Personality Cafe banner

Is the argument valid?

  • I don't know.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

The Bible speaks the truth therefore God exists?

2K views 50 replies 14 participants last post by  Speakpigeon 
#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
 
#2 ·
Roberval,
VĹ“tius,
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 ·
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.
 
#6 ·
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
 
#7 ·
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
 
#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).
 
#8 ·
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
 
#11 ·
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.
 
#13 ·
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
 
#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
 
#15 ·
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.
 
#17 · (Edited)
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.
 
#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
 
#20 ·
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 !)
 
#21 ·
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.

-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
 
#27 · (Edited)
@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 !
 
#29 ·
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.

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".

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 eBooks@Adelaide, The University of Adelaide Library, University of Adelaide
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8pra/book1.html
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8pra/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/ossaarc...135&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

EB
 
#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.
 
#30 ·
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
 
#32 ·
@Speakpigeon Youhouuu, so I finally start to speak this langage, the headaches are worth it ! XD
Thanks for both the patient explanations and the links, I will start reading at least Aristotle work, better to start from the beginning. In the remaining, I'm hoping to read more discussion about this "begging the question" fallacy, and what ideas it will generate ! Me, it will (hopefully only temporarily) be beyond my capacities.

Stimulating exchange to everyone !
 
#33 ·
@Euclid thanks for your reply with links I read it ! Yes ! I at least understood that true and valid are two different things in logic, which is why I made sure to not use the word "true" but "valid" in my post. What I meant in what I wrote and you quoted is that despite understanding this differences, the way this argument is presented isn't sound for me, but I probably lack the words to precisely convey what I mean, sorry ! What do you think about the argument presented, especially the fallacy/no fallacy Euclid ?

A married person cannot be a bachelor - this impossibility does not involve reality, but merely the semantics of "married" and "bachelor".
Of course a married person can be a bachelor ! In french we call it a "bachelier" ! XD

OK, see that for that I'm trying to properly understand this whole logical rules, otherwise I enjoy simply playing with words and kicking the rules, to the possible annoyance of others wanting serious disussion, aha.

I'm taking the spectator seat, and will enjoy the exchanges and learn ! Thanks !
 
#38 ·
@Euclid thanks for your reply with links I read it ! Yes ! I at least understood that true and valid are two different things in logic, which is why I made sure to not use the word "true" but "valid" in my post. What I meant in what I wrote and you quoted is that despite understanding this differences, the way this argument is presented isn't sound for me, but I probably lack the words to precisely convey what I mean, sorry ! What do you think about the argument presented, especially the fallacy/no fallacy Euclid ?
Soundness is something else, that would also require that all the premises to be true as well as the argument being valid.
Regarding whether there is a fallacy or not, it's not clear since as I've pointed out in my first post, "therefore" is used within the premises.
But since as we have already discussed, validity is not the same as truth, "...therefore..." does not evaluate to truth or falsehood, but to validity or invalidity.
This makes the whole supposed argument it nonsensical, like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It's not well formed, since the the premises are suppose to have a truth value, but an argument does not have a truth value. It's like asking, what is the colour of your shirt? Is it true or false? That makes no sense. True or false is not a colour value. Blue or yellow is not a truth value.

Here's another link you might like to understand the terms better:
https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/tvs.html

Of course a married person can be a bachelor ! In french we call it a "bachelier" ! XD

OK, see that for that I'm trying to properly understand this whole logical rules, otherwise I enjoy simply playing with words and kicking the rules, to the possible annoyance of others wanting serious disussion, aha.

I'm taking the spectator seat, and will enjoy the exchanges and learn ! Thanks !
Haha... should have seen that one coming ^^ But to be clear, it's not a property of a word in itself stripped from context and thus meaning, but a property you can only evaluate after interpreting the word. But, who say you can't have fun while learning :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: VoicesofSpring
#34 ·
The same logic can be applied to any other book that includes concepts that may or may not be true. For instance

The Lord of The Rings books speak the truth therefore, Middle Earth exists. The argument is no bueno.
 
#41 ·
The same logic can be applied to any other book that includes concepts that may or may not be true. For instance

The Lord of The Rings books speak the truth therefore, Middle Earth exists.
Yes, that's the point about valid arguments, you can use them to talk about many different kinds of things merely by substituting word for word.

The argument is no bueno.
Thanks.

You voted "not valid", but would you say that the following argument is not valid, too?

(p1) x = 2 and (x = 2 implies 7x = 14), therefore 7x = 14;
(p2) 7x = 14 and (7x = 14 implies x = 2), therefore x = 2;
(C) Therefore, x = 2 and 7x = 14.
​

EB
 
#36 ·
I apologize if someone has already given my answer. I haven't read through other people's posts since I wanted to think through this myself.

(p1) God exists and the fact that God exists implies that the Bible speaks the truth, therefore the Bible speaks the truth;
Assuming God does indeed exist, that doesn't necessarily imply the Bible's own conception of God is the correct one, even if it relies on the correct assumption that a God exists. There are many, many ideas of what God is, why then does the argument assume the Biblical god is the correct one?

(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.​
What I would ask is: to what degree does the Bible speak truth? A little truth? The absolute truth? The Bible could indeed speak some truth but that doesn't automatically imply God therefore exists.
As mentioned above, even if God's existence was true and we could even prove it that doesn't imply the Bible's own idea of the divine is correct. We should be very careful not to draw false conclusions from otherwise accurate assumptions / knowledge.


