The Bible speaks the truth therefore God exists? - Page 3

The Bible speaks the truth therefore God exists?

View Poll Results: Is the argument valid?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, the argument is valid.

    5 18.52%
  • No, the argument is not valid.

    19 70.37%
  • I don't know.

    0 0%
  • The argument doesn't make sense.

    3 11.11%
Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51
Thank Tree27Thanks

This is a discussion on The Bible speaks the truth therefore God exists? within the Member Polls forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; Originally Posted by Noyau Obscur I have some questions before voting : -What if God or the Bible was not ...

  1. #21

    Quote Originally Posted by Noyau Obscur View Post
    I have some questions before voting :

    -What if God or the Bible was not true in your argument, would the Bible or God too ends up not true ? Or is it of not importance ?
    The basic terms, such as "God exists", as used in a logical argument, all potentially influence the validity of the argument.

    For example, in the logical case where it is true that God exists and it is false that the Bible speaks the truth, the implication mentioned in premise (p1) is false. That is, the implication "the fact that God exists implies that the Bible speaks the truth" is false. This in turn makes the premise itself false since the premise is a conjunction of two terms, one being the implication in question.

    Also, for each particular logical case, such as the one you mention, each basic term has the same truth value in both premises and in the conclusion. That is, for a particular case, if "God exists" is true in the premise, it is true as well in the conclusion.

    However, how this play out depends on each particular argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noyau Obscur View Post
    -Can a conclusion be used as premise in the next argument to reach a conclusion about the same premise that was used previously in order to validate this conclusion used as premise ? (If I'm using the terms wrongly, sorry !)
    Well, you could always make the argument, but it wouldn't be valid.

    It wouldn't be valid even in a situation where you would know that the premises are true since validity doesn't depend on whether the premises are actually true.

    I don't see how that could help, but that's all I can do.
    EB
    VoicesOfSpring thanked this post.

  2. #22

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    For the purpose of logical validity, premises are usually regarded as assumptions. The argument will be valid if the conclusion follows from the assumed premises. That is, once you assume the premises as true, the truth of the conclusion seems necessary, and this irrespective of whether the premises are actually true or not.
    It's not an assumption if it has evidence to back it up. In this argument the only evidence for point A is point B, and the only evidence for point B is point A. So we have no reason to believe either argument, as neither is backed up by anything substantial. If you have to just assume the premise is true then you aren't making a valid argument, you're just making a random assertion. From am empirical standpoint the argument makes no sense. It essentially boils down to "A is true because B is true because I've told you they are".

    I hate to use the tired old flying spaghetti monster argument, but it still stands. If someone told you there's a flying spaghetti monster, and he knows this because he found a book that says there's a flying spaghetti monster and that this book always tells the truth, you're not going to take what he's saying seriously. The existence of the concept of a flying spaghetti monster here doesn't validate the assertions of the book, and the assertions of the book aren't proof of the validity of the concept. The argument is invalid because it's just a pair of unsubstantiated assertions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Also, you say it's a circular argument. Could you try to articulate how exactly it is circular?
    Not sure if I'm misusing terminology there, but it's a loop between point A and point B. A therefore B, therefore A, therefore B, therefore A, therefore B, etc. As neither point has any evidence in this argument, neither point A or point B is substantial.

  3. #23

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    The basic terms, such as "God exists", as used in a logical argument, all potentially influence the validity of the argument.

    For example, in the logical case where it is true that God exists and it is false that the Bible speaks the truth, the implication mentioned in premise (p1) is false. That is, the implication "the fact that God exists implies that the Bible speaks the truth" is false. This in turn makes the premise itself false since the premise is a conjunction of two terms, one being the implication in question.

    Also, for each particular logical case, such as the one you mention, each basic term has the same truth value in both premises and in the conclusion. That is, for a particular case, if "God exists" is true in the premise, it is true as well in the conclusion.

    However, how this play out depends on each particular argument.



    Well, you could always make the argument, but it wouldn't be valid.

    It wouldn't be valid even in a situation where you would know that the premises are true since validity doesn't depend on whether the premises are actually true.

    I don't see how that could help, but that's all I can do.
    EB
    Thank you for taking the time to patiently reply in details my questions !
    It does help me, because I'm learning what is logical argument, premise, conclusion, etc and Google links leads to too much stuff to start from.
    Now it's start to make a bit of sense, and after a bit of reading I understand that validity in this context means that we assume the premises are true and check if the conclusion follow from them. If yes = valid, if no = invalid. Which is what you explained multiple times now I got it.

    So, based on this, I vote "Yes, the argument is valid" because C follow from P1 and P2.

    I still can't reply to q2 about if it is fallacious or not, I still don't understand what is a fallacy despite reading multiple articles.

