Circular Argument... Now What?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I notice that one of your sources has Dembski and Behe listed as board-members.  Behe is for biology what Scrappy-Doo was for criminology.  The link to Dembski's CV crashed my computer.

The "About Us" page for your "apologeticspress" link starts:

In the late 1970s, there was a need to make available scripturally sound and scientifically accurate materials in apologetics among the churches of Christ.

You will notice that this lists "scripturally sound" before"scientifically accurate".  This is telling.  It then goes on:

The following principles of truth are accepted by those who actively participate in this work:

   1. God exists, and man can know that God exists, by means of His manifold revelations, both in nature and through the inspired Word of God, the Holy Bible.
   2. The entire material Universe was specially created by this almighty God in 6 days of approximately 24- hours each, as revealed in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11.
   3. Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate a relatively young Earth, in contrast to evolutionary views of a multi-billion-year age for the Earth.
   4. Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate that many of the Earth’s features must be viewed in light of a universal, catastrophic flood (i.e., the Noahic Flood as described in Genesis 6-8).
   5. All compromising theories such as theistic evolution, progressive creationism, threshold evolution, the gap theory, the modified gap theory, the day-age theory, the non-world view, etc., are denied and opposed as patently false.
   6. Christianity is the one true religion; Jesus Christ is the only divine Son of God, resurrected Lord, and Savior of all who lovingly obey Him.

This is not an unbiased source, contrary to your above claim.  The requirements listed above fatally compromise any findings this organization might wish to purport as "scientific."  A priori conditions are rarely, if ever, respected by reality.  

Your "ResearchID" link has this as its Mission Statement:

Development of Positive Research of intelligent design, by providing

Resources for intelligent design research, through

Collaboration among researchers in building information sources, and establish

Networking between individual intelligent design researchers and theorists.

Noticeably absent is the mission to establish the truth explaining the diversity of species on Earth.  What does that tell  you?

[freeservant]

Your dedicated misrepresentation of my position leads me to believe that you're not really looking for a friendly conversation.  Have fun with that.

The clever ad-hominem.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies ... %20hominem

Yet I suppose my honest reflection of what I honestly see you inferring may cause you to not wish to reply.  I again have made my point about an almost tautological mistrust of anything someone outside the atheist bubble tries to present and how this means that all debate closes down to your side (that means my theist side) is always wrong no matter what I present...

[Squid]

Since there appears to be some confusion about natural selection I’ll talk a bit about it.  First, let’s start with what natural selection is â€" a process.  Audesirk, Audesirk and Byers (2002) define natural selection as:

the unequal survival and reproduction of organisms due to environmental forces, resulting in the preservation of favorable adaptations.  Usually, natural selection refers specifically to differential survival and reproduction on the basis of genetic differences among individuals (p. G-16)

Let’s look closer at this definition to truly wrap our minds around it.  First we have the “unequal survival and reproduction of organisms due to environmental forces”.  Unequal survival refers to some organisms surviving to maturity and to reproduce while others do not; meeting an end for a myriad of reasons.  What might those reasons be?  It could be falling to a predator, genetic defect, illness, trauma from a fight or accident, caught in a natural phenomenon (flood, storm, landslide, et cetera), drowning, falling off a cliff, being hit by a meteorite…there’s many ways to die.  The point is that some organisms reach maturity and are able to reproduce and others don’t.

Those organisms which have survived to reproduce will pass their genes on to another generation, those that didn’t make it will see their genes lost in the ripples of time.  For instance, you have two gazelle on a savannah â€" one gazelle is faster than the other.  When attacked by a predator it would be probable that the faster gazelle would be able to escape the predator therefore that gazelle’s speed could let it reach maturity and reproduce.  Within this environment, that speed is beneficial to survival.   However, this is just one trait, one instance and natural selection gets much more complicated than that.  But I’ll get into that in a bit.

