The Bible speaks the truth therefore God exists?

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 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 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; Here is another interesting argument: (p1) A and (A implies B), therefore B; (p2) B and (B implies A), therefore ...

  1. #1

    The Bible speaks the truth therefore God exists?

    Here is another interesting argument:

    (p1) A and (A implies B), therefore B;
    (p2) B and (B implies A), therefore A;
    (C) Therefore, A and B.​
    I'll give a straightforward application of it:

    (p1) God exists and the fact that God exists implies that the Bible speaks the truth, therefore the Bible speaks the truth;
    (p2) The Bible speaks the truth and the fact that the Bible speaks the truth implies that God exists, therefore God exists;
    (C) Therefore, God exists and the Bible speaks the truth.​
    It's seriously more complicated than usual, so please take all the time you need to answer the two questions:

    Question 1: Do you think that this argument is logically valid, and why?​

    Question 2: Do you think that this argument is fallacious, and if so, what kind of fallacy is it?​

    Thanks to all for your answers,
    EB



  2. #2

    Roberval,
    Vœtius,
    Jean de Beaugrand
    Gassendi,
    Fermat

    All of them is against him and they have writes tons of book about the logic of René Descartes

  3. #3

    It's a circular argument that requires every step of the circle to be true to be valid.

    I, Pizzafari, am God. The fact that I am God implies that this segment speaks the truth. Therefore this segment speaks the truth.
    This segment speaks the truth and the fact that this segment speaks the truth implies that I am God, therefore I am God.
    Therefore, I am God and this segment speaks the truth.

    You can't prove an assumption using another assumption.

    You forgot to put a poll in, though.
    Morpheus83, Ardielley, bearlybreathing and 6 others thanked this post.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4

    no this is pretty easy, you're begging the question by using the conclusion of your own argument as a premise (p1) of that conclusion
    Nabbit, Ardielley, Gossip Goat and 1 others thanked this post.

  6. #5

    I don't think it makes sense to put "therefore" into a premise, rather, it's something you put in front of a conclusion derived from previously stated premise(s).

  7. #6

    Quote Originally Posted by Pizzafari View Post
    It's a circular argument that requires every step of the circle to be true to be valid.

    I, Pizzafari, am God. The fact that I am God implies that this segment speaks the truth. Therefore this segment speaks the truth.
    This segment speaks the truth and the fact that this segment speaks the truth implies that I am God, therefore I am God.
    Therefore, I am God and this segment speaks the truth.

    You can't prove an assumption using another assumption.

    You forgot to put a poll in, though.
    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.

    There is in logic a form of argument called a Modus Ponens:
    (p1) A;
    (p2) A implies B;
    (C) Therefore B.
    This form of argument was described by a follower of Aristotle, maybe something like 2,400 ago and nearly every logician on Earth seems happy that it is a valid form of argument.
    Thus, the following argument would be valid:
    God exist;
    If God exists, then the Bible speaks the Truth;
    Therefore, the Bible speaks the Truth.
    If this argument is valid, why my initial argument wouldn't be?

    Also, you say it's a circular argument. Could you try to articulate how exactly it is circular?

    And I added a poll, thanks!
    EB

  8. #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Convex View Post
    no this is pretty easy, you're begging the question by using the conclusion of your own argument as a premise (p1) of that conclusion
    I guess this means you take the argument as fallacious. However, you don't say whether it is valid or not.

    Also, it's literally impossible to use the conclusion as premise. The premises are literally the sentences specifying what is assumed, i.e. p1 and p2. The conclusion is C, i.e. the sentence specifying what is proposed as following from the premises. They may say the same thing somehow but they are distinct sentences, and indeed, different sentences.

    The question is that of validity: Does the conclusion follow from the premises?
    EB

  9. #8

    Quote Originally Posted by Euclid View Post
    I don't think it makes sense to put "therefore" into a premise, rather, it's something you put in front of a conclusion derived from previously stated premise(s).
    I added a poll, so if the argument literally doesn't make sense to you, you can now vote "The argument doesn't make sense".

    But, as you can see, other posters don't seem to have any trouble parsing the argument as worded. I think it would be more interesting if you could focus on the question of validity and fallacy rather than nitpick at the wording, unless it was literally true that the argument didn't make sense to you.
    EB

  10. #9

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    I guess this means you take the argument as fallacious. However, you don't say whether it is valid or not.

    Also, it's literally impossible to use the conclusion as premise. The premises are literally the sentences specifying what is assumed, i.e. p1 and p2. The conclusion is C, i.e. the sentence specifying what is proposed as following from the premises. They may say the same thing somehow but they are distinct sentences, and indeed, different sentences.

    The question is that of validity: Does the conclusion follow from the premises?
    EB
    yes, they do say the same thing, which is why you're begging the question

    you quite literally assumed the conclusion in your premises

  11. #10

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    I added a poll, so if the argument literally doesn't make sense to you, you can now vote "The argument doesn't make sense".

    But, as you can see, other posters don't seem to have any trouble parsing the argument as worded. I think it would be more interesting if you could focus on the question of validity and fallacy rather than nitpick at the wording, unless it was literally true that the argument didn't make sense to you.
    EB
    It's literally true. It would be nitpicking if it was at least obvious what the OP is saying. If I strip the (p1), (p2) and (C) from your post then yes, and others might have ignored and just read it in plain English, but in this case I end up parsing four premises, not two, and on top of that the argument will be valid.


     
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... 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 12:42 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