Tweet
The initial argument for the existence of Qi was well organized and sensible. The case is made(weather one accepts it or not) logically and without pre-assumptions. Also the explanation of Yin and Yang were also reasonable and and complemented the Qi discussion.
After that the whole thing fell apart:
Primer to Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning is the practice of assuming something, in order to prove the very thing that you assumed. In Logic-speak, you assume that proposition A is true, and use that premise (directly or indirectly) to prove that proposition A is true. This is one of many logical fallacies that routinely get used in heated arguments, and is actually a special case of the fallacy of false assumptions.
Popular examples of Circular Reasoning include 'The Bible must be infallible - this verse says it is the word of God!'..
Here is an example of poor logic involving two cases of circular reasoning, one acknowledged and one made by accident:
"A charge frequently leveled against the Bible is that Christians argue in circles. The charge goes that Christians claim the Bible as the inspired Word of God and, as proof, quote a passage from the Bible that says so (the author here acknowledges the fallacy)....
...Instead of assuming the Bible is the Word of God, we can begin by demonstrating that the Scriptures are reliable and trustworthy historical documents (And just here falls into the very trap he attempts to escape). This is confirmed by applying the ordinary test of historical criticism to the Scriptures.
After establishing that the Bible is a valid historical record, the next point is realizing that Jesus Christ claims to be the unique Son of God and that He bases this claim on His forthcoming resurrection from the dead."
The thing is, the author never establishes the historical fact of the bible, he assumes it as self evident. Even if a non-christian is willing to accept some historical basis for the bible, that's a long way from placing Christ as the son of God.
So to bring this back around to the original post: You cannot simply make an argument for Qi/Yin Yang and then use this as fact in support of a belief system which has nothing more to do with Qi than the coincedence of believing in it any more than a christian minister can state that Christ is the savior because the bible is based in historical fact.
Sorry, but you have to prove Atlantis on it's own merit, and the god Thoth and commonalities in structure and function of world artifacts, and details regarding burial ritual.
Finally not to sound callous but, as terrible as religious persecution is, it is irrelevant to the establishment of the argument.
After that the whole thing fell apart:
Primer to Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning is the practice of assuming something, in order to prove the very thing that you assumed. In Logic-speak, you assume that proposition A is true, and use that premise (directly or indirectly) to prove that proposition A is true. This is one of many logical fallacies that routinely get used in heated arguments, and is actually a special case of the fallacy of false assumptions.
Popular examples of Circular Reasoning include 'The Bible must be infallible - this verse says it is the word of God!'..
Here is an example of poor logic involving two cases of circular reasoning, one acknowledged and one made by accident:
"A charge frequently leveled against the Bible is that Christians argue in circles. The charge goes that Christians claim the Bible as the inspired Word of God and, as proof, quote a passage from the Bible that says so (the author here acknowledges the fallacy)....
...Instead of assuming the Bible is the Word of God, we can begin by demonstrating that the Scriptures are reliable and trustworthy historical documents (And just here falls into the very trap he attempts to escape). This is confirmed by applying the ordinary test of historical criticism to the Scriptures.
After establishing that the Bible is a valid historical record, the next point is realizing that Jesus Christ claims to be the unique Son of God and that He bases this claim on His forthcoming resurrection from the dead."
The thing is, the author never establishes the historical fact of the bible, he assumes it as self evident. Even if a non-christian is willing to accept some historical basis for the bible, that's a long way from placing Christ as the son of God.
So to bring this back around to the original post: You cannot simply make an argument for Qi/Yin Yang and then use this as fact in support of a belief system which has nothing more to do with Qi than the coincedence of believing in it any more than a christian minister can state that Christ is the savior because the bible is based in historical fact.
Sorry, but you have to prove Atlantis on it's own merit, and the god Thoth and commonalities in structure and function of world artifacts, and details regarding burial ritual.
Finally not to sound callous but, as terrible as religious persecution is, it is irrelevant to the establishment of the argument.
Comment