the question is that, well, if something is able to deliver infallibly or is an infallible

standard or something like that, there are later questions of, well, how would I know that

infallibility?

But what's begging the question is but that's exactly what's in question those two things is an infallible standard how do I know

actually I would say three and how does that solve the problem and what what are they going to

appeal to?

Well, if you if you accept this doesn't it solve all the problems but that's what's in question

well you're begging the answer from the question let's use the question to answer that.

Do you see what the issue is there?

Everybody? Yeah. So it's just moving the problem back of stuff. Yes. Then we can ask,

suppose I granted that. Does it solve the problem? So there's two issues. So simply saying it does, and don't we go over

this in epistemology all the time, simply because somebody says something that this is the case

or this solves this. And epistemology, you know, going to the bonjour, every single epistemologist you know going to the bonjour every single epistemologist and philosopher says uh

well this will solve the problem right but does it and are we not supposed to question is that is that

does that actually do the work that you say it does so two issues there How do we know that that would be the case without

vicious circularity? You're begging the question. Second, even if I granted that, does it do the work

that you wanted to do? Yes, great point. So the first, another addendum to that is that the response will use to be by Roman

Catholic, something like, well, we know the papacy is the final arbiter because Jesus established

it.

And you ask these people, okay, so how do we know that the papacy was divinely established by Jesus to be what you say at Vatican 1,

because of course they'll equivocate on divinely established as if everything divinely established,

therefore means indefectibility, infallibility, and perpetuity.

...