Thanks neeeel for your post.
Now, you have chosen No. 2 item, see below:
Quote:
From neeeel
Quote:
From Susmario
1. You produce an example of a circular argument that is not the one on God already declared by you to be a circular argument.
2. You request me to show you how your understanding of my argument to be circular, and when I do so, you must admit that you did not know earlier what correctly is a circular argument.
I choose 2
Here is your representation of my [ according to you ] my argument and you say it is a case of circular argument:
Quote:
From neeeel:
Your argument is of the form
1) God exists
2) God created everything
3) everything exists.
C) therefore God exists.
You know neeeel, are you sure you have correctly represented my argument for the existence of God as in concept creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, with the above syllogism?
Suppose you read my posts and be demanding on conducting yourself with meticulous care to get my argument correctly.
You will say that I am now into stalling.
No, I am not into stalling at all; but in order that you will get to learn what is a genuine circular argument, you owe it to yourself to examine your work in coming to the conclusion that I am into a circular argument with my proof for God existing.
Here, I will help you, so that we will both not be wasting labor and time.
Look at your premises 1, "God exists."
Is that my premise 1?
You see, you seem to have read a 'best-selling' book from a fellow atheist on something like God is a delusion, or breaking the spell, etc., and you come forth imagining that you know everything about the arguments of theists on the existence of God, whereas thinkers from millennia back all the way to the ancient Greek philosophers to the present Christian, Muslim, and orthodox Jew scholars have worked on all the possible objections against God, in concept creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.
So, please, you owe it to yourself to become a solid intellectual with taking up the first premise in your reproduction of my [ to you ] my argument for the existence of God, namely from your representation,
scil., of my [ to you ] my first premise, "1. God exists."
Ask yourself honestly, is that really my first premise if at all I have ever said anything like that, "Here is my first premise..."?
You now go and do your work and write back here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neeeel
Quote:
From Susmario
Don't you honestly notice that you do not have any other example of what is a circular argument, and you commit exactly a circular argument by bringing up my argument again which you already gratuitously declare to be a circular argument?
No. I am not making an argument. I am pointing out that your argument is circular. Bringing up your argument twice does not make my argument circular. It just means that I still think your argument is circular.
Heres an example of a simple circular argument
1) the water is wet
C) therefore , the water is wet.
Quote:
From Susmario
1. You produce an example of a circular argument that is not the one on God already declared by you to be a circular argument.
2. You request me to show you how your understanding of my argument to be circular, and when I do so, you must admit that you did not know earlier what correctly is a circular argument.
I choose 2