Let’s get back to the definition.  The second part of the first sentence continues to say “resulting in the preservation of favorable adaptations”.  Those adaptations they are referring to are the allele variants found in a population which contribute to the survival of that organism.  In the previous example, possessing great speed to escape predators would be that beneficial trait.  In a simple explanation, it becomes an adaptation when the frequency of that allele spreads throughout the population due to the slower gazelle becoming lunch.  In the predator/prey idea we can see a commonly talked about hypothesis within evolutionary biology called the Red Queen hypothesis.  The Red Queen hypothesis addresses a couple of items in evolution but in this aspect we’re referring to the conceptual “arms race” within populations of organisms.  The idea was presented in the 70s by Leigh Van Valen in an article for the journal Evolutionary Theory when he stated:

For an evolutionary system, continuing development is needed just in order to maintain its fitness relative tothe systems it is co-evolving with (van Valen, 1973)

The name was a reference to a portion of Lewis Caroll’s Alice Through the Looking Glass.

The hypothesis was directly related to the law of extinction.  With prey populations expressing beneficial alleles which correspond to traits that aid in survival (speed, agility, camouflage, intelligence, eyesight, reflexes, et cetera) this would also elicit change in the predator population as well as those who are better outfitted to obtain a food source won’t starve to death.  Therefore, in such instances you have a dynamic interaction which was described by van Valen and likened to the need for Alice to run as fast as she can just to stay in place.
 
Schaffer and Rosenzweig (1978) took an indepth statistical look at the idea within a two-species model.  They found that their analyses supported van Valen’s hypothesis.  Within this are we also get into coevolutionary change but that’s for another discussion.  Also, my example was simple for illustrative purposes and there are many other factors which are at play.

Now, going back to the definition we come to the second sentence where Audesirk et al. (2002) states, “natural selection refers specifically to differential survival and reproduction on the basis of genetic differences among individuals”.  Here we have the acknowledgement of the allele frequencies of the population I mentioned earlier.  Genetic diversity within a population is important to a population’s survival.  For example, the great Irish potato famine in the 1840s showed how detrimental little to no genetic diversity can be.  Because the majority of the potato crops were essentially clones of one potato, a plasmodiophorid infestation spread quickly and devastated the crops (Chrispeels & Sadava, 2003).

So that’s it right?  Not much to it, right? Nope.  It gets more involved.  There are different major types of selection such as directional, stabilizing and disruptive selection.  Not to mention the complications when you throw sexual selection and artificial selection into the mix as well.

I could easily spend all night typing and typing about natural selection because there is so much about this important process.  However, my point was to show that the silly little caricature of natural selection the evolution opponent sites presented were just that â€" horribly lacking.  If you want to talk science, let's talk science and I'll do it without links.  Would it be helpful if I also posted graphs?

References:
Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G. & Byers, B. (2002). Biology: Life on earth. (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Chrispeels, M. & Sadava, D. (2003). Plants, Genes and Crop Biotechnology (2nd ed.).  Mississuage, ON: Jones and Bartlett Publishers Canada.

Schaffer, W. & Rosenzweig, M. (1978).  Homage to the Red Queen. I.  Coevolution of predators and their victims.  Theoretical Population Biology, 14, 135-157.

Van Valen, L. (1973). A new evolutionary law.  Evolutionary Theory, 1, 1-30.

[radicalaggrivation]

freeservant

He did not attack or your character. You should read the definition in the link you provided. He only made the point that you were misrepresenting his side of the argument, which is an often used tactic of theists. If you look at the second to last logical fallacy on your list you will be able to define your own flaw. It is called the straw man fallacy. It is when you ignore the point given by setting up your own distorted argument.

[freeservant]

I notice that one of your sources has Dembski and Behe listed as board-members.  Behe is for biology what Scrappy-Doo was for criminology.  The link to Dembski's CV crashed my computer.  

An FAQ that deals with the common objections: http://rubyurl.com/SHpL

I confess that some links are frustrating to post and that I could use the above link shortener but not all link break and I feel it more honest to able to read the source before you click it.

The "About Us" page for your "apologeticspress" link starts:

In the late 1970s, there was a need to make available scripturally sound and scientifically accurate materials in apologetics among the churches of Christ.

