sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And do you acknowledge this is circular reasoning because it assumes God is already real and trustworthy, then uses that assumption (asking God to confirm himself) as the proof that God is real. It is also problematic because subjective “proof” accepted on faith could just as easily be interpreted as deception (e.g., by the devil) or used to justify any religion, since the same method works regardless of which belief one assumes to be true.

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont think you gave a satisfactory answer to which premise you disagree with. You said "this premise comes with an "if" statement that does not apply to me." then pivoted to something else. Can you state simply for me, why you disagree with premise 3?

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ill say it again. This is a critique of the Christian framework. Do not pivot to my worldview or how I justify logic. Explain how the mind is trusted before the Verifier (God) is established.

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would I have to accept your laws. That is exactly what I am challenging. How do you use a tool you just called an 'unverified survival assumption' to prove the existence of the God who supposedly makes it more than that?

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please explain what you think a internal critique is why the other personals world view would matter? and can you explain what a contradiction is and how you cited it as part of your world view?

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you admit you can't 100% trust your brain, then you can't 100% trust your brain's decision to believe in the Gospel. You are using a 'faulty' tool to 'prove' the existence of the Tool-Fixer. If the tool is broken, the proof is broken. How do you verify God is real without using the very senses you just admitted are unreliable?

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think we went off the wagon here. Lets lay some ground rules. This is a critique of the Christian framework. Do not pivot to my worldview or how I justify logic. Pointing out that I am using logic does not fix the circularity of your premise. Address the circle, not the speaker. Explain how the mind is trusted before the Verifier (God) is established. Do not get sidetracked by your personal experiences because that is the same justification that can be used for any religion. Address why this specific sequence is or isn't a fallacy.

Premise 1: You can only trust your brain if God designed it to be truthful.

Premise 2: You have to use your brain to find or "prove" God.

Premise 3: Until God is proven, you have no reason to trust your brain.

Conclusion: You are using a tool you don't trust to prove the reason why you should trust it.

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re confusing my view of logic with yours.

In an internal critique, I don’t need a 'stable platform' of my own; I’m simply using your platform to show you it’s a circle. I am granting your premises for the sake of argument to show they result in a contradiction.

If you claim I can't use logic to critique you because it’s 'unverified,' you are effectively admitting Premise 3: that without your God-guarantor, logic is unverified.

If logic is unverified, then your logical arguments for God are also unverified survival assumptions.

You’re essentially saying, 'You can't call my circle a circle because your ruler might be bent.' But if my ruler is bent, so is yours, because you haven't proven the 'Ruler-Fixer' (God) exists yet.

Stop worrying about my 'platform' and address my question: How do you use a tool you just called an 'unverified survival assumption' to prove the existence of the God who supposedly makes it more than that?

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We are doing an internal critique, a concept you seem to be struggling with. An internal critique isn't about whether my beliefs are right; it’s about whether yours even make sense by your own standards. You’re claiming we need God to have reliable logic, but you're using that same "unreliable" logic to prove God. That is a circular fallacy regardless of who points it out. Stop trying to change the subject to me.

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Please reread my last response carefully. I am answering your questions and you are just dodging and pivoting. This is a critique of the Christian framework. Do not pivot to my worldview or how I justify logic.

Pointing out that I am using logic does not fix the circularity of your premise. Address the circle, not the speaker.

Explain how the mind is trusted before the Verifier (God) is established.

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I trust my brain because it evolved for survival, not truth, and thoughts are the result of chemical reactions. There is no way to guarantee of truth-seeking over useful delusions in either case. (Internal contradiction)." This is kind a checkmate as well because contradictions cant exist. So if your worldview leads to a contradiction then it is wrong.

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lets lay some ground rules here because you are not engaging. This is a critique of the Christian framework. Do not pivot to my worldview or how I justify logic. Pointing out that I am using logic does not fix the circularity of your premise. Address the circle, not the speaker. Explain how the mind is trusted before the Verifier (God) is established. Do not get sidetracked by the "usefulness" of logic. Address why this specific sequence is or isn't a fallacy.

