Originally posted by Machinist
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The Argument From Reason...
Collapse
X
-
Strictly speaking, petitio principii or begging the question is a valid but fallacious argument. The argument is defined as fallacious since the conclusion does not logically follow from a premise whose truth has been previously established. Thus, the argument does not prove anything that was already not already known.
David Sanford points out if “the primary purpose of argument is to increase the degree of reasonable confidence which one has in the truth of the conclusion … every question-begging argument fails this purpose.”[3] Thus, even though petitio principii arguments do not founder logically, they do so epistemologically.Last edited by seer; 01-21-2022, 10:50 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
How is a fallacious argument valid? That is the question. Do you think a question begging argument is valid?
Again, from your own source:
"Since some instances of petitio principii can be reformulated as as a syllogism where the conclusion follows from one premise and the other premise is superfluous,[4] the argument is logically valid but does not prove the truth of the conclusion since that statement has already been assumed as a premise."
A circular argument is unpersuasive, but that does not mean that it is not valid.
Similarly, any argument to prove that human reasoning is generally reliable is unpersuasive, since one has to accept the general reliability of human reasoning in order to be persuaded by any argument. But if one already accepts the general reliability of human reasoning, then one isn't really being persuaded.
Comment
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Machinist View PostAnd this shows that the theist argument is not circular. The conclusion "therefore human reasoning can be generally trusted" has no equivalent in the premises.
It does however in the atheists. "Therefore human reasoning can generally be trusted", may just as well be the first premise.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
Plantinga doesn't think so. See his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
He doesn't think that "Our reasoning abilities are the result of natural selection" implies that "our reasoning abilities are generally reliable."Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
Exactly. So, contrary to Machinist's claim, my syllogism was not circular.Last edited by seer; 01-21-2022, 06:48 PM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
As he said: "Therefore human reasoning can generally be trusted." Could have been the first premise without the therefore.
That is very different from "Human reasoning can generally be trusted."
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
Again, that was not the point, which is that consciousness is not material.
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
But that is not scientific methodology. That is historical.
You can not scientifically show that you love your mother. Yet that would be as true as any fact discovered by science.
And subjective experience can also be as factual and true as anything discovered by science. Like your love for your mother. My cup of tea yesterday morning.
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
"Our reasoning abilities are the result of natural selection."
Is this the official assumption for the atheist's Non-Circular Valid Deductive Argument?
And the theist's?
How about " One Eternal Rational Being exists." (Eternality and Rationality together Absolutely encompasses existence.)
The theist's assumption is more solid ground because all ground comes from this Being that is being assumed. It all starts and ends with this One rational and eternal Being. And that is the very assumption that the theist makes. It's not just "God"....it's God and All Gods properties and everything the existence of God would entail.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
161 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Today, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
130 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
426 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
303 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM |
Comment