Quote:
Quote by: Tycoon  A very illogical statement.  All statements involve either logic or the absence of it, and so to prove that statement I would have to use logic. This is true whether it is circular reasoning or not.
Faith proves nothing as it is unique to the individual and supported by nothing. Logic is universal. |
Man, those Smily things creep me out. I think I might have had a dream about them two weeks before I ever joined this site. Anyway.
My point was not to undermine your logic or the use thereof, but to show that it denotes the nature of a precommitment or a presuppostion. You haven't proven the use of logic by reason or empirical evidence. Rather, it's through that assumed logic that you proceed to prove everything else. Atheists like yourself aren't presuppositionally neutral in their approach to all factual questions or disputes.
The atheist tendency to beg crucial questions and their pretended neutrality is shown when it comes to the question of God's existence. The atheist demands evidence for the theists' claims of the existence of God. However, any theistic interpretation of evidence (creation from nothing, special revelation, virgin birth, etc.) is precluded
in advance.
What is overlooked is that it's begging the question just as much on the atheists' part as the theists', who use this evidence. The atheist hasn't proven by empirical observation or logic his or her commitment to Naturalism. It's assumed in advance and used as a controlling, but unproved, starting point of any debate, something the atheist would expressly forbid in the theist.