    I have more questions if you don't mind. Your example of argument is what is called a syllogism ? Because I read somewhere that a syllogism don’t prove their own premises. Isn't what happens here ? Or did I understood what I read wrongly ?
    Thank you !

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #24

    Quote Originally Posted by Pizzafari View Post
    It's not an assumption if it has evidence to back it up. In this argument the only evidence for point A is point B, and the only evidence for point B is point A. So we have no reason to believe either argument, as neither is backed up by anything substantial. If you have to just assume the premise is true then you aren't making a valid argument, you're just making a random assertion. From am empirical standpoint the argument makes no sense. It essentially boils down to "A is true because B is true because I've told you they are".
    (...)
    The argument is invalid because it's just a pair of unsubstantiated assertions.
    I take your point and indeed I would agree that this argument isn't going to convince me that God exists.

    However, we also want to be able to consider and assess the logical value of an argument, and to do it independently of whether the argument says or not something true about the real world. And this is precisely what we do with the notion of logical validity.

    Saying that an argument is logically valid is not saying at all that the conclusion is true. It is saying that if the premises are true, then (necessarily) the conclusion is true.

    Your yourself explained, and correctly, why the Monkey argument is not valid. Yet, in this case, you never considered in your explanation whether the premises are actually true. I'm quite sure you don't actually know that "Joe is either an elephant, a monkey or a squid", as one premise of this argument claims. I'm sure you didn't believe the argument to be about an actual Joe existing somewhere in the world. So, for the Monkey argument, you were prepared to disregard the fact that you actually didn't know any relevant facts, meaning that you had to assume the premises as true for the purposes of assessing the validity of the argument, which you did correctly. So, why are you not prepared to do the same here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pizzafari View Post
    Not sure if I'm misusing terminology there, but it's a loop between point A and point B. A therefore B, therefore A, therefore B, therefore A, therefore B, etc. As neither point has any evidence in this argument, neither point A or point B is substantial.
    The Monkey argument is obviously entirely fictional and therefore doesn't provide any empirical evidence about the real world. There doesn't seem to be any substantial empirical difference between a premise saying "God exists" and a premise saying "Joe is either an elephant, a monkey or a squid". If anything, the Monkey argument seems patently fictional, whereas arguments about the existence of God can be proposed in all seriousness.
    Again I would agree that this argument won't convince anyone that God exists. However, I would like to understand why many people say there is a "loop" in the argument.
    Consider the following argument:
    (p1) The Bible speaks the Truth;
    (p2) If the Bible speaks the Truth, then God exists;
    (C) Therefore, God exist.
    First, is this argument logically valid?
    And would you also say that there is a loop in this case?
    EB
    Last edited by Speakpigeon; 08-26-2019 at 12:52 AM.
    Pizzafari thanked this post.

  6. #25

    Quote Originally Posted by Noyau Obscur View Post
    Thank you for taking the time to patiently reply in details my questions !
    It does help me, because I'm learning what is logical argument, premise, conclusion, etc and Google links leads to too much stuff to start from.
    Now it's start to make a bit of sense, and after a bit of reading I understand that validity in this context means that we assume the premises are true and check if the conclusion follow from them. If yes = valid, if no = invalid. Which is what you explained multiple times now I got it.
    So, based on this, I vote "Yes, the argument is valid" because C follow from P1 and P2.
    Thanks!
    Quote Originally Posted by Noyau Obscur View Post
    I still can't reply to q2 about if it is fallacious or not, I still don't understand what is a fallacy despite reading multiple articles.
    Yes, the notion of fallacy is somewhat ill-defined. Essentially, the notion of fallacy is defined by the list of the arguments that logicians since Aristotle have qualified as being ... fallacies. A fallacy is also defined in dictionaries as an argument, presented as logical, but that has some flaw in it, a flaw of "reasoning". However, there are still on-going and somewhat inconclusive discussions about exactly what the problem is.
    Which is why I'm asking...
    Quote Originally Posted by Noyau Obscur View Post
    I have more questions if you don't mind. Your example of argument is what is called a syllogism ? Because I read somewhere that a syllogism don’t prove their own premises. Isn't what happens here ? Or did I understood what I read wrongly ?
    Thank you !
    Yes, "syllogism" was the term used by Aristotle. By syllogism, he meant a valid argument. A proper syllogism would be a valid argument.
    Arguments are not meant to prove premises. They are meant to prove a conclusion by justifying the conclusion as the necessary consequence of the premises. However, the conclusion can only be as good as the premises. You're not going to accept the conclusion if you don't accept the premises to begin with.

    Originally, debates followed a formal procedure (Ancient Greeks, and the Scholastic in the Middle-Ages). One debater would propose premises. The other debater would be free to grant or reject the premises. However, if the premises were granted, all had to accept the conclusion provided the argument was granted as valid. Which would normally settle the point.