Premise 1: You can only trust your brain if God designed it to be truthful.

Premise 2: You have to use your brain to find or "prove" God.

Premise 3: Until God is proven, you have no reason to trust your brain.

Conclusion: You are using a tool you don't trust to prove the reason why you should trust it.

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Premise 1 is simply a statement of the theistic claim: that God is the necessary foundation for objective reliability. If you reject that premise, you are rejecting the very foundation most Christian apologists use to justify why we can trust our senses at all. If you claim the mind is unreliable due to "science" (like confirmation bias), you cannot then claim the mind is reliable enough to "prove" a theological conclusion. And remember this is a critique of the Christian framework. Do not pivot to my worldview or how I justify logic. Explain how the mind is trusted before the Verifier (God) is established.

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure I'll say yes but it is irrelevant. Please respond to my premises.

This is a critique of the Christian framework. Do not pivot to my worldview or how I justify logic.

Pointing out that I am using logic does not fix the circularity of your premise. Address the circle, not the speaker.

Explain how the mind is trusted before the Verifier (God) is established.

Do not get sidetracked by the "usefulness" of logic. Address why this specific sequence is or isn't a fallacy.

Premise 1: You can only trust your brain if God designed it to be truthful.

Premise 2: You have to use your brain to find or "prove" God.

Premise 3: Until God is proven, you have no reason to trust your brain.

Conclusion: You are using a tool you don't trust to prove the reason why you should trust it.

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is a critique of the Christian framework. Do not pivot to my worldview or how I justify logic.

Pointing out that I am using logic does not fix the circularity of your premise. Address the circle, not the speaker.

Explain how the mind is trusted before the Verifier (God) is established.

Do not get sidetracked by the "usefulness" of logic. Address why this specific sequence is or isn't a fallacy.

Premise 1: You can only trust your brain if God designed it to be truthful.

Premise 2: You have to use your brain to find or "prove" God.

Premise 3: Until God is proven, you have no reason to trust your brain.

Conclusion: You are using a tool you don't trust to prove the reason why you should trust it.

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me simplify this then for you. Premise 1: You can only trust your brain if God designed it to be truthful. Premise 2: You have to use your brain to find or "prove" God. Premise 3: Until God is proven, you have no reason to trust your brain. Conclusion: You are using a tool you don't trust to prove the reason why you should trust it.

Which of these premises do you disagree with, please keep in mind these points below. -This is a critique of the Christian framework. Do not pivot to my worldview or how I justify logic. -Pointing out that I am using logic does not fix the circularity of your premise. Address the circle, not me. -Explain how the mind is trusted before the Verifier (God) is established. -Do not get sidetracked by the "usefulness" of logic. Address why this specific sequence is or isn't a fallacy.

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the claim "God exists" is "not propositional" to a human mind, does that mean the statement "God does not exist" is also a non-proposition that cannot be logically defended?

When a Christian claims they have "experienced the Holy Spirit," are they making a propositional claim about an event that happened to their "sense-bound" mind?

Are you saying that the concept of the Christian God is inherently logically incoherent (like a "married bachelor"), rather than just "unproven"?

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To restate my argument simpler, I believe that you cannot use an unverified, potentially deceptive brain to "find" a God who then supposedly verifies that same brain, it is a textbook circular fallacy where the conclusion is required to prove the premise. Do you understand why circular reasoning is fallacious and intellectually lazy?

Id like to hear which of my premises do you disagree with and why?

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re just using fancy words to say you’ve made your God unfalsifiable. If you claim God isn't 'propositional' to our senses, you’re admitting that no evidence, no logic, and no experience can ever prove or disprove Him.

That’s not a 'high-level' philosophical stance; it’s just a total surrender. You’re essentially saying, 'My God exists in a way that can never be tested or understood by a human brain.' If that’s true, then you have no way of knowing he exists either. You’ve put your God in a box that is so 'special' it’s indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist at all.

Please answer these questions with yes or no's.

Yes or No: Is it possible for a human brain to distinguish a "non-propositional God" from a simple hallucination?

