah…carbon dating. Blah…blah…blah half-life. Blah…blah…blah…U238. Blah…blah…blah…fission track dating. Therefore, the standard Christian worldview is a bunch of bull**** invented by primitive goat herders.

Clearly, the argument is logically flawed—it is a classic example of begging the question. Regardless of the amount of circular logic bandied about by our atheist friends, the argument is thoroughly unconvincing.

I have heard a lot of arguments, but I have yet to hear one against YEC that doesn’t start with the assumption that YEC is wrong.

They had the tree of life, the fruit kept their bodies healthy. God kicked them out of the garden," lest they took from the tree of life and lived forever". So their bodies could go on forever as long as they had access to the tree of life.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

He starts by either stating or assuming that the standard Christian worldview is a bunch of bull**** invented by primitive goat herders who couldn’t find their derrieres with both hands.

Well, as an atheist, you pretty much summed up my stance on Christianity with the word "bull****". However, I usually don't go about my arguments just presuming that Christianity is false. Well... I mean I do that internally, of course, but externally all I usually do is ask questions - juxtaposing the way we can observe and interact in the physical world with the the observations and pronouncements of "truth" found in the stories and belief manifests of the religion.

The questions usually end up being extremely uncomfortable for Christians, and you can virtually see their minds squirming in the responses they give when they ultimately have to admit that they have no idea how certain things make any sense whatsoever in light of real world mechanics and understanding.

 

[Kemosloby]

Well, as an atheist, you pretty much summed up my stance on Christianity with the word "bull****". However, I usually don't go about my arguments just presuming that Christianity is false. Well... I mean I do that internally, of course, but externally all I usually do is ask questions - juxtaposing the way we can observe and interact in the physical world with the the observations and pronouncements of "truth" found in the stories and belief manifests of the religion.

The questions usually end up being extremely uncomfortable for Christians, and you can virtually see their minds squirming in the responses they give when they ultimately have to admit that they have no idea how certain things make any sense whatsoever in light of real world mechanics and understanding.

Begging the question, you assume there is no such thing as miracles. Therefore your arguments are unconvincing, blind to any position other than hand before your face arguments.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I have heard a lot of arguments, but I have yet to hear one against YEC that doesn’t start with the assumption that YEC is wrong.

I have yet to hear one argument for YEC that doesn't start with the assumption that it is right.

So, starting from that level playing field, let's go with the evidence. None of the empirically derived or supportable evidence supports the YEC model. As a rational person, I will go with that. Other people are free to be as rational or irrational as they wish.

 

[viole]

Begging the question is a formal logical fallacy in which the argument proceeds in a circle. Another way to say this is that the conclusion (or one of the sub-conclusions leading to the main conclusion) is taken to be true—perhaps it is stated as one of the explicit premises or perhaps merely assumed.

For example, assume that we are in a debate between an abortion-on-demand proponent and an anti-abortionist. Imagine that the anti-abortionist says, “Since the fetus is a person, she has certain inalienable rights both legally and morally. Denying this is like denying that blacks are people. These kinds of assumptions are indefensible. Accordingly, abortion should be illegal.”

Since the very crux of the argument is whether a fetus is a person, starting the argument with the phrase “Since the fetus is a person…” is begging the question. The argument is wholly unconvincing.

So, what does any of this have to do with evolution? Bear with me.

Standard Christian theology starts with the premise that a supernatural being, called God, created the Heaven and the Earth in a quasi-perfect form. Nothing got old or died. Things, including the human body, did not break down or wear out. Did radioactivity exist under these circumstances? That is highly unlikely. Did cosmic radiation exist and, if so, did it create C14 in the atmosphere? Unknown. The only thing that is certain under this scenario is that the laws of physics were quite different from the ones that we experience on a daily basis.

Enter the atheist. He wants to establish neo-Darwinism as the one true way and to replace standard Christian theology. How does he do so? He starts by either stating or assuming that the standard Christian worldview is a bunch of bull**** invented by primitive goat herders who couldn’t find their derrieres with both hands. Then the argument proceeds blah…blah…blah…radioactivity. Blah…blah…blah…carbon dating. Blah…blah…blah half-life. Blah…blah…blah…U238. Blah…blah…blah…fission track dating. Therefore, the standard Christian worldview is a bunch of bull**** invented by primitive goat herders.

Clearly, the argument is logically flawed—it is a classic example of begging the question. Regardless of the amount of circular logic bandied about by our atheist friends, the argument is thoroughly unconvincing.

I have heard a lot of arguments, but I have yet to hear one against YEC that doesn’t start with the assumption that YEC is wrong.