You will notice that this lists "scriptural sound" before"scientifically accurate".  This is telling.  It then goes on: snip

This is not an unbiased source, contrary to your above claim.  The requirements listed above fatally compromise any findings this organization might wish to purport as "scientific."  A priori conditions are rarely, if ever, respected by reality.  

Got you!  so that means all sites like Talk-origins I can be discount automatically as well.

Your "ResearchID" link has this as its Mission Statement:

Development of Positive Research of intelligent design, by providing

Resources for intelligent design research, through

Collaboration among researchers in building information sources, and establish

Networking between individual intelligent design researchers and theorists.

Noticeably absent is the mission to establish the truth explaining the diversity of species on Earth.  What does that tell  you?

I guess under a cursory investigation of the wealth of information on the website you might miss such things as this: http://www.researchintelligentdesign.or ... nos_Effect
 

I am sure there is other content but I tend to see natural selection as evident enough below the Taxonomic rank of family.

[pinkocommie]

Your dedicated misrepresentation of my position leads me to believe that you're not really looking for a friendly conversation.  Have fun with that.

The clever ad-hominem.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies ... %20hominem

Yet I suppose my honest reflection of what I honestly see you inferring may cause you to not wish to reply.  I again have made my point about an almost tautological mistrust of anything someone outside the atheist bubble tries to present and how this means that all debate closes down to your side (that means my theist side) is always wrong no matter what I present...

What I said isn't an example of that fallacy.  

[TheJackel]

No.. Not really as this book: "THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism" points out quite well.  But lets be honest and say we could fill up a site the length of talk-origins and trueorigins websites together with the back and forth.

Umm yes really, we can even digitize it, program it, synthesize it, produce molecular assemblers, DNA Robots, ect.. There is so much in regards to evolution that your entire argument is meaningless.. I could fill up the entire internet with data to back up evolution, but I'd rather not waste my time trying to convince a theist with more samples than necessary. I can give you non-living microbiological molecule examples of evolution, and living examples if you like.

The Book you listed is actually a very poor book, and Darwinism is hardly but the tip of the ice burg on this subject.

Not saying that natural selection is not true... Just saying that it is by necessarily a circular argument about the process or hypothesis.

I just gave you an obvious example of Natural Selection, thus your argument here makes absolutely no sense other than to plead for circularity in the hypothesis when there is none. There is no circular argument here, you were given an obvious example, so you need to either deal with it or continue trying to play ignorant. Natural Selection is a fact, end of story on that subject.

Oh... you are making a circular argument here but perhaps you don't see this and can some how back it all up.  Is it just a tautology that all claims are fallacious and unarguable or do you have a good non-circular reason to establish this?

My argument isn't circular, and my claim that you have zero evidence to support your position is hardly fallacious. Otherwise you can feel free to share with us.. So I am going to give an example of Truth VS Fallacy..

TRUTH VS FALLACY:

So the first thing we must do is establish the differences between truth, faith, and belief.. You can say this is Truth VS Fallacy, and that we all know truth only comes to be realized when it has faced rigorously harsh doses of self scrutiny. So what is the differences between truth, belief, and faith? Well, how about we find out by taking a closer look at each of these terms so we can establish a foundation for determining how they apply to the world we live in.

* Truth: substantiated unarguable information that is validated without possible argument against it.
* Faith: The hoping what you think is divine truth is actually true when there is no means of validation to give it substantiation.. It's a means to keep one believing irregardless if it's proven false, irrelevant, or impossible.
* Belief : believing in what you perceive to be true irregardless of validity, and in this case it is highly dependent on Faith for support. Otherwise a collapse of belief would likely occur.

Example Truths:

Absolute substantiated fact =

1) Existence can be verified without argument to exist simply because non-existence can not be a literal person, place, or thing of existence. Non-existence can not be a literal noun!

2) - 1 Energy = impossible
3) -1 spatial dimension, or space = impossible
4) Nonexistence can not actually be a person, place, or thing, object, or substance of existence.
5) Natural Selection
6) Energy
7) Emergence
Evolution

Example Fallacy:

A faith based belief = believing a GOD created existence without having to explain how one can preexist existence in order to create it. Hence, is a GOD existence as a whole, or is a GOD merely in existence like the rest of us as a product of existence, or does a god simply not exist? And how does solipsism play into this? It becomes heavily reliant on Faith, because logically it's trying to claim something to be of truth without substantiation or validation through simple blind assertions, and perceptual personal opinion.

