Circular Reasoning - Page 3

I have given up on asking you and people like you
"How can the Earth, logically, be only 6000 years old?"
because you cannot provide an answer, and anyway
it isn't.

No shtal has provided two videos one on dinosaurs and one on the big bang, evidently he has given up on his ridiculous young earth fantasy.

"you can't have laws of logic if you are naturalist" -
says who ? (apart from you, in your muddled and
nonsensical 'method' [ha !] of thought).

Not only can I not have logic because I'm a naturalist,
logic cannot exist as a chemical reaction, because every
body has different chemical reactions in their brain ...

I think you are confusing 'logic' with 'consciousness' here
Shtal - and I do not believe that even Hovind and co,
much less yourself, can define the conscious fully yet, as
it is still under debate among those who actually know
what they are talking about ...

Shtal made a typo, when he said logic he actually meant to type MAGIC.

 

  Of course if you go to genesis chapter 2 verse 18 - 36 you will clearly see all the laws of logic spaken by god as a gift to man to reason with. Logic totally didn't exist in China, Sumerian , ancient Egypt ...or any of those cultures that pre date shtals fairytale.

 

Perhaps shtal can explain the logic/magic of how Jesus fathered himself from himself.

I think you are confusing 'logic' with 'consciousness' 

 

So you are giving up a strictly materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal laws?

Here is what article says from the first page of this thread:

This is a huge concession; after all, if a person is willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging entities can exist, then he must consider the possibility that God exists. But this concession does not save the atheist’s position. He must still justify the laws of logic. Why do they exist? And what is the point of contact between the material physical world and the immaterial world of logic? In other words, why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? The atheist cannot answer these questions. His worldview cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational.

 

"you can't have laws of logic if you are naturalist" -
says who ? (apart from you, in your muddled and
nonsensical 'method' [ha !] of thought).

 

Here is what article says from the first page of this thread:

“Laws of logic are material—they are made of electro-chemical connections in the brain.” But then the laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond the brain. In other words, we couldn’t argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since no one’s brain is on Mars. In fact, if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone has different connections in their brain.

Not only can I not have logic because I'm a naturalist,
logic cannot exist as a chemical reaction, because every
body has different chemical reactions in their brain ...

 

Here is what article says from the first page of this thread:

Sometimes an atheist will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic response: “We use the laws of logic because they work.” Unfortunately for him, that isn’t the question. We all agree the laws of logic work; they work because they’re true. The question is why do they exist in the first place? How can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the universe is material only?

 

I do not normally claim to take Naturalism as my
guide to thinking; say rather that I am a Realist.

 

Here is what article says from the first page of this thread:

“Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in God.” But this is no different than the critic of air saying, “Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don’t believe in air.” This isn’t a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning requires God, not a profession of belief in Him. Of course the atheist can reason; it’s because God has made his mind and given him access to the laws of logic—and that’s the point. It’s because God exists that reasoning is possible. The atheist  can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.

 

Huntmutter might say?

“Laws of logic are conventions made up by man.” But conventions are (by definition) conventional. That is, we all agree to them and so they work—like driving on the right side of the road. But if laws of logic were conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road). So, in some cultures it might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. In some societies truth could be self-contradictory. Clearly that wouldn’t do. If laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary standard.

I have given up on asking you and people like you
"How can the Earth, logically, be only 6000 years old?"
because you cannot provide an answer, and anyway
it isn't.

 

 It’s not that people don’t have enough evidence for young earth but their presupposition tell them what to make out of that evidence.

I gave example how vk4 was convinced himself he was dead: here: http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/community.read?post=858018-astronomer-jason-lisle-destroys-quotold-universequot-in-less-than-half-hour#858079

 

Here is old article how earth can be young, unless of cource you can't comprehend higher level english.

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/community.read?post=663318-interesting-article&p=5

Or your wrong assumptions could be the problem. Because carbon dating is widely used and accepted as fact. BTW, the second link you posted above comes from a creation site that is not ranked very high in trustworthiness and is not from studies done by scientists. When one goes to a site whos sole purpose is to try and debunk something, they generally are not very good at looking at things without the slant they are looking for. In other words they tend to be very biased in their views. Then they have people who read their rubbish and assume it to be fact when in fact it is very slanted. Try searching and reading real facts with an open mind instead of the closed mind and brainwashing you have been subjected to. It might help you to better understand and stop yourself from looking foolish and brainwashed.

 

If your God told you to kill me - would you?

 

There are three reasons why radiometric data is known to be accurate:

1. It depends upon radioactive decay, which is known to be extremely stable, not influenced my chemical processes, and which can be measured quite accurately. Thus the physical principle of the method is well established.

2. The dates obtained by radiometric dating are verified by independent methods, including dendrochronology (tree rings), varve chronology (sediment layers), ice cores, coral banding, speleotherms (cave formations), fission track dating, and electron spin resonance dating. The multiple checks verify that the rate of isotope decay does not change over time, and it verifies the accuracies of the methods.

For dating back to about 35,000 years, sediment layers are precise. http://en.wikipedia.org... Sediments include different types of pollen depending upon the season. Consequently, individual years can be identified by season, so there is no possibility of layers being confused. Sediment columns giving an unbroken history for more than 25,000 years have been identified in about 30 locations around the world.

Coral growth patterns are also seasonal and provide a long independent date history. The coral record verifies that radiometric methods are accurate. The data is presented in [1] below.

3. The dates obtained by different radiometric isotope pairs cross-check each other.

For the purposes of assessing accuracy, each of the methods is assumed to be applied in accordance with the established methods and technology. By analogy, a stop watch will not keep accurate time if it is not wound, if it is not in good repair, or if the operator forgets to press the button. Methods are precise insofar as they are properly used.

A good explanation of all of the dating methods used for samples up to about 200,000 years old, together with their accuracies and references to the scientific literature is contained in [1] Walker, Mike, "Quaternary Dating Methods," John Wiley & Sons, 2005

I don't care what your f'ing cut-and-paste religion-mongering websites say. Accepting that 'science' has not yet found absolute answers to everything yet (as you are only too swift to remind us, on occasion) is NOT the same as me making "concessions...that immaterial (?), universal, unchanging entities can exist".

 

As GSD says:  "...your wrong assumptions could be

the problem" 

Accepting that 'science' has not yet found absolute answers to everything yet

 

That is the whole point, no responds from atheists.

 

As GSD says:  "...your wrong assumptions could be wrong 

 

I could say same thing about him

btw calling creationists scientists Ph.D folks dumb and you are smart is not right....

Yes dear but I was referring to REAL scientists ...