I never said that YEC is wrong. But that is me.

What I could say, like W. Pauli, is that it is not even wrong.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kemosloby]

I have yet to hear one argument for YEC that doesn't start with the assumption that it is right.

So, starting from that level playing field, let's go with the evidence. None of the empirically derived or supportable evidence supports the YEC model. As a rational person, I will go with that. Other people are free to be as rational or irrational as they wish.

A classic example of begging the question.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Begging the question is a formal logical fallacy in which the argument proceeds in a circle. Another way to say this is that the conclusion (or one of the sub-conclusions leading to the main conclusion) is taken to be true—perhaps it is stated as one of the explicit premises or perhaps merely assumed.

For example, assume that we are in a debate between an abortion-on-demand proponent and an anti-abortionist. Imagine that the anti-abortionist says, “Since the fetus is a person, she has certain inalienable rights both legally and morally. Denying this is like denying that blacks are people. These kinds of assumptions are indefensible. Accordingly, abortion should be illegal.”

Since the very crux of the argument is whether a fetus is a person, starting the argument with the phrase “Since the fetus is a person…” is begging the question. The argument is wholly unconvincing.

So, what does any of this have to do with evolution? Bear with me.

Standard Christian theology starts with the premise that a supernatural being, called God, created the Heaven and the Earth in a quasi-perfect form. Nothing got old or died. Things, including the human body, did not break down or wear out. Did radioactivity exist under these circumstances? That is highly unlikely. Did cosmic radiation exist and, if so, did it create C14 in the atmosphere? Unknown. The only thing that is certain under this scenario is that the laws of physics were quite different from the ones that we experience on a daily basis.

Enter the atheist. He wants to establish neo-Darwinism as the one true way and to replace standard Christian theology. How does he do so? He starts by either stating or assuming that the standard Christian worldview is a bunch of bull**** invented by primitive goat herders who couldn’t find their derrieres with both hands. Then the argument proceeds blah…blah…blah…radioactivity. Blah…blah…blah…carbon dating. Blah…blah…blah half-life. Blah…blah…blah…U238. Blah…blah…blah…fission track dating. Therefore, the standard Christian worldview is a bunch of bull**** invented by primitive goat herders.

Clearly, the argument is logically flawed—it is a classic example of begging the question. Regardless of the amount of circular logic bandied about by our atheist friends, the argument is thoroughly unconvincing.

I have heard a lot of arguments, but I have yet to hear one against YEC that doesn’t start with the assumption that YEC is wrong.

True, and in a way, the argument makes even less sense coming from 'old earth' theists. People who believe in God, the creator, yet feel his hands were bound by the laws of nature, time, physics, geology, laws which he created

To paraphrase Dr Ben Carson, he's God, he can create a universe that appears older than it is. And why not? In a created world, reality is determined only by the will of the creator- Likewise every human story, book, movie, begins with an established backstory to give the created world context. The backstory is created as is, it does not need to unfold in 'real time'

 

[Acim]

Enter the atheist. He wants to establish

In the moment 'he' seeks to establish anything, he ceases his (alleged) atheism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

A classic example of begging the question.

Then please, go ahead and provide a single piece of verifiable, empirical evidence which supports YEC. I'll be holding my breath in anticipation.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Begging the question, you assume there is no such thing as miracles. Therefore your arguments are unconvincing, blind to any position other than hand before your face arguments.

Personally, I would say I do assume that there is no such thing as miracles, however I wouldn't start out an argument about whether or not something was a miracle by stating that miracles are not real. I would begin by asking what a miracle is - how are we to define it? Once we establish that, does it require any presupposed belief as part of its definition? And if so, is it a valid definition to even have an argument about it in the first place?

And what do you propose one should do in an argument situation about whether or not something was a miracle? Go into it whole-heartedly believing in miracles? No... to correctly enter the argument the mediating party needs to go in with BOTH options in mind. That something could be a miracle, or it may not be. Skeptical, yet open to the possibility.

 

[Kemosloby]

Then please, go ahead and provide a single piece of verifiable, empirical evidence which supports YEC. I'll be holding my breath in anticipation.

Young or old, can't anybody go back and verify any evidence. Neither can science reproduce creating something out of nothing, therefore has no more verifiable, demonstrable evidence better than God creating everything.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Young or old, can't anybody go back and verify any evidence. Neither can science reproduce creating something out of nothing, therefore has no more verifiable, demonstrable evidence better than God creating everything.

Ah, so none. (Good thing I knew better than to actually hold my breath.)