Philo,:P.S. People often refer to "circular reasoning" when talking about WT Society arguments. Exactly what do we mean? Circular reasoning is when the conclusion is used to prove the assertion, which is then used to prove the conclusion.....Here are several easily-understood examples."The Bible is God's Word. How do we know the Bible is God's Word?"
Because the Bible SAYS it is God's word, that's why.""The Governing Body acts as spokesmen for the Faithful and Discrete Slave class, which was appointed by Jehovah Himself.""Yeah, well how do you know that?""Since the Governing Body is now acting as spokesman for Jehovah and the FDS, it MUST be true." (In otherwords, the GB is God's spokesman because it says its God's spokesman!)This is a form of a fallacy of Presumption called "Begging the Question," and actually is a form of deception, because the arguer is trying to give validity that is not established. Here's another example:Here's another one that many people will swear "makes sense":"Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder and kidnapping because it is quite legitimate that someone be put to death for such hateful crimes."This is the kind of thing one sees all the time in newspaper editorials, but when you cut through the crap, the argument boils down to: capital punish is justified because it is justified, which is not an argument at all, but an opinion. Nothing is proven. The deceptive phrase "quite legitimate" means it is "justified."Farkel
Because the Bible SAYS it is God's word, that's why.""The Governing Body acts as spokesmen for the Faithful and Discrete Slave class, which was appointed by Jehovah Himself.""Yeah, well how do you know that?""Since the Governing Body is now acting as spokesman for Jehovah and the FDS, it MUST be true." (In otherwords, the GB is God's spokesman because it says its God's spokesman!)This is a form of a fallacy of Presumption called "Begging the Question," and actually is a form of deception, because the arguer is trying to give validity that is not established. Here's another example:Here's another one that many people will swear "makes sense":"Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder and kidnapping because it is quite legitimate that someone be put to death for such hateful crimes."This is the kind of thing one sees all the time in newspaper editorials, but when you cut through the crap, the argument boils down to: capital punish is justified because it is justified, which is not an argument at all, but an opinion. Nothing is proven. The deceptive phrase "quite legitimate" means it is "justified."Farkel