Personality Cafe banner

Is the argument valid?

  • I don't know.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .
1 - 20 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,343 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
INFP 9w1 sp/so
Joined
·
2,468 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,344 Posts
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).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
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
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,375 Posts
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
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,344 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,533 Posts
Your "argument" brings forth an interesting notion of the differences between axioms in general and axioms that relate to the real world.
I mean one can create axioms for anything:
Axiom 1: All chairs eat people
Axiom 2: I am sitting in a chair right now
Therefore, I am sitting on something that eats people
By the logical system above, this all makes sense, but they do not relate at all to reality. Now let's look at your axioms. Well for one, they're circular, but, for another, they do not have materialistic evidence to back them up. At best, we have random claims by various people, who could just as easily have been mistaken, deluded ,or lying, so the claim that the Bible is merely the word of such people make as much sense as an axiom (which would cause your own axioms to fall apart), and, considering reality in general, makes more sense as an axiom to describe reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
741 Posts
Youve made the assumption that the bible is true and that god exist. There is no question being asked.

Better formula is If A, then B

If God exist then the bible is true.

B doesn't imply A in this case.

God isn't dependent on the bible to exist but the bible is dependent on God to be true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Your "argument" brings forth an interesting notion of the differences between axioms in general and axioms that relate to the real world.
I mean one can create axioms for anything:
Axiom 1: All chairs eat people
Axiom 2: I am sitting in a chair right now
Therefore, I am sitting on something that eats people
By the logical system above, this all makes sense, but they do not relate at all to reality. Now let's look at your axioms. Well for one, they're circular, but, for another, they do not have materialistic evidence to back them up. At best, we have random claims by various people, who could just as easily have been mistaken, deluded ,or lying, so the claim that the Bible is merely the word of such people make as much sense as an axiom (which would cause your own axioms to fall apart), and, considering reality in general, makes more sense as an axiom to describe reality.
Yep, I appreciate the comment but I asked two things, validity and fallacy, and your reply is somewhat lacking in this respect. I don't want to put words into your mouth so I can only ask again: is the argument valid, yes or no? Is the argument fallacious, yes or no?

valid
4. Logic
a. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
b. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.​

Fallacious
1. Containing fundamental errors in reasoning
EB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Youve made the assumption that the bible is true and that god exist. There is no question being asked.
???

That's patently false. I didn't make any assumption, I presented an argument. And I asked 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?​
If you don't want to answer them, what are you even doing here?!

Better formula is If A, then B
If God exist then the bible is true.
B doesn't imply A in this case.
God isn't dependent on the bible to exist but the bible is dependent on God to be true.
Derail.
EB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,533 Posts
Yep, I appreciate the comment but I asked two things, validity and fallacy, and your reply is somewhat lacking in this respect. I don't want to put words into your mouth so I can only ask again: is the argument valid, yes or no? Is the argument fallacious, yes or no?
Without knowing the purpose of your argument I cannot answer yes or no. If it describes a theoretical situation only, then no. Otherwise it's lacking.
 

·
Registered
Mafia addict
Joined
·
359 Posts
No, this is circular reasoning. The argument would be logically valid if either of the conditions were proven to be true, but since we have no reason in this argument to believe the Bible speaks the truth or God exists it is not valid.

Edit: But it actually would be valid if the premises are that God exists and that the Bible speaks the truth. I can't tell whether God exists and the Bible speaks the truth are assumed to both be true as premises, or if you only say they're true in the premises because of the circular reasoning of the argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
No, this is circular reasoning. The argument would be logically valid if either of the conditions were proven to be true
An argument is logically valid if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises assumed true.

Thus, we don't care whether the premises be actually true. Validity is about the link between premises and conclusion, not about the premises in themselves.

There are two reasons you should reject an argument: either the argument is not logically valid, or you have no good reason to accept that the premises be true.

So far, you've only effectively stated that your reason to reject the argument is that you think the premises are not true (and most people would presumably agree on that).

However, you haven't explained why the argument would not be logically valid, except perhaps when you say "circular reasoning", but you would need to explain what you mean with that and show that this makes the argument not valid.

For example, the argument:

God exists;
Therefore God exists.
This argument is valid, since the conclusion is necessarily true once the premise is presumed true. However, it is fallacious because the premise claims the same thing as what the conclusion claims. But it is valid. Valid but fallacious.

So, my question remains, is my argument valid?
EB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
692 Posts
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 ?
-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 !)
 
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
Top