    Many people, however, will just repeat their argument ad nauseam without apparently realising that it is of no use at all until the premises have been granted by the people they are trying to convince. And, of course, there are also people who put forward fallacious arguments. But then, what's a fallacy exactly?
    EB
    VoicesOfSpring thanked this post.

  7. #26

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    I take your point and indeed I would agree that this argument....
    Sorry, I don't often have discussions like these so I'm not really sure how to properly phrase what I mean to say. Lemme try again. Though there's new context here too.

    Regardless of whether the conclusion itself is true, what I mean to say is that I'm not seeing anything actually solid in this argument.

    Point A: God is real.
    Point B: The Bible tells the truth.
    Point C: Therefore, God is real.

    Point C is essentially point A, so I'm merging these two points into a single point: Point A.

    If we say hypothetically that we knew point A to be true, then we could rationally say that therefore point B is true.
    Or alternatively, if we knew point B to be true, then we could rationally say that therefore point B is true.
    Because the reality of one verifies the other, assuming that the God that exists is the same one spoken of in the Bible.

    If that's your argument, in this hypothetical scenario with a hypothetical God and Bible, then I'd say that yes, the argument is valid. In your Monkey argument we weren't talking about a real life scenario, the only information we had to go on was what you'd presented to us. In this hypothetical world you created with the argument we assume it's correct that Joe can be any of these things, whereas in this one my assumption is we're talking about the biblical God as we know it to be, based on the reality of the world we live in, where we know to an extent what is and isn't true and have rules for how we come to learn the truth.

    We're talking about a very common argument here, and I took the question to be asking for our response to that same argument. If the above hypothetical scenario is what you meant to ask then that's my corrected answer, yes it's valid. But if you do mean to ask for our response to the real life scenario then the following is my full argument to that.

    The argument here is that Point A = Point B is true, and Point B = Point A is true. However, regardless of whether or not the two points are actually true, using just the rules you presented in the argument, through the lens of the rules of the reality of the world we live in, the argument is broken because we don't have any reason to believe that Point A is true on its own terms, nor that Point B is. We can't use Point A as evidence of Point B because Point A hasn't been demonstrated to be true, and we can't use Point B as evidence of Point A for the same reason.

    Without knowing that God is real, we can't use his existence as proof that the Bible speaks the truth.
    Without knowing that the Bible speaks the truth, we can't use it as evidence of the existence of God.

    In the real world we live in these two rules rely on each other to have validity. If we don't already know one of them to be true, then the argument has no foundation, and sounds to the sceptical listener like the existence of two fictional concepts being used to prove one another's reality.

    In response to the last of your reply, we've created a hypothetical scenario here where the Bible does speak the truth. There's no loop there, as it's a simple p1 means p2, therefore C. Assuming that p1 is correct in this hypothetical scenario, and that the God we're talking about is the same God spoken of in the Bible, then yes, this would be a valid argument, as the Bible claims that God exists, and in this scenario the Bible speaks the truth, so it stands to reason that its truthfulness means that God exists.

    The reason for the loop in the argument in its previous form was that the only evidence presented for A and B through the lens of the real world was each other, and neither was backed up. One relied on the other for validity.
    VoicesOfSpring thanked this post.

  8. #27

    @Speakpigeon You are welcome !

    Yes, the notion of fallacy is somewhat ill-defined. Essentially, the notion of fallacy is defined by the list of the arguments that logicians since Aristotle have qualified as being ... fallacies. A fallacy is also defined in dictionaries as an argument, presented as logical, but that has some flaw in it, a flaw of "reasoning". However, there are still on-going and somewhat inconclusive discussions about exactly what the problem is.
    Which is why I'm asking...
    Ah I understand ! So it wasn't just me not been able to find a definitive answer, but also the fact that fallacy is an ongoing discussion. Hmmm, I would says that like @Pizzafari I'm bothered that in order to prove the validity of A and B, we use A and B as statements for proving it. But I still think that following the rules of an argument as I learned lately, it is supposed to be valid... But, I don't know, there is something else that don't sound well to me.

    Can an argument be both valid and fallacious ?

    Yes, "syllogism" was the term used by Aristotle. By syllogism, he meant a valid argument. A proper syllogism would be a valid argument.
    Arguments are not meant to prove premises. They are meant to prove a conclusion by justifying the conclusion as the necessary consequence of the premises. However, the conclusion can only be as good as the premises. You're not going to accept the conclusion if you don't accept the premises to begin with.

    Originally, debates followed a formal procedure (Ancient Greeks, and the Scholastic in the Middle-Ages). One debater would propose premises. The other debater would be free to grant or reject the premises. However, if the premises were granted, all had to accept the conclusion provided the argument was granted as valid. Which would normally settle the point.