I get that natural selection is established in an unquestionable macro-evolutionary sense.  I can even say that if the universe is fine tuned for life then evolution is part of that design.

I could say a GOD is fine tuned and Designed.. Your argument is rather self contradictory, and it has a major flaw in the fact that no mind can create that which itself requires to exist. Hence no mind can represent a Universal set, or solve infinite regress. And then there is the other major problem with the "GOD Claim" in that a mind or entity can not create complexity because itself is reliant on it in order exist itself.. Creationism is utterly laughable. It goes back to the notion of how can one design and create the following into existence if one is equally slave to the need of these things in order to exist itself?

Order
Existence
Intelligence
Information
Knowledge
Energy
Spatial Dimension
Material
Substance
Self-awareness
Self-identity
Consciousness
A place for one's self to exist
Color: Black and White, or RGB
Infinity
Wisdom
Time
Sight
Hearing
Smell
Choices
Decisions
Mind Containment
Observation
Calculation
Manipulation
Thought
Perception
Reality
Will
Feelings
Emotions
Experience
Experiences
Complexity
Cause and effect
Any Pattern or Patterns
Morality
Cognitive behavior
Inertia
Progress / progression
Mental Processing
Memory
Oscillation
Intent
Ability
Imagination
Design
Creation
Point of View
Behavior
Life
Senses
Mobility
Power
Divinity
Math
Action
Reaction
Response
Communication
Big and small (size)
Speed
Choice
Decision
Strength
Boundaries
Material Physicality
Movement
Positive
Negative
Neutral
Feed Back
Property
Attributes
 
It's rather funny how theists don't seem to understand that no matter how you cut it, no being can be the source origin, or creator to existence.. All entities would require containment, a place to exist in, and separation of self from everything else, or other entities. Existence doesn't require some Magical Sky fairy to exist sir, It is the magical sky fairy to which you think exists that would require existence in order to exist, and thus is irrelevant to existence.

Natural Theology is about God and how the evidence for God is all around you regardless of your circular claim that it is all false.

Sorry, natural theology is not evidence of a GOD, it's only evidence of nature, or existence itself.. There is nothing in natural theology that can even remotely validate the existence of a GOD.. And everything in natural theology can all be explained equally by the natural attributes of energy, electromagnetism, emergence, physics, ect. All you are doing here is applying abstract interpretation to mold it into your ideological construct, or belief system.. Hence for your theology to even have any meaning what-so-ever, it  would require you to actually validate the existence of your GOD before you attempt to make such claims.. I can prove energy exists, but you have no possible means, or evidence to prove the existence of a magical sky fairy. And worse yet, energy itself can represent a Universal Set, and solve infinite regress!. And this is why your argument is circular and mine is not.

http://www.godandscience.org/

That site is a joke btw, and rides mostly on molding science into the ideology.. Such as the illogical notion that a constant translates to design, or intelligence.. It's brainwashing at it's finest. You can feel free to attempt to cut and paste whatever you want from that site and I will rip it apart.

Given the Teleological argument and the fine tuning of the Universe for life my worldview accommodates the reason for emergence quite well but I also understand the induction atheists are making when they use the word and how for the atheist it can take on a different meaning.

Actually that is false, Life exists on what they call the edge of chaos, and the Universe is hardly fine tuned for life..In fact it's mostly lifeless.. It's complete and utter Tosh to be suggesting that the Universe is "fine tuned for life" when it's completely the opposite. And the fact that life does exist does not magically make the sky fairy exist. Life by all means is simply ordered chaos, emerging properties from chaotic systems. All matter, chemical reactions, biological systems are entirely made of energy, and are all natural phenomenon..

[Thumpalumpacus]

Got you! so that means all sites like Talk-origins I can be discount automatically as well.

If you'd be so kind as to cut-and-paste their a priori statement, I'll be happy to consider your complaint.  In the meantime, I'll still disregard those sites shown to be biased, namely, yours.

