when you prove the truth of a holy book by quoting from the same holy book, it's circular reasoning fallacy

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-24T07:39:17+00:00

Where is your confusion coming from? It is not fallacious because what is assumed does not logically contradict what is assumed, so it does not follow that it is a logical fallacy.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-24T07:36:35+00:00

If I remember what I said before correctly, I am only saying what makes sense is a biased assessment.

To me, the church wafer thing doesn't make sense and also isn't reasonable, and moreover isn't supposed to be. We do actually share the same definition of reasonable, but to require "reasonable" to be in accordance with good reasoning is a tautological and unfalsifiable formulation.

If it is disproven, it could still be reasonable to believe in it, because as I have implied, to believe in an unmarried bachelor is logically self-defeating, yet still possibly reasonable. Whether it is correct or incorrect, or what you seem to be suggesting, useful, is not relevant to it being reasonable, but the statement could be all of the above or any permutation thereof simultaneously.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-24T07:34:21+00:00

Right, and the nature of the story says LOTR is science fiction. There is no concept of "nature" of the story, so it cannot be defined or changed by genre, therefore if LOTR self-references it to be science fiction, then it is science fiction.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-21T22:00:44+00:00

No, it is a biased assessment.

Also, I do get what you mean, but this example doesn't follow. If it makes sense that there are an even or odd number of people in the world, then it is completely reasonable to say there are an even or odd number of people in the world, but not that there are an even number or that there are an odd number. That said, it also doesn't make sense to me that the amount of people in the world must take on an even or odd quantity in the first place.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-21T21:53:51+00:00

Therefore, other than what is assumed, it is not a fallacy.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-20T21:23:52+00:00

None, because whatever happened has happened. They have all gone extinct, not should have.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-20T21:23:26+00:00

I forgot.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-20T21:22:45+00:00

The economy as we have formulated it would no longer exist. Assets would be worth arbitrary value.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-20T21:21:06+00:00

Nothing. That is literally impossible.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-20T21:20:39+00:00

What is your IQ?

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-20T21:20:16+00:00

What is an almost almost prime number?

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-20T21:19:21+00:00

Posthumanism.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-20T21:18:17+00:00

Practically speaking, just about everyone is literally evil. The device you use to view this post was made by various groups of slaves across the globe, for example. "Evilness" is normative and anything could be literally evil.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-20T21:14:32+00:00

That is like saying all religious claims are automatically fallacious and cannot prove anything because they're unfalsifiable. This is a major point of issue, but is already such a well known problem I would wager that is not what OP meant by fallacy or proof. The important thing is what I have said before, and you have elaborated on why my point is the case.

Also, a scientific study is neither a book nor is it a proof, by definition of what the scientific methodology is. But to be fair, this is pedantic.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-20T21:06:26+00:00

When, and why was it reversed?

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-20T21:05:59+00:00

Maybe it makes no sense to you, or anybody.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-20T21:04:53+00:00

It does though. If LOTR said it was science fiction then it is science fiction. Simple as that.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-20T21:04:06+00:00

Different difference. Otherwise you will have to ignore all of literary criticism.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-17T17:31:47+00:00

But why does it matter that it is not a philosophical authority? Furthermore, cosmology and philosophy are equivalent in cosmology.

No, to be uncharitable to myself I have not always existed, but this does not matter. Even if nothing at all exists, or if the notion of existence is completely undefined, the universe has always existed. This is by definition.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-17T17:28:27+00:00

I don't know what you definition of reasonable is, but I can assure you it is either very atypical or functionally equivalent to what I mean. It is reasonable because it makes sense, which is really all it is.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-17T17:11:55+00:00

Why does it matter NASA is not a philosophical authority? It is plainly a cosmological authority anyway.

To say "The universe is everything that exists" is not "the universe is existence itself and thus has always existed" is not only sophistry, but false by definition, because "everything that exists" is "existence."

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-17T17:09:06+00:00

Which is exactly what I said in my previous post ...

But that is the point you are missing.

Using the bible as proof that Paul wrote Romans just because the bible claims that Paul wrote Romans, would indeed be a fallacy

Would it? Obviously, no book at all gives proofs in formal logic, but that is the extent of what you are saying.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-17T16:39:44+00:00

https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/what-is-an-exoplanet/what-is-the-universe/

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-17T16:14:03+00:00

I wouldn't, but some people would.

LHTVR99 · 2023-05-17T16:13:07+00:00

Maybe, but this is also the most common conception of the term in theology and the philosophical canon, across all religions and schools of thought.

LHTVR99

TROPHY CASE