    Many people, however, will just repeat their argument ad nauseam without apparently realising that it is of no use at all until the premises have been granted by the people they are trying to convince. And, of course, there are also people who put forward fallacious arguments. But then, what's a fallacy exactly?
    But in our case, the conclusion is also the premises used to argumente the validity, I think it's disingenuous because we are asking about the validity of A and B by using A and B as statements for its own validity (?).
    In this way, I could simply reply :

    (p1) God don't exists and the fact that God don't exists implies that the Bible don't speaks the truth, therefore the Bible don't speaks the truth;
    (p2) The Bible don't speaks the truth and the fact that the Bible don't speaks the truth implies that God don't exists, therefore God don't exists;
    (C) Therefore, God don't exists and the Bible don't speaks the truth.​

    And it will be valid too, right ?

    Maybe there is some material readings I must read before better understanding this whole matter, Speakpigeon, if so, don't hesitate to redirect me to some reading materials, especially regarding what Aristote say about syllogism, I will need it, seriously.

    And sincerely thanks, it gives me headache, but in a good way haha !
    Last edited by VoicesOfSpring; 08-26-2019 at 01:34 PM.
    Pizzafari thanked this post.

  9. #28

    Also @Speakpigeon , completely out of curiosity, do you mind me asking what brought you to Personality Cafe? There's nothing wrong at all with you being here of course, it's just unusual for someone to join for these kinds of discussions rather than for personality theory so I've been curious for a while why you chose here. Or are you on multiple different forums having these discussions? The threads are really interesting either way, I don't get to think like this often.

  10. #29

    Quote Originally Posted by Noyau Obscur View Post
    But I still think that following the rules of an argument as I learned lately, it is supposed to be valid... But, I don't know, there is something else that don't sound well to me.
    Can an argument be both valid and fallacious ?
    Yes. It could be argued that non-validity is a kind of fallacy but historically the two notions have been clearly distinguished, from the start, by Aristotle. But someone untrained in formal logic may not necessarily make the distinction on their own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noyau Obscur View Post
    But in our case, the conclusion is also the premises used to argumente the validity, I think it's disingenuous because we are asking about the validity of A and B by using A and B as statements for its own validity (?).
    In this way, I could simply reply :

    (p1) God don't exists and the fact that God don't exists implies that the Bible don't speaks the truth, therefore the Bible don't speaks the truth;
    (p2) The Bible don't speaks the truth and the fact that the Bible don't speaks the truth implies that God don't exists, therefore God don't exists;
    (C) Therefore, God don't exists and the Bible don't speaks the truth.​

    And it will be valid too, right ?
    Yes, absolutely. Good job!

    My original argument is just a complication of the basic form "A; therefore A".

    Quote Originally Posted by Noyau Obscur View Post
    Maybe there is some material readings I must read before better understanding this whole matter, Speakpigeon, if so, don't hesitate to redirect me to some reading materials, especially regarding what Aristote say about syllogism, I will need it, seriously.
    Aristotle is a good read and it is a fascinating read because it was written 2,500 years ago. Without his work, on logic and other subjects, the world would be different. Prior Analytics is his main work on logic and syllogisms.

    Prior Analytics, Book I & Book II, Translated by A. J. Jenkinson, published by [email protected], The University of Adelaide Library, University of Adelaide
    https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/ari...pra/book1.html
    https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/ari...pra/book2.html


    If yuo prefer something more recent, here is a paper on the fallacy of begging the question, which is the one we are discussing now!

    Two Accounts of Begging the Question
    Juho Ritola, University of Turku
    https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarch...=PDFCoverPages

    EB
    VoicesOfSpring thanked this post.

  11. #30

    Quote Originally Posted by Pizzafari View Post
    Also @Speakpigeon , completely out of curiosity, do you mind me asking what brought you to Personality Cafe? There's nothing wrong at all with you being here of course, it's just unusual for someone to join for these kinds of discussions rather than for personality theory so I've been curious for a while why you chose here. Or are you on multiple different forums having these discussions? The threads are really interesting either way, I don't get to think like this often.
    Yes, I'm a bit all over the place. I'm trying to understand logic as a human capability, and this by looking at how people not trained in formal logic will assess various logical arguments.

    Is there any issue about personality that could benefit from an analysis using logical arguments, do you think?

    The Scholastic spent 400 years between 1250 and 1650 discussing God in formal debates with strict logical rules of the kind we have discussed here. So, why not personality?
    EB
    Pizzafari thanked this post.


     
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Share a Song that Speaks Truth to You.
    By Maye in forum Book, Music, & Movie Reviews
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-20-2016, 07:23 PM
  2. [INFJ] God and Bible: knowing God and the INFJ intuition
    By Northwind in forum INFJ Forum - The Protectors
    Replies: 100
    Last Post: 08-31-2012, 01:19 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:14 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0