I guess under a cursory investigation of the wealth of information on the website you might miss such things as this: <sniplink>

I'm guessing you don't understand the purpose of a mission statement.  It establishes the baseline operating standards of an organization.  It is a statement of basic goals, and serves to define the culture of the organization.  

Do they have any scientists on staff who oppose ID?  Do they have any who are agnostic on the question?  And how might such a bald statement affect those proportions?

I am sure there is other content but I tend to see natural selection as evident enough below the Taxonomic rank of family.

And do you have any proposed mechanism for limiting NS to that level?

[freeservant]

Not saying that natural selection is not true... Just saying that it is by necessarily a circular argument about the process or hypothesis.

Natural Selection is a fact, end of story on that subject.

I will agree and yet say that ID supports the limited role and obvious lack of ability to make all from prokaryotes up to mankind.  This does not even mean that we do not have a common ancestry that has yet to show in the fossil record.  (And I already know that not all fossils need be found yet and understand the post-hoc effort to reverse engineer DNA.

I give ERV's as an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

Powerful evidence that we have common ancestry ... Or that God can copy and paste in our emergent Creative process that could not happen with pure chaos.

But Let's score this one for the atheist....Ummkay

So I am going to give an example of Truth VS Fallacy..

TRUTH VS FALLACY:

So the first thing we must do is establish the differences between truth, faith, and belief..

* Truth: substantiated unarguable information that is validated without possible argument against it.

This is a very difficult premise and may not encompass as much as you think it does but I find it acceptable.

* Faith: The hoping what you think is divine truth is actually true when there is no means of validation to give it substantiation.. It's a means to keep one believing irregardless if it's proven false, irrelevant, or impossible.
* Belief : believing in what you perceive to be true irregardless of validity, and in this case it is highly dependent on Faith for support. Otherwise a collapse of belief would likely occur.

I reject these premises fully.  Not only does premise one tend to show 2 and 3 as false but let's go deeper: http://rubyurl.com/qQdO

If we ask of any knowledge "But how do I KNOW that is true?" we may provide proof, and yet that same question can be asked of any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen Trilemma is that we have only 3 options when providing proof in this situation:

    * The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (e.g. we repeat ourselves at some point)
    * The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof (e.g. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)
    * The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (e.g. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)

The first two methods of reasoning are fundamentally weak, and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values they refused to accept proofs of the third sort. The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.

This also tends to refute skepticism for purely the skeptics sake.

The example truths are clearly as fundamentally flawed as how you personally look at and try to subjectively define faith and belief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRuxYaiTg4g   The word faith has been corrupted so that I will use the word trust or active trust.  Note that in a probabilistic sense active trust can have evidence or be a method to gain a more active trust when you trust that the evidence is currently beyond your base of knowledge at this time yet emotionally you are invested in believing.  (call it More will be revealed)

Try and understand what John Lennox is trying to say in these five videos

[youtube:281sqmti]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3t-g4z0Igw[/youtube:281sqmti]
[youtube:281sqmti]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5CqOovdzHA[/youtube:281sqmti]
[youtube:281sqmti]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV8Z3Ceywnk[/youtube:281sqmti]
[youtube:281sqmti]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0_REEYqQ3Q[/youtube:281sqmti]
[youtube:281sqmti]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW6RgNnVP-0[/youtube:281sqmti]

I need to stop for now but I do want to get into why you feel you have refuted the Teleological argument and how I can help you understand that some of your premises don't stand up to some scrutiny.

[TheJackel]

I will agree and yet say that ID supports the limited role and obvious lack of ability to make all from prokaryotes up to mankind.  This does not even mean that we do not have a common ancestry that has yet to show in the fossil record.  (And I already know that not all fossils need be found yet and understand the post-hoc effort to reverse engineer DNA.

Genome fusion has already shown to prove that we have a common ancestor. We are correctly classified as primates. Fossil Records are rare snapshots into the past, are not what we base the entirety of evolution on. None of this suggests, or supports ID.. And we don't need to trace man all the way back to understand how evolution works. All you are doing here is trying to inject ID into a process knowing that any process imaginable could be manipulated to suggesting ID without providing evidence to validate it.. ID is laughable, and you really ignored 99% of my post that goes into why ID is a ridiculous concept.

