Nope, thats not why its circular reasoning, and thats not what I am doing

It is circular reasoning because you are assuming the existence of god, in order to prove the existence of god.

you assume that god exists and is first cause, in order to prove that god exists and is the cause of man.

Just you first produce your integrative exposition on what is circular reasoning, and so that you will know what is I hope causation in the process of sexual reproduction; don’t take to flight again.

Don’t try the escape routine, that has been overworked monotonusly by you for too long already.


Again and more expansively:

Dear Neeeel, please just expound on your idea of what is circular reasoning, etc.

As usual you are taking flight from assuming the challenge to expound on what you know to be circular reasoning.

That is the way with your habit of posting here, always taking to flight when you are challenged to do something really constructive for people to know, what exactly and correctly you know about something you keep on droning on and on and on and on... like circular reasoning.


Dear readers here, please take notice, that he Neeeel never ever writes anything, but few useless snippets to again return to circular reasoning. which he does not himself can write about in an integrative fashion.


When he next again takes flight from writing his exposition on what is circular reasoning, dear readers, I will ask him to propose something about circular reasoning that he will invite me to concur on with him, grounding we both our mental resources on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

When as I fear he will react to, he does not dare to propose something about circular reasoning that he will invite me to work on, as for us to come to concurrence on, then I will present and propose myself; when again he will not cooperate as to work to come to concurrence on with me, it is then certain that the man is not qualified to undertake really honest, sincere, productive exchange of thoughts for the ascertainment of concepts and arguments - and conclusion.


ANNEX

This is the escape latch of Neeeel, insisting that whatever I say of something in order to explain and pofe that it exists not only as concept but also as object corresponding to the concept, that it is already an assumption, hence I am into circular reasoning.

The same can be hurled at him also with circular reasoning by which he wants to refute my argument for God existing.

He is into irrationality in exchagen of thoutghs as to ascertain that an object does exist in objective reality outside our concept6s in our mind.

Irrational because he is conflating a piece of information for a placeholder to go into an issue on existence or no existence on the information of the concdpt, so as to investingate in objective reality whether there is indeed an object corresponding to the information concept.

The fact however is that the existence of God in aconcept as first and foremost the existence of God, that is known arleady from truths, facts, logtic and teh history of ideas; and only people likke Neeeel deies it, and they therefore no nothing else to use to refute the exsistence of God, excpet than bringing up the charge that people who do know with certainty God exists are assuming the existence of God where that is not all right wtih them deniers of God.

And theat is thdrir way and only lactch of refuge from entering into a genuine exchange of ideas and into an investigation of the ohbjective world for the search of the existence of the object in issue.

That is why I have told you, ddar readers, hthat deniers of God or atheists, they don't have antyijg tat all from truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas to regut the existrence of God; about the existen

Susmario reminds me of a harmless crazy guy on his soap box on some random street corner. Sometimes, you feel like just saying something in response to hear him keep on rambling and you know it will work.

[ Antecedent post transmitted accidentally, here is the completed and corrected write up. ]



This is the escape latch of Neeeel, insisting that whatever I say of something in order to explain and prove that it exists - not only as concept but also as object corresponding to the concept, that it is already an assumption, hence I am into circular reasoning.*

The same charge of assumption can be hurled at him also with circular reasoning by which he wants to refute my argument for God existing, but that is not any beef in the way of refuting an argument but only a very thin sauce; for circular reasoning is not in fact reasoning, but repeating the subject part of a sentence in the predicate part of the sentence, often in different words but with the same denotation, i.e. definitions.

That is why I am insisting that he expounds on what he knows and understands to be circular reasoning.


He is into irrationality in exchange of thoughts as to ascertain that an object does exist in objective reality outside of our concepts in our mind.

Irrational because he is conflating an assumption with a piece of concept information for a placeholder,* to go into the issue on existence or no existence from the information of the concept, so as to investigate in objective reality whether there is indeed an object corresponding to the information of the concept.

The fact however is that the existence of God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, that is known already from truths, facts, logic and the history of ideas; and only people like Neeeel deny it.

And they therefore have nothing else to use to refute the existence of God, except than bringing up the charge that people who do know with certainty God exists are assuming the existence of God wherefore that approach is not all right with them deniers of God – see? They are into malingering altogether, pretending to be ignorant, witless, and naïve, in order to escape from the reality of God existing.

