Of course they took immediate exception arguing that is not begging the question. Of cousre it never occurred to them that they think it's not becuase they assert it's truth based upon that that's what they believe.
Just to be sure we understand it, let's quote Nizkor saying what it is:
"Description of Begging the Question
"Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."
One way to be sure is this: it's a form of ciruclar reasoning. So if someone says that's begging the question just ask "is it circular reasoning?" That's the sure fire way to tell.
If you examine what the claims I said that is begging the question you see some of these guys who make these accusations about me don't get right what I said.
I say it's begging the question to assert that God doesn't exist as a proof that he doesn't, especially when that's the question being discussed. that is exactly what begging the question is. rather than admit that I'm right about t they try to make up their own idea about they think I said:
Originally Posted by skylurker View Post
Another example of you misusing begging the question (that is 3 times I know of today).
This statement by Wittgenstien
Believing the less probable thing over the more probable thing is called "being irrational".
Is NOT Begging the Question!
You are using this as a desperate all-purpose get out of reasoning card. For all objections, counter or undercutting arguments you just hit back with "your begging the question we can't know god he's beyond our estimation" and then slink back off and build these elaborate theories about how God is.
typical of your silly little nonsense. you didn't even read what I said. you are just trying to find stuff to twist.
"riginally Posted by Metacrock View Post
you decide the probable thing based upon your assertions about the world and God's lack of existing. you can't know reprobates about God because he's beyond our underestimation. so we can't apply them so you are assumptions are invalid. you assume your core assumptions (no god or indifferent God) that's begging the question.
you are asserting the position you argue for as proof of that postilion."
first of all that's the auto correct that screws me up again here' that said the way it should be:
"riginally Posted by Metacrock View Post
you decide the probable thing based upon your assertions about the world and God's lack of existing. you can't know exhaustivelyabout God because he's beyond our understanding. so we can't apply them so you are assumptions are invalid. you assume your core assumptions (no god or indifferent God) that's begging the question.
you are asserting the position you argue for as proof of that postilion."
above you claim that I said believing the less probable is begging the Quentin I never said anything like that.
the truth is you are making up stuff and attributing it to me. the kind of little unfair slander you do all the time. I sasid nothing like that.
what I said here was begging was when you use the assumption of no God as though it's a proof of no ;God. that is exactly begging the question!
Wittgenstein immediately proves he doesn't know:
No Draper's arguemnt is a more valid than the 3 point BS you put up. You are arguing from begging the question.He says:
of cousre if God doesn't exist Christianity is false. so what/ tha'ts almost a tautology. you don't do anything to prove God doesn't exist. you are trying to bully it though by asserting it. you have nothing to which up that assertion.
Now, how on Earth is that possibly begging the question?
In asking asking that he shows he doesn't know. To bully through the assumption without proving is based upon the deeper assumptino that it must be true because he believes it. In other worse "well there's God because I don't believe in his so i can just assume it's proved and ram by point in without proving it. In other words the basic assumption here is "God must not exist becuase I don't believe in him." I"m kind of extending a bunch of assumptions for them, that's because they cant' state their hidden primes openly. I also argued that even if I'm wrong about it I have proved I know what question begging is, maybe I"m just reading it into their work but I don't think so.
You can't provide a single quote of any skeptic in this forum begging the question.What's worse is that you know this, and that's why you're not even going to try.
In I did not provide a single one. I provided six examples.
example of Question begging of the type I mean:Example two:
some atheist (maybe skylurker?)
Quite false. A supreme intelligence - knowing all bits of Chaitin's Omega - is a priori arbitrarily improbable and would be an unimaginable coincidence.
Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
that is your ignorant opinion based upon begging the question.
what you say there just proves my point that you are begging the question. you are asserting you lack of belief as a proof of the position you argue for which is based upon lack of belief.