I give ERV's as an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

Powerful evidence that we have common ancestry ... Or that God can copy and paste in our emergent Creative process that could not happen with pure chaos.

You are kidding me right? This entire sentence tells me you have no concept of what emergence is, which is the self-attaining order, or formation of order and complexity from pure chaos and simplicity. This is where fractal derives from in regards to positive and negative feedback loops (natural attributes and properties of energy behavior). So we can establish why we can't even so much as light a match without emergence, electromagnetism, positive and negative feedback, matter, or energy itself to which is the sum total of all the above..  It makes no sense when you claim a process can not happen through pure chaos when that process of "emergence" is by definition the emerging property of Chaos itself.  Your argument is false because these processes are commonly observed in microbiology on a daily basis, and Prions are a very good example this. And again, none of this show's the existence of an intelligent designer vs self-oscillation and self-organization in biochemical cycles and processes..

But Let's score this one for the atheist....Ummkay

That would be wise, especially considering the mountain of evidence I have been sitting on here vs posting in hopes you won't make me post 10 pages of biochemistry, or biochemical cycles. But for giggles, I will post one example below:

PRIONS:

We can prove evolution in non-living molecules as we can in living molecules.  Prions are non-living molecules that can evolve and adapt to their environment. Ju­pi­ter, Fla discovered that these Prions can develop many different kinds of mutations that help prions develop defenses to withstand against threats. Even viruses that are considered non-living but active matter, can also evolve. However, viruses have a commonality with life known as DNA, and pinions do not. Prions consist of proteins that are composed of amino acids. The mutations are different folding arrangements of the protein molecules that achieve different characteristics much like that of DNA.. These fold­ings play an ev­o­lu­tion­ary role in pri­ons. This follows the same premise behind the driving force commonly found in cases of co-evolution and mutualism. Sorry but Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest isn't the only driving force behind evolution. The fact that non-life or non-living active matter evolves, also means that life evolves.. Evolution is proven in by co-evolution, mutualism, and simple observations of the world around us. This shows the deeper communicative connection between living active matter, non-living active matter, and inactive matter to where the self-oscillation of energy leads to self-direction, self-organization, and self-directed cognitive dynamics through a chaotic system with feedback. Here feedback is the controller of order from chaos, this in turn is the the pressure driven process of evolution, to which like everything else, is all energy driven.

http://www.mad-cow.org/prion_evol.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28biology%29

Furthermore, we can get even deeper into evolution by linking plant and animal in one little critter known as the Green Sea Slug. Here we can observe an example of the deeper communicative process of evolution!. The Green Sea slug can actually steal photosynthesizing organelles and genes from algae. This little slug can produce it's own chlorophyll. This is basically a complete fusion of plant and animal. Welcome to evolution! Also, Elysia and its genetic kleptomania is yet another example of animals undergoing the sort of horizontal gene transfer that is so commonplace in bacteria.

This is a very difficult premise and may not encompass as much as you think it does but I find it acceptable.

It's not a very difficult premise what-so-ever, and does encompass the requirement of validation and substantiation..

I reject these premises fully.  Not only does premise one tend to show 2 and 3 as false but let's go deeper: http://rubyurl.com/qQdO

This reminds me of Sarfati's rejection of volcanic gasses to support his false Earth Creationist argument. Premise one doesn't show that 2 and 3 are false, it demands 2 and 3 validate their positions, and then substantiate them in order for them to have any real meaning and truth to them. Emotional mental addictions to ideological constructs don't make them truthful, or meaningful in accordance with truth. 2 and 3 can only be proven true by satisfying the requirements outlined under premise number 1.. You can reject them all you want, but all you are doing is pleading to not adhere to the requirement of validating your assertions of ID, or even the existence of a magical sky fairy.

In regards to your link :

philosophical term coined to stress the purported impossibility to prove any truth even in the fields of logic and mathematics.

