bohm: lets please slow down here, is my example of bob circular. please be patient
serious question for evolutionist,
unstop: it is circular according to the common definition of cheater, ie. someone who cheat on his spouse. The argument become:
"bob does not cheat on his wife because bob is a person who has the property he does not cheat on his wife". The conclusion -- bob is not cheating on his wife -- is build into the premise.
it is not circular if cheater take the meaning to cheat in a game, ie. the argument is that since bob does not cheat it games, bob does not cheat on his wife. Thats just a dubious argument.
but we are not discussing bob and his wife.
UPDATED: Mixed up cheat/does not cheat.
i see ur point,it is a bad to debate
way to debate a view point
unstopable: phew. I need a now! I confused cheat and not cheat in my previous post...
circular reasoning is very dangerous, especially when its subtle. Think of how JWs will argue God selected them in 1919, but in doing so they (subtly) rely on their interpretation of the bible being correct, and if you press them on why their interpretation is correct they return to the WT, and if you ask why they rely on the WT they tell you its because its printed by gods organization who is best suited for interpretating they bible. How do they know that? because they were choosen in 1919 and round and round we go...
thats true, i think all of us can and have done it in one way or another.
sorry if what i said was circular or not clear, to me it just seems like if you see our bodys sream a desginer, and we now reject that for a persons theory, that is illogical. did darwin 1oo% deny god? and going off what adam just said if i found a watch i would know it had a maker, i may not know how but i will know it was someone. not a mistake
Hopefully USR, you're not feeling like everyone's ganging up on you: that's certainly not my intent...
If you asked a modern-day kindergartner to point to where his thoughts occurred, he'd point to his head (his brain). The author of Genesis recorded God saying, "thoughts of the heart", and it wasn't a figure of speech: Jehovah apparently would point to his HEART. Why? That's just the way Babylonians and Egyptians really believed their bodies worked, since the role of the brain had yet been discovered until a few centuries later.
So at least you can rule out God of the Bible as being the one who made humans and life, since the Bible contains all kinds of goofy ideas that have been long-since disproven by science (eg firmament, flat Earth, etc). Turns out, that was just how mostly EVERYONE alive back then saw the World and themselves. They just didn't know any better, but you can rule Divine Inspiration for the Bible, since God SHOULD know stuff like the basic functions of his own design and not be outwitted by a modern 5 yr old, LOL! If he doesn't know what role the heart and brain and kidneys play, then why should he know anything about eg "mitochondrial P450 cytochromes that employ adrenodoxin reductase and adrenodoxin to transfer electrons from NADPH to P450"?
As far as your "not a mistake" comment, are you referring to life emerging as a result of evolution? "Mistake" is a bit harsh; I'd like to think of life emerging as being inevitable, given enough time. I wouldn't consider MY life as being a mistake, since life on this Blue ball is what you make of it!
jgnat: An example of circular reasoning is more like the statement - " Bob is faithful to his wife because he is not a cheater."
Adam i agree!! When i sat in the hall and heard the heart and kidneys stuff i thought "but the heart doesnt do that its the brain!!!"" the brain controls most bodiky and autonomic functions, etc etc everything. Changes in the physiological things can and do change ones perverbial "heart". So if your brain is stimulated by porn or something...then its your brain not "heart".
I said most i meant all...well the CNS....brain and soinal cord....ans...ou know all that medical stuff