## Monday, August 22, 2016

### Continuing with Terncote

Terncote
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I was however saying God EXPLAINS this miracle and this miracle PROVES God. - That is not a circle in logic, if that is what you thought, since explanation and proof are opposite directions."

God EXPLAINS this miracle and this miracle PROVES God

That is a definitive example of circular logic and the begging the question logical fallacy.

"since explanation and proof are opposite directions."

You apparently don't understand logic very well at all, given this statement.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Perhaps you don't.

"That is a definitive example of circular logic and the begging the question logical fallacy."

No.

There is no such fallacy as "circular logic". There is "circular explanation" and "circular proof".

For instance, "The boss is here, because his hat is on the shelf" we are dealing with proof. The hat proves the boss is here.

On the other hand, "the hat is on the shelf, because the boss is here" we are dealing with causal explanation. The presence of the boss is the cause how the hat came to the shelf and is still on it.

So, causal explanation and proof are opposite directions.

Therefore :

A proves B proves A = vicious circle (in proving).

A explains B explains A = vicious circle (in explaining).

A proves B. B explains A - no vicious circle.﻿

Terncote
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Circular logic - circular reasoning. Whichever.

"God EXPLAINS this miracle and this miracle PROVES God"

This is circular reasoning / logic.

Your premise and your conclusion support each other without either being demonstrated to be true.﻿

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No.

Miracle is premiss, God is conclusion.

God is explanation, miracle is effect.

"without either being demonstrated to be true."

False.

Documernt is premiss, miracle - as easiest explanation for document about it to come into existence (considering how they usually do) without THAT involving ANOTHER miracle - is conclusion.

Other direction, miracle is explanation, document is effect.

No circle involved at either point.

Tradition from document (supposing we don't have original paper or oral performance before eyes or ears), if credibly leading back to it is premiss, document as genuine is conclusion.

Or, document as genuine is explanation, tradition from it is effect.

Me reading such and such things are (under certain circumstances) credible arguments for a document tradition, the document tradition is the conclusion, which is again premiss for further conclusion of document, which is again further premiss for miracle, which is again premiss for God.

No circle.﻿

Terncote
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
You: God is real because God does miracles and miracles are real because God can do them so we know that god is real because miracles...

Rinse and repeat.

Invoking scripture doesn't fix the loop because the justification for biblical inerrancy is the authority of God whose authority is proven by scripture...

Logical fallacy.﻿

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You: God is real because God does miracles and miracles are real because God can do them so we know that god is real because miracles..."

My own version:

"God is real because God does miracles and miracles are POSSIBLE because God can do them so we know that god is real because miracles..."

Real and possible are not same thing. A proof shows that something is real. A causal explanation shows that something is possible.

Try again ... or try to rethink what you thought you knew about logic! Hint : militant Atheists trying to show Christians guilty of "circular reasoning" (a fallacy which, unlike circular proof and circular explanation, is not there) are NOT the best school in which to learn logic correctly. How about the Teach Yourself Series, there is one dedicated to Formal Logic.

Or, if you want to know why I think miracles true, another real version of my logic:

"God is real because God does miracles and miracles are real because THEY ARE DOCUMENTED."

Non-circular proof.

"Invoking scripture doesn't fix the loop because the justification for biblical inerrancy is the authority of God whose authority is proven by scripture..."

I was NOT invoking Scripture as inerrant. In fact I gave examples of post-NT miracles in non-inerrant documentation, like the two vitas of St Genevieve and the Eugippian Vita Sancti Severini. It is NOT a question of inerrancy, only about credible historic documentation.

Try again ... if you care!﻿

By the way, you have more than once committed "non causa pro causa" also known as "strawman" - which is a logical fallacy.﻿

Terncote
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
""God is real because God does miracles and miracles are POSSIBLE because God can do them so we know that god is real because miracles..."

Again, classic circular reasoning / logic.

Not to mention you defining God into existence. Another classic theist fallacy.

Nevertheless, all the claims you make for your flood model are scientific and historical nonsense.﻿

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Again, classic circular reasoning / logic."

"Classic" won't convince me you know circular proof or circular explanation. There is no such single thing as "circular reasoning" or "circular logic".

"Not to mention you defining God into existence."

How am I supposed to have done that?

"Another classic theist fallacy."

Well, well, well ...? Aren't you showing that your text book in logic was far from unbiassed here? "Theist fallacies"? Are arguments fallacies when they are those of the other team to you, simple as that?

"Nevertheless, all the claims you make for your flood model are scientific and historical nonsense."

You like pretending that, don't you? How about arguing it? If you can?

Your denial of miracles being possible would logically imply "no miracles are true" which is about as much historic nonsense as saying "no wars ever happened" or "no revolutions were ever made".﻿

Terncote
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I was however saying God EXPLAINS this miracle and this miracle PROVES God. - That is not a circle in logic, if that is what you thought, since explanation and proof are opposite directions."

I'll allow the world to decide if this is circular reasoning or not.

HINT: It is.

But if you want break the circle, provide a few reliably documented (and tested, if you can) miracles.﻿

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"But if you want break the circle,"

Which wasn't there in the first place. But yes, the "circle" you imagine is amply broken.

"provide a few reliably documented (and tested, if you can) miracles."

St Severin of Noricum lights candles in Church miraculously and stems a flooding forever (or at least for all years up to biography):

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/severinus_02_text.htm

St Genevieve of Paris twice raises each time a drowned boy from the dead:

https://www.amazon.ca/GENOVEFAE-VIRGINIS-PARISIORUM-Prolegomena-Conscripsit/dp/B0093FAQPM

Richard Carrier very clearly knows this, since he counts on arguing against anti-Catholic Fundies who will themselves find it ridiculous to believe she actually did so. Especially since she was also responsible for introducing the cult of relics to Paris region, where it had been neglected. Not gaining any points with me, I'm Catholic, I believe she did what the biography said she did. Give or take a few mistakes, but such do not add up to otherwise non-extant miracles.

St Bridget prophecies the deaths of both theological adversaries and even of friends VERY accurately:

http://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/Record/3436754

My Latin professor in Lund was an Atheist, he used to think she was obviously "mad" since she believed God talked to her, but admitted in the same breath that her predictions of deaths were EERILY accurate. Birger Bergh, now retired in favour of Father Anders Pilz, if you want to consult this. But of course there is the life itself ... was this one in Latin? OK, let's take a modern rendering of Thomas Gascoigne instead:

http://www.umilta.net/thgascbirgitta.html

St Francis of Assisi made several miracles, unlike "reference" most of them are NOT about communicating with animals, but about healing:

http://www.indiana.edu/~dmdhist/francis.htm

Check especially part III.

A new book “Saint Patrick After The Ancient Narrations” by Rev. Philip Lynch C.S.Sp. has just been published by his nephew James Lynch. The story of our National Saint has been directly transcribed from the ancient narratives with suitable commentary, nonetheless in agreement with the ancient narrators. No less than 64 Bishop-Saints wrote several lives of Saint Patrick. Our National Saint was British, hails from Armoric Britain, present day Northern France, spent 60 years on mission to our Isle where he consecrated 355 bishops and ordained 3000 priests. ...

These ancient narrations have been dismissed by modern historians for the very obvious reason they contain too many miracles. The recent pil pul for omitting them is to use instead his very scanty autobiographical material + his letter to Coroticus as "only things we really know about him" which is simply not true.

Here is a presentation of the book:

Here is where you send for it:

Available from;

James Lynch
Carrickmore
St.Johnston
Co. Donegal
Ireland

087 2899762

Jaslynch1234@gmail.com
or