There is a reason why this is a "Philosophical" term, and I can prove a truth.. Both logically and mathematically I am posting a reply here, or lions eat meat.. This Philosophical term is hogwash to say the least, and is commonly used to deny an argument in an effort to cling to the opposite argument without having to support the opposites argument over the one being denied... I don't follow circular philosophical nonsense.

The example truths are clearly as fundamentally flawed as how you personally look at and try to subjectively define faith and belief.

They are not fundamentally flawed.. If you think they are, feel free to try and reply without using matter, energy, existence, substance, physicality, or electromagnetism ect.. Subsequently, you are playing a game of denial of reality here. Energy is hardly fundamentally flawed, nor is any of the examples I had given.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRuxYaiTg4g   The word faith has been corrupted so that I will use the word trust or active trust.  Note that in a probabilistic sense active trust can have evidence or be a method to gain a more active trust when you trust that the evidence is currently beyond your base of knowledge at this time yet emotionally you are invested in believing.  (call it More will be revealed)

This did not change the premise of my argument.. Trying to change faith into the word trust is dishonest discourse, or moving the goal posts. However, trust in the sense of faith is still implying hope in what you trust to be true is in fact true without evidence that actually validates the assumed, or asserted truth. All you are doing here is attempting to play with words while dodging the obvious fact that you don't have any evidence to validate, or substantiate a GOD's existence, or Intelligent design.. In fact you completely ignored why ID is just laughable to begin with, especially when it deals with existence and complexity...  

Theists don't seem to understand that complexity does not get created in reverse, or from the top down. Divinity for example is actually an evolutionary model because the highest level of divinity can not exist without first the lowest levels of divinity.. Hence, 3 apples can't exist without first being two other apples.

Try and understand what John Lennox is trying to say in these five videos

Those videos are nothing more than emotional play on human weaknesses. Worse yet, I've heard his child coming home story more times than I can count. It's right up there with the paralyzed man jumping out of his wheel chair arguments.. You're not posting things I haven't heard before.. And worse yet, he calls atheism a delusion and yet he can't even validate a GOD's actual existence.. This argument is like me telling you that you can't prove that my green one eyed pet monster didn't eat and kill his magical sky GOD. According to the evidence my argument of my green one eyed monster has equal validity as a magical sky fairy to which is being said to have been eaten. Hence, I can play the make this game to, and even state that the Big Bang was that of the passing of Gas after my green monster buddy digested the magical sky fairy. So in order to have honest discourse, you will need to prove the existence of said deity prior to any claims you try to make. Sitting there and trying to fabricate and mold an ideology around existence and the natural world is a disingenuous manipulation of information commonly found in the mechanics of brainwashing people to follow said Ideological construct.  And that is what your links ultimately show, and why they provide nothing of value. Basically your links are as follows:

Take science, cherry pick or manipulate facts (insert GOD / ideology here).. It's a sly move of manipulation, and they tend to do this while playing the morality game, or preying on your emotions to get you to believe something without actually scrutinizing it, and substantiating it's validity.  

I need to stop for now but I do want to get into why you feel you have refuted the Teleological argument and how I can help you understand that some of your premises don't stand up to some scrutiny.

I don't think you understand that none of your premises stand up to scrutiny. And I have already shot down your Teleological argument in a previous thread, especially concerning purpose in regards to self-attainment. Purpose does not require design, intelligence, or even observation. Thus, I think you really need to realize why this is.

[Squid]

In response to the circular argument raised earlier, I think there also seems to be a misunderstanding of the idea of fitness itself and how it is determined.  The conceptualization of opponents of the theory will state that it is a ridiculous tautology.  For those who may not know, what is a tautology?  A tautology is described by Merriam Webster as:

a  compound  propositional  form  all  of  whose  instances  are  true,  as  â€œA  or  not  A.

Hence they use the phrase or variants thereof, "Fitness is those who survive and those who survive are fit", in an attempt to say that natural selection is based upon circular reasoning.  However, this is false.

Let's understand what fitness is first of all.  While overall survival of an organism is indeed helpful it does the organism no good if it does not reproduce.  Therefore if reproduction is not considered then it renders the determination of fitness useless.