"Dude, please learn what begging the question is! That above is not begging the question. The probability of a mind, infinity well ordered and perfectly omniscient is improbable to the extreme maximum. If there are going to be brute facts the likelihood of a supreme infinite mind is absurd."
yes it is clearly begging the question. He's asserting that a mind like God can't exist, why? because he asserts that it doesn't he doesn't believe in it? he has a fallacious excuse that sounds logical when you analyze it it's nothing more than just making the assumptino that God can't exist becuase he doesn't believe he can.
now little one put brain in and let's some questions ok?
why does he assert that there can't be such a mind?
does he have empirical evidence? no
does he know for a fact that there is no such mind? no
does he know for a fact that the order in the universe is not the result of mind?
he thinks he does what does it mean to think you know that? why would he think that when he has no evidence?
because he doesn't believe in God it's obvious there isn't one.
so what he is really saying is "because I don't believe in God I know the universe is not the product of God therefore there can't be such a mind." is that proof? no it's assertion based upon what he thinks the situation is
in other words he's really saying "I dont' believe and that proves it's not true."
that's question begging.
what's he defending? the idea that there's no God, what's his proof? becuase he doesn't believe in God.
do you not see the circular?
"Talk about naive statements! Before your very eyes you have evidence that stars are created by the material universe, and you insert your god. I guess that's how religions get started."
do we see what makes stars? No we see only stars forming. Humes tells us we dont' see cuaslity at work. we don't. we don't think to think God has to mold stars with great big hands in order to create.
how does he nkow it's not God doing it?
It's it really just the assumption he makes becuase he densest' believe in God? so he's acutely saying "becasue I supposed know there's no God (believe there is no God) I assume this therefore it must be the case."
then he uses that to argue that there's no God. he's trying to use it as a poof that it's only material universe based entirely upon the assumption of a belief.
that is begging the question of creation totally.
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
BS! it's inherently a valid reason to believe in God. It may not be proof but it's certainly warrants believe. you have no valid explanation.
"Quite the contrary. You have no valid explanation why an infinitely complex disembodied mind should exist."
?? not sure wh said this.
"any fine turning without God (a supreme intelligence purposely tuning it) would be coincidence and thus more improbable than the first.
Quite false. A supreme intelligence - knowing all bits of Chaitin's Omega - is a priori arbitrarily improbable and would be an unimaginable coincidence."
He's begging the question becuase like Example 1 he just asserts with no evidence of any kind that because he doesn't have example of it then it can't exist. even though he knows his example are limited tot things that don't apply to God and he knows that the universe is very orderly that gives us a valid warrant for the assumption of a mind he just thinks something like "well scine God possibly exist anyway I can assert this is the ase because it must be." He's just assuming his way of looking at it is the universe way to look and hsi assuptins are valid.
he argues form the believe of no God to prove the assumption of no God.
"Dude, please learn what begging the question is! That above is not begging the question. The probability of a mind, infinity well ordered and perfectly omniscient is improbable to the extreme maximum. If there are going to be brute facts the likelihood of a supreme infinite mind is absurd. "
that is one of the most ridicuous statments anyone could ever make. he's begging the questin for the same reason as no 3, he sassume "since there's no God anyway it must be very improbable that there would be."
what else would account for the astounding statement that such a mind is improbable? Since the universe reflects order and seems to be a fixed job, owing to the extreme improbability and yet here it is, that obviously argues for such a mind. The only justification for the that such a mind is improbably is if you use non belief as a proof for no God.
he has absolute no evdience for the assertion he's making and he has to fly in the face of the argument on it's face in order to make it. the only way he could justify that would be assert that he knows in advance there's no God. Of course he doesn't know that with any kind of evidence so he has to be begging the question.
he's using doubt as though it were a proof of the thing he's using to to prove, that God doesn't' exist.
that is clearly and obviously circular.
are from an external source, a website of an atheist correcting atheist who beg the question:
these are by an atheist taking other atheist to task for ciruclar reasoning. I find these being done on carm often.
five: his 1
In conversations with atheists, here is a chain of thinking that I have often heard:
There is no God.
Miracles are the supernatural work of God.
Therefore, miracles are impossible.
The Bible contains reports of miracles.
Therefore, the Bible contains legendary material or historical misrepresentations.