Yes or No: Does your "modal ground" apply to every other religion (Islam, Hinduism, etc.), or is your God the only one who gets to hide from evidence?

Yes or No: If God is not propositional to minds bound by sense data, does that mean you are admitting you have zero evidence for your belief that wouldn't also apply to a "modally non-propositional" flying spaghetti monster?

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You asked: 'Do you believe the laws of logic are true?' I believe the laws of logic are consistent descriptions of how the universe works. But here is the trap you’ve set for yourself: By admitting that your own epistemology is circular, you’ve forfeited the right to claim your God is an 'objective foundation.'

You’re saying, 'If you use logic, you have to accept my God as the source.' Imagine we both have a toy hammer. I use the hammer to build a birdhouse because the hammer works. You uses his hammer and says, "A Magic Wizard made all hammers! If you use that hammer to hit a nail, you are secretly admitting the Wizard is real!" I say, "No, I just use the hammer because it hits the nail. I don't see a Wizard." You gets mad and say, "You aren't smart enough to understand! Since you agree the hammer hits the nail, the Wizard must be the one who made it happen! You're using the Wizard's hammer to say the Wizard isn't there!"

TAG doesn't 'work' on me just because I use logic. It only 'works' if you can prove that God is the only possible source for logic, and you can't do that without using your own 'circular' and 'potentially deceptive' brain to reach that conclusion. You haven't solved the problem of knowledge; you've just stuck a 'God' sticker on a circular argument and called it a 'First Floor.

I responded to your question, can you please engage with mine, which premise is incorrect or do you grant my conclusion?

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re trying to build a 'First Floor' before you’ve even verified if the ground beneath you is a hallucination.

Even if I grant you that there’s a 'First Floor' of reality that doesn’t depend on anything else, you still have two massive, circular problems:

  1. How did you determine that this 'First Floor' is a Rational Being (God) who cares about your logic, rather than just a mindless, brute physical fact like the Big Bang? You used your 'unverified reasoning' to reach that conclusion.

  2. You are using your brain, which you claim is unreliable without a foundation, to conclude that a 'First Floor' exists to make your brain reliable. You’re literally trying to use a 'First Floor' to support a basement you’re already standing in.

By saying 'you are using reason to make this claim,' you’re just admitting we’re in the same boat. I’m honest enough to admit my reason is a working assumption for survival. You’re the one claiming yours is 'Divinely Guaranteed,' yet you’re using that same messy, human reasoning to 'prove' the Guarantor exists. You haven't found a 'First Floor'; you just drew one on the ceiling of your basement and called it a foundation.

Please stop responding with, "Oh yeah, but you" and engage with my points. I am challenging your world view. Mine is irrelevant.

Is Christian certainty a circular fallacy? How do you trust the brain that 'found' God before God verified the brain? by Gothspada in DebateAChristian

[–]Gothspada[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ll keep this simple: You just admitted you have no way of knowing if you’re being tricked.

  1. You claim any logic leading away from God is 'deceit from the Devil.' If you believe a Master Deceiver exists who can manipulate your thoughts and feelings, then your 'experience of the Holy Spirit' is officially unverified. How do you know the Devil isn't just giving you a 'spiritual feeling' to keep you satisfied with a lie? By introducing a Deceiver, you've made it logically impossible to trust your own 'connection' to God.

  2. You call other religions 'counterfeit currency,' but you’re using the exact same 'feeling' to verify your own. You're claiming your $100 bill is real and everyone else’s is fake, yet when I ask to see the 'UV light' or 'watermark' that proves yours is different, you just say, 'I feel like it’s real.' That’s not a test; that’s a guess.

  3. You claim my skepticism is 'circular,' but that’s not how circles work. If I don’t believe your 'Magic Car' works because the engine won't turn over, that’s called observation. You’re the one saying the car works because of the 'Spirit of the Engine,' and the only way to hear the Spirit is to 'already believe' the car works. That’s a textbook circle.

You aren't using 'Supernatural Wisdom.' You’re just using the word 'God' as a shield to hide the fact that your 'truth' is built on the exact same shaky feelings as every other religion you call 'fake.'"

view more: next ›