So I'm gonna have to say this argument is fallacious.
 
#42 ·
I apologize if someone has already given my answer. I haven't read through other people's posts since I wanted to think through this myself.

Assuming God does indeed exist, that doesn't necessarily imply the Bible's own conception of God is the correct one, even if it relies on the correct assumption that a God exists. There are many, many ideas of what God is, why then does the argument assume the Biblical god is the correct one?

What I would ask is: to what degree does the Bible speak truth? A little truth? The absolute truth? The Bible could indeed speak some truth but that doesn't automatically imply God therefore exists.
As mentioned above, even if God's existence was true and we could even prove it that doesn't imply the Bible's own idea of the divine is correct. We should be very careful not to draw false conclusions from otherwise accurate assumptions / knowledge.
So the premises are indeed probably both false. If so, the argument is indeed fallacious.

However, the validity of an argument isn't about the truth of the premises. It is about whether the conclusion is necessarily true if you *assume* the premises true. So, you have to assume the premises true if you want to assess validity.

So I'm gonna have to say this argument is fallacious.
Good, but what about validity?

Would the conclusion be necessarily true if the premises were true?
EB
 
#37 ·
Question 1: Do you think that this argument is logically valid, and why?​
No. I think it's not valid because the "implications" in the premises aren't actually implied.
For example, the bible could speak the truth, without God needing to exist. This is depending on your interpretation of the question "what is truth?". If we take the bible as metaphorically true, we could say that it has true messages/guidance on how to live a meaningful life. This does not imply that there is a God.

Alternatively, we could say that God definitely exists, but the bible is not true. In this scenario we could consider that people bungled whatever message God was trying to get across and ended up printing thousands of copies of holy typos. So this means the existence of God doesn't imply the bible is true.

Question 2: Do you think that this argument is fallacious, and if so, what kind of fallacy is it?​
Yes. I think it has a flaw in the logic. I don't know anything about types of fallacies though :( But I would say that it has two extra assumptions in between the two premises. Hidden assumptions that are not actually premises (do not get assumed to be acceptable).

One is that "truth" means a certain thing. It might not actually mean what you assume. True always and all the time? True in what way? True in a metaphorical or literal way? True in some sections? True in its entirety? The word true here is too ambiguous.

The second is the assumption that God is somehow responsible for the bible. As in, God oversaw and approved the bible or rejected bits of it. As a side note, we can recognize that to the devoutly religious, this may be a personal truth, but it need not be everyone's personal truth. There is no evidence that God was involved in the dictating of the bible nor the selection of texts ultimately included. So there's no reason to connect God to the bible.

Speakpigeon, would you be willing to do a post explaining different kinds of fallacies? Or maybe post a link to some good descriptions?
Thanks for considering. The only way I can think to describe it being fallacious is that it's self-contradictory in the implication section. (Sorry, not a logician).
 
#43 ·
No. I think it's not valid because the "implications" in the premises aren't actually implied.
For example, the bible could speak the truth, without God needing to exist. This is depending on your interpretation of the question "what is truth?". If we take the bible as metaphorically true, we could say that it has true messages/guidance on how to live a meaningful life. This does not imply that there is a God.

Alternatively, we could say that God definitely exists, but the bible is not true. In this scenario we could consider that people bungled whatever message God was trying to get across and ended up printing thousands of copies of holy typos. So this means the existence of God doesn't imply the bible is true.



Yes. I think it has a flaw in the logic. I don't know anything about types of fallacies though :( But I would say that it has two extra assumptions in between the two premises. Hidden assumptions that are not actually premises (do not get assumed to be acceptable).

One is that "truth" means a certain thing. It might not actually mean what you assume. True always and all the time? True in what way? True in a metaphorical or literal way? True in some sections? True in its entirety? The word true here is too ambiguous.

The second is the assumption that God is somehow responsible for the bible. As in, God oversaw and approved the bible or rejected bits of it. As a side note, we can recognize that to the devoutly religious, this may be a personal truth, but it need not be everyone's personal truth. There is no evidence that God was involved in the dictating of the bible nor the selection of texts ultimately included. So there's no reason to connect God to the bible.

Speakpigeon, would you be willing to do a post explaining different kinds of fallacies? Or maybe post a link to some good descriptions?
Thanks for considering. The only way I can think to describe it being fallacious is that it's self-contradictory in the implication section. (Sorry, not a logician).
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. You can also use a search engine to find more. It's all over the place. But don't necessarily buy everything these people say. A lot is not real helpful.


Aristotle is still a good read. Prior Analytics is his main work on logic and syllogisms.

Prior Analytics, Book I & Book II, Translated by A. J. Jenkinson, published by eBooks@Adelaide, The University of Adelaide Library, University of Adelaide
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8pra/book1.html
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8pra/book2.html

Look at section 5 and 16 of Book I. It's Aristotle's basic considerations about the fallacy of "begging the question". It's foundational.


And something more recent, a paper on the fallacy again of begging the question:

Two Accounts of Begging the Question
Juho Ritola, University of Turku
https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarc...135&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Two accounts... Right. But both say interesting things. Just don't buy everything these people say (they are somewhat contradicting each other anyway).
EB
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top