The Top Ten and Only Reasons to be a True Believer

[_Buffalo]

<insert some narrow minded graphic here>

circular reasoning is only a fallacy with regards to simple logic...not reasoning.
logic is limited to linear reasoning....keyword = limited.
that is why notions like religion or even simple ones like coherentism are lost on the simple minded.
That is why logic can not answer the question about which came first...chicken? or egg?

Circular reasoning is a formal fallacy, and is therefore always wrong. I understand that this sort of reasoning is all you have, which is why you leap to its defense.

[_subgenius]

Subgenius,

You still don't get the scope of my critique.

because you are moving the goalposts...see your OP.

Yes, it's all about revelation.

....

But, the question is how do we tell a true revelation from a false one without circularly appealing to a revelations which is presumed to be true?

it is not presumed to be true. truth in religion is often found like truth in science...through application.
let me translate it into terms that you may be comfortable with.
If a peer review and replication of conditions yields a consistent result, it is true...but not from a standpoint of statistics or polling 100 persons....that is why it is critical for an individual to experience the scriptures personally, rather than just blindly follow its edicts.

"self-evident" is not a circular fallacy, but when viewed through the prism of simple logic it appears to be a fallacy...but the actual fallacy is using that prism to view the issue in the first place.
- as in of course personal freedom is true because my personal view confirms it...that is an incorrect notion of what "self-evident" means.

You've stated that it is possible for a revelation to be self-evident and therefore, the revelation serves as an acceptable starting point from which to reason fallaciously.

i have stated that revelation is "akin"...only because the concept of revelation seems to be considered as a biochemical mechanism.

The question is not whether a revelation can be self-evident, but how do we tell which are?

the notion of "self-evident" is just that...it is self-evident.
its like asking yourself...how do i know that i am....the asking itself proves it. there is no "tell".

Concerning this question, you do reason fallaciously. You can't appeal to any standard of distinction which doesn't presuppose certain revelations are true and others are not, begging this question.

sure i can....application

The only way to make sense of any revelation is to blindly presuppose only a some are true, for no better reason than any contrary revelation could be presupposed as true.

this is a basic human condition...all of our actions are based on "presuppositions". we always assume something to be true unless significant evidence contradicts that assumption, which is itself good reasoning (as i stated in earlier post).
The chicken always believes the farmer is going to bring food until one day he brings an ax.
and likewise you set your alarm clock every night.......

It's clear that you're reluctant to address the wider scope of the argument.

there is no wider scope...you are using the limitations of logic to discuss a topic that exceeds those limitations. Its like trying to discuss poetry with only a paintbrush.

You know that there's no way to differentiate revelations in a way that meets the Mormon burden of proof if any revelation is in question. You're belief system requires begging the question at every level, including the level at which we determine whether begging the question is valid at all.

balderdash
your fallacy, as stated before is in our concept of "differentiate revelations".

[_subgenius]

Circular reasoning is a formal fallacy, and is therefore always wrong. I understand that this sort of reasoning is all you have, which is why you leap to its defense.

you forgot to mention that it was a "formal LOGICAL fallacy"
you see you are playing checkers while the rest of us are playing chess and you can't seem to figure out why everyone is making all those "illegal" moves....but darn if you ain't jumping around yelling "king me! king me!"

[_Buffalo]

Circular reasoning is a formal fallacy, and is therefore always wrong. I understand that this sort of reasoning is all you have, which is why you leap to its defense.

you forgot to mention that it was a "formal LOGICAL fallacy"
you see you are playing checkers while the rest of us are playing chess and you can't seem to figure out why everyone is making all those "illegal" moves....but darn if you ain't jumping around yelling "king me! king me!"

Please explain to me, very carefully and slowly: in which school of reasoning is circular reasoning not fallacious?

Oh, wait. I know the answer already. Religious reasoning. :)

[_subgenius]

Please explain to me, very carefully and slowly: in which school of reasoning is circular reasoning not fallacious?

Oh, wait. I know the answer already. Religious reasoning. :)

well for starters...tautology, coherentism, redundancy theory, deflationary theory, maybe even pragatism

King me! King me! King me!

[_Buffalo]

Please explain to me, very carefully and slowly: in which school of reasoning is circular reasoning not fallacious?

Oh, wait. I know the answer already. Religious reasoning. :)

well for starters...tautology, coherentism, redundancy theory, deflationary theory, maybe even pragatism

King me! King me! King me!

So you're saying you're engaging in tautology? Fantastic. :)

[_Themis]

So have so many other religions.

so?
then the evidence they have put forth is evaluated against the specific claim being made.
its not a particularly difficult concept.

I have. To bad you wont. I will repeat what I said to frank on another thread.

Your first problem is dealing with what you think is God talking to you, and not whether it is just your body creating the expereince. You seem to avoid this one like the plague. Second we look at the available evidence to see if the claims hold true. Joseph's claims certainly do not hold up. He made up the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc. He liked changing his first vision story. Always getting bigger and better. He was always on hand to make up a story like Zelph the white Lamanite. Actually a very strong signal of a story teller. Sorry, but LDS truth claims don't hold up to the available evidence. If you think God is telling you, then I suggest a better look at the first problem, one you have yet to do, based on your posts. If you can't do this, maybe someone should introduce you to all the others who also think God is talking to them, yet can't agree to what he/she/they is saying.

[_subgenius]

Your first problem is dealing with what you think is God talking to you, and not whether it is just your body creating the expereince. You seem to avoid this one like the plague.

i tend to avoid inept posts, but your tenacity merits this exception.
You see the issue, which as been addressed ad nausea, is that the body does not "create" the experience any more than it creates the cold which causes it to sneeze. You quibble here and there about the sneeze while everyone else is discussing the cold.
The larger problem with your "theory" (aside from offering no actual proof that it is accurate) is that if we consider the body as nothing more than a skin bag full of chemical reactions, then absolutely (yes absolutely) everything you do and think is a reaction...a chemical reaction...a chemical reaction bound by the laws of the universe to always behave the same way...every time...every where. This means that there is, in fact, no you...there is no freedom....and there is not one single instance of you ever being able to choose "otherwise".
Now, an immature and somewhat intellectually challenged mind may consider this the limit of their existence, but unfortunately it is not.

Second we look at the available evidence to see if the claims hold true. Joseph's claims certainly do not hold up.

He made up the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc.

again, prove this...which you can not nor will not...because you lack both the ordinance and the delivery system.

He liked changing his first vision story.

absurd

Always getting bigger and better. He was always on hand to make up a story like Zelph the white Lamanite. Actually a very strong signal of a story teller. Sorry, but LDS truth claims don't hold up to the available evidence.

moronic

If you think God is telling you, then I suggest a better look at the first problem, one you have yet to do, based on your posts. If you can't do this, maybe someone should introduce you to all the others who also think God is talking to them, yet can't agree to what he/she/they is saying.

first
do your parents know you are on the internet?
second
please, please, please, put me on ignore because you are ill-equipped for even a fundamental discussion on this subject.

(now i feel bad.....you might actually be retarded)

[_subgenius]

So you're saying you're engaging in tautology? Fantastic. :)

wow...this is all you got?.....even for you that one is lame.

[_subgenius]

.....

try the scriptures my friend:

2 Cor 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

now you can understand that, in fact, you are not "looking" at what the rest of are looking at.