Therefore, the Bible cannot be trusted.
Therefore, there is no evidence for God.
Therefore, there is no God.
This is a circular argument. (In addition to other flaws that the reader may notice).
Six, his 2.
God does not exist.
Therefore, God does not personally reveal His existence to people.
When people think they are having experiences of God, this experience can be fully explained in terms of naturalistic causation, using scientific terms (particularly through neurological studies).
Therefore, people do not have experiences of God.
Therefore, testimonies of God’s existence do not prove that God exists.
Therefore, God does not exist.
In both examples, instead of an open-minded consideration of the possible evidential value of miracles or religious testimony, the atheist assumes the truth of their worldview, uses that presumption to reject even the possibility that there is evidence which counts against their beliefs, and then concludes that the lack of evidence for another worldview is further evidence for their starting point.
If you study his examples they are so much like the things I use as examples. we see the kind of thinking he sees in his own comrade's arguments are pretty much what I see in the arguemnts of carm atheist. so therefore It think that shows I'm not just reading it in. Either that or this guys is confused in the same way I am. Since he's an atheist he's not just working out of prejudices.
Of cousre their defenses were totally lame. The first thing they did was try to find things to blame me for. One thing Whatever man made a big deal out of was that I forgot to the link the examples. then I went back and did it. Then he made a big deal out of the fact that I had done it since then. What's the deal? he blames for no doing it then when I do I'm to blame becuase I did it after he pointed it out. well did he want them linked or not? It's just part of that little atheist tactic of finding little lame things to blame the apologist for. He also went back and forth about weather saying I didn't have a single example was the same as saying no one says it. so the fact that I have six examples doesn't make up for not having any because he didn't say no one ever says it.
The arguments they made in response to the examples ere stupid. One of the most idiotic and lame responses I got was form the moron Royce. I said that they have no evidence of no mind controling the universe and they can't evidence of it because we can't see causality. His response (that's a idea of the philosopher Hume):
Pointing to Humean skepticism won't help you for a number of reasons. Here are a couple. First, if you were a Humean skeptic, then you would not claim to know that God exists. Second, Humean skepticism operates from an incorrect acount of knowledge. Third, if you really think we cannot infer causality, then please prepare to forfeit many scientific claims, includign claims such as "HIV causes AIDS". In science and everyday life we justifiably infer causal relationships regularly. We even have guidelines for doing this, such as Mills' methods. I've told you about these guidelines before, but apparently the point flew over your head.
Totally lame because most of it has nothing to do with the issue. It's just stuff to say to make it seem that he knows about Hume. Saying Hume's take on knowledge is wrong (he doesn't back up) does not invalidate the point that we don't see causes. That is still true nothing he says there invalidates that. the idiotic that Humen didn't believe in God so a Humean thinker wouldn't be arguing for God is totally beside the point of not seeing causes its' far being the came that only Hume could point that out. they guy is a dolt. Talk about HIV has no place in the arguent.
On Example 3 HRG says:
Gentle readers, Metacrock again doesn't read what others write, but what he thinks they should have written so that he can refute it. It is obvious that I didn't say that an entity as described cannot exist - only that it is arbitrarily improbable; and I supported this statement by reference to Chaitin's Omega. If Metacrock does not understand the reference, that is his problem, not mine.Again it's calculated to look an answer but it's not. Who cares if he said that or not that has nothing to do with the question begging aspect.He was begging the question becasue he asserts his doubt in God's existence as a proof that there's no God. Does he deny that? NO he never actually deny that? He denies things around it. He's asserting that his doubt of God makes God improbable to impossible big deal. That's still using doubt a proof against my warrants. Begging the question becasue it asserts the position to defend the position.
After all this Skylurker came back and accused one of my arguments of questoin begging. When I asked him why it did he said "becuase you believe in God." Indicates that he never understood the basic issue to begin with. When you assert the position under dispute as a proof of itself then try to use that to argue for that position, you are begging the question. why is that hard to get?
See how pointless it is to go on message boards and argue with atheists.