Drickramer (2002) describes using reproduction as a measure of fitness:

How should fitness be measured...We generally test our hypotheses about fitness of different genotypes and phenotypes by measuring the reproductive success of the organisms in question. Reproductive success is a measure of an organism's production of offspring. It may be measured in several ways, including the number of offspring born, the number that survive to weaning, or the number that survive to mating.

Fitness is also highly correlated with genetic diversity of a population (Reed & Frankham, 2003). Also, natural selection's fingerprints can be found by the examination of linkage disequilibirium (Cannon, 1963; Bulmer, 1974; Ellegren & Sheldon, 2008).

Another often proposed idea is that fitness will equate with an organism being "stronger" or "faster" or "more complex" - while this could be true in some instances, in may not in others.  Drickamer (2002) also points this out:

...the adaptive value of certain genes or genotypes depends on existing environmental conditions. A genotype may have high fitness in one environment, but low fitness in another.

Many factors are at play between an organism and its environment in order to, yes, survive but only as a prerequisite to production of viable offspring.

Therefore, given this, we can see how the accusation that natural selection is a tautology or more specifically what is determined as evolutionary "fitness" is a tautology is incorrect and based upon a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or simple ignorance.

References:

Bulmer, M. (1974). Linkage disequilibrium and genetic variability.  Genetic Research, 23, 281-289.

Cannon, G. (1963).  The effects of natural selection on linkage disequilibrium and relative fitness in experimental populations of Drosophila Melanogaster. Genetics, 48, 1201-1216.  

Drickamer, L., Vessey, S. & Jakob, E. (2002). Animal behavior: Mechanisms, ecology, evolution. (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Ellegren, H. & Sheldon, B. (2008).  Genetic basis of fitness differences in natural populations.  Nature, 452, 169-175.

Reed, D. & Frankham, R. (2003).  Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conservation Biology, 17(1), 230-237.

[TheJackel]

Nice Posts Squid :hail:

[Squid]

Gracias.  

[deekayfry]

I was having a discussion with a quasi-friend on Christianity, and, after much delay, we got to the point where he admitted that it was a circular argument (Bible -> God -> Bible).  I honestly wasn't expecting it to happen, but then again, he didn't say it in exactly that way.  It was more to the effect of, "How can I make the argument uncircular?  The only reason it has to be circular is because you put restrictions on evidence."

Now what?  I was completely unprepared for this response.

I will admit that personal evidence could be placed into a sort of evidence (kind of), but that is evidence only for the one who experienced it, not for any others that said person wishes to convince.  Could you conceive of another sort of evidence that would not fall into either the personal or empirical categories?

Formally you can make the argument sequitur, as in making it follow, by reconstructing the argument.

From your summary, it sounds like you two concluded, "I believe there is God because the Bible says there is a God, and I believe in the Bible and therefore there is a God."  The logic is fallacious as the premise is used as a conclusion.

Reconstruct the argument,  "I believe there is a God because...

"...I met God and had a BP monitor and read 115/75 and 60 bpm heart rate and the same being  raised people from the dead and performed miracles."
"...there is a verifiable statistical study that  several billion people who have gone to a heaven, shook God's hand and returned.  You can view this study in Psychology Today Issue 24.  It has a map that leads to Heaven with GPS coordinates X, Y, Z."
"When researching the Roman archives in Rome, there are dated papyrus, contemporary stone tablets, and pottery that connects a multitude of dots of a Christ that lived, was executed, and returned from the grave in front of an entire world.  In other words, Christ made the Front Page News back then!  and here it is... Christ appeared in tablets from Mongolia to South America."

Granted we no longer restrict the atheist's examples of what the evidence should be, but by using the examples and any other like it, the argument becomes sequitur.  Concrete conclusions use numbers, facts, and references to reliable and verifiable sources.  This is what evidence is.

The reason the argument is circular is that your friend is left to rely on the Bible to support his premise, of which he uses the Bible to affirm his conclusion.  You technically have not restricted the evidence because there is little to no evidence to begin with.

It is not your fault that the evidence simply does not exist.