Timeline for Logic and reason is circular reasoning..?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 23, 2017 at 11:07 | comment | added | Chris Wohlert | @AaronHird, I don't think Pé de Leão said empirical evidence has little value, only that logic is not proven empirically. The statement "The Bible says that God exists, the Bible is true therefore God exists." is a fully logical argument. Of course it is circular when you try to prove the premise by its conclusion, but nevertheless, as far as logic goes, it is valid. It somewhat equates to: If A is true, then B is true. That is a sound logical argument, yet it does not prove A is true. | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 1:10 | comment | added | Aaron Hird | As for 'However, if logic were based on empirical evidence, it would be equally valid to reject the logic itself upon which the argument is based.' Empirical evidence is what pretty much everything is based on. Without it everything would just be a guess and we would have nothing that works.. the device you're using now works because the empirical evidence proves that it's components do specific jobs and combines create the functional.device with which you are dismissing the value of empirical evidence vs logical argument.. I don't see how you figure empirical evidence has so little value. | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 1:04 | comment | added | Aaron Hird | @Pé de Leão You stated that "The ability to recognize God's hand, so to speak, is one that all of us have by nature, so any inability is the result of the suppression of truth, especially because of sin." By what source of evidence so you may such a claim? How do you come to this conclusion as the only logical conclusion? I see nothing to support such a statement. | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 0:59 | comment | added | Aaron Hird | God is true because the bible says so but there is no verification of the source of this claim, and nothing to specifically prove this claim, and due to other failings of the source of this claim I deduce the claim is false is not circular reasoning. It's taking a claim and assessing it's validity or lack thereof using external information to compare and correlate for consistencies or lack thereof to make a deduction as to the worth of the claim. How does that constitute circular reasoning? Because I come to the decision using my own cognition? In that sense everything ever is circular. | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 0:55 | comment | added | Aaron Hird | I claim that using the bible to prove it's own truth claim without external information to deduce this from is a circular argument. Saying it's not because of external and varied sources that to my deductions don't support such a claim is not a circular reasoning argument, because it's following a path from a question to a conclusion not a presupposition to itself. 'A > B > C = D' is not a circle. 'A > B cos B = A' is. 'God exists because the bible says it and the bible is true therefore god exists' just keeps going round in a circle. | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 0:54 | comment | added | user3017 | @AaronHird. I already addressed these questions. Maybe if you reread what I said, it might make sense to you. | |
| Nov 22, 2017 at 0:46 | comment | added | Aaron Hird | 'The bible says god exists, the bible is true, therefore god exists'. How does one determine the truth of the bible? You can't just make an arbitrary claim because it suits your preconception. What supports the truth claim? The bible? So the bible is proving itself to be true because it claims to be true? With what basis? Makes no logical sense to me to accept a books claim of itself without anything else to support it. However if one were to show how external sources provide that conclusion, then it's not circular. Otherwise it is. And my argument is based on that fact | |
| Nov 21, 2017 at 14:22 | comment | added | user3017 | My point is that he says "I know logic is a valid way because..." of empirical evidence, and it's an error to believe that logic's validity can be established that way. In a reductio ad absurdum argument, for instance, a contradiction invariably leads to rejecting one of the premises. However, if logic were based on empirical evidence, it would be equally valid to reject the logic itself upon which the argument is based. Of course, nobody does that for the very reason that we assume that logic has a much more solid basis than empirical evidence. | |
| Nov 21, 2017 at 14:12 | comment | added | Alex | @PédeLeão To be clear. I didn't say Aaron Hird was wrong as such, just that he needed to be careful. I mean, logic can be used to deduce real world artifacts but only as long as the premises belong to the real world. Logic won't enforce real world deductions on its own. | |
| Nov 21, 2017 at 14:02 | history | edited | Alex | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Nov 21, 2017 at 13:28 | comment | added | user3017 | Thanks (+1) for pointing out that his comment erroneously suggests that logic could be established empirically. If it could be established empirically, it could also be defeated in that way, undermining the very structure of math and science. I also found the following answer helpful on this subject: "Does mathematics become circular at the bottom?" | |
| Nov 21, 2017 at 11:09 | history | answered | Alex | CC BY-SA 3.0 |