And that is their way and only self-dungeon of refuge from entering into a genuine exchange of ideas, and into an investigation of the objective world for the search of the evidence for existence of the object in issue, or the very concrete objective existence of the object itself.

That is why I have told you, dear readers, that deniers of God or atheists, they don't have anything that is at all founded upon truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas to rebut the existence of God: All their socalled - no not arguments, but objections are only in substance deviations and thus escapes from the genuine core of the issue God exists or not..



*Pace "Granting though not conceding..."


Please disregard this post accidentally prematrely transmitted.

Well. dear folks, I have to leave now, but I will check in later to see how Neeeel is coming up with more circular 'escapes', from the challenge to expound on his circular reasoning gimmick, hope he does not plunge himself into circularity of exposition.

Oh damn, my guess was off. You were Korean or Japanese - obviously - but I thought your "accent" - was Korean. And then I was positive when you posted on Windows 98 which has to be sub 1% market share in Japan.

gah now I have to go back to ground zero on my denomination research

Dear readers here, while Neeeel is still onto circular reasoning, a lot of babies are being conceived by their parents on sexual reproduction.

Please dear Neeeel, will you just get it into your consciousness that sexual reproduction is a causation process, the parents of babies are causing babies to come forth.

Now, if you only exercise your reasoning power and intelligence, you will come to the existence of God in concept as the first and ultimate cause of babies, with of course the parents are intervening cause, and those parents are of course caused by God, the first and ultimate cause of all things that are transient.

Now, dear Neeeel, you will bring in infinite regress of causes. another useless idea you love to store in your brain, like circular reasoning.

Tell you what, while you are regressing infinitely in your mind, at least you think so, but don't be so naive, you can't go on and on regressing in your mind, for you will die and so no more regressing on and on with you.

In the meantime some folks are having happiness with sexual reproduction, which is a thrilling experience, but of course the parents who love to have babies, they are doubly happy, first for the pleasure of sexual reproduction, and second for having brought their babies to come into their life.

How wonderful and joyous!

In the meantime you are wasting your life away with silly ideas like circular reasoning and infinite regress.


Is there hope for you? Let you at least get busy with that question.

Then go back to write your integrative exposition on what for you is circular reasoning.

And also go back to infinite regress to feel so happy that you have all just by thinking inside your mind, neutralized my proof that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and the operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

That is what I would remind you is for you fool's intellectual gold.

I have already done this at least 3 times.

circular reasoning, is including your conclusion, what you want to prove, in your premises.

your argument assumes there must be a first cause, and conveniently calls that first cause "god", in order to prove the existence of god

If anyone else wants to weigh in and tell me if I am mistaken about circular reasoning here, feel free

No, because I am not using any assumption to try to prove anything. I have made no claims as to whether god exists or not. The only claim I have made, is that your argument doesnt prove the existence of god.

Dear Neeeel, you say:


This is like you telling some folks including me that you have US dollars already three times.

That is very convenient but is not convincing at all that you know really know what is circular reasoning.

Here am I with new folks asking you again, to tell us or give us word by word, plus the links in this thread to your past expositions of what and how you understand circular reasoning.


Dear folks here, this is what I see all the time with Neeeel, executing an escape routine when he is faced with a demand to produce his US dollars, like saying that he has already done it several times in the past.

Dear Neeeel, that is the big difference between you and me, when I give an exposition, I will repeat it anew, and also indicate where and when I have done it already several times in the past, with the links in this thread; in your case you don't do what I do, you only execute an escape mechanism or routine, with saying - but no one with intelligence will swallow it, they will tell you, you are into dishonesty by way of an escape routine, namely, with you saying that you have already done it like already three times in the past.

So, now you have a choice between:
1. Do it again and in another but new exposition of what is for you a circular reasoning whatever it is, or
2. Reproduce word for word i.e. verbatim and completely from your previous instances of the exposition of what is circular reasoning, and also indicate correctly the links to these instances of exposition in this thread, correctly: so that we can check whether you are truthful or lying.


Dear readers, you and I will notice that he will take up another escape routine.

Did you read the rest of my post, where I outlined why your reasoning was circular?