[In response to the statement that saying a book can be used to prove itself is circular logic and doesn't work]
All logic is circular. Logic relies on unproven premises or "presuppositions."
Everything else is argued from that.
Can you think of a presupposition that has a better chance of being non-circular?
If you try to prove the premises, you are engaging in circular logic.
In stating that "a self-contained argument does not prove itself" you too are using a circular argument!
If an argument does not prove itself, then what does?
50 comments
All logic is not circular. And yes I can think of a better presupposition than "In the beginning God...". How about "the laws of physics, whatever they may be, have not changed since the last time I performed this experiment". Based simply on observation, I'd say it has a good chance of being true as well.
Well, he's right about one thing: "The Christian presupposition is 'In the beginning God ...'
Everything else is argued from that."
Oh, what a crock of shit.
If you begin with a fallacious statement, all logic that comes after is specious. Logic is not magic.
Presuppose
1. to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance.
1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
I think some one is confusing persuppose and proposition. Thus you fail.
If all arguments can prove themselves, then what's the purpose of trials? Seems that an accusation should be enough in the sense of "I accuse this person of murder, and I claim I never lie, and because I never lie, it must be true."
Then again, there have been other fundie quotes here who propose reducing the court system to just that. A couple of eyewitness testimonies is all that's required for instant death penalty! Oh, sound justice!
There's nothing wrong with accepting on faith the premise that the Bible is the word of God. What's circular is attempting to use the premise to prove itself .
All logic doesn't rely on unproven premises. Some premises are tautologies. For example, "all cows are mammals" or "2+2=4" are true by definition of the words. Other premises are presumed true by overwhelming empirical evidence, such as "the sun rises in the morning". The argument that "the Bible is the word of God" falls into neither category.
There's an important point he almost has. A logically valid argument contains its conclusions in its premises. Thus, presenting a logically valid argument doesn't mean that your conclusion is true. It merely means that the conclusion is true if the premises are true .
So the argument:
That's logically valid, if pointless argument. And indeed if the premises (most importantly number 2) were correct, that would be true. But it's not and I don't care.
-Frank
NOW I'm dizzy.
Make it stop.
If one of those Franks is a Trollman, I'm going to laugh my ass off.
Gentlemen, commence hilarity mode?
-Frank
No, it is not all circular. In fact circular logic is not logic at all. Logic is observation, thoughts, hypothesis.
If you try to prove the premises, you are engaging in circular logic.
No. If you try to prove the premises using the premises themselves , you are engaging in circular logic.
Not circular, and logically valid:
Everything in the Bible is true
Circular:
Everything in the Bible is true
All logic is circular
Can you think of a presupposition that has a better chance of being non-circular?
If an argument does not prove itself, then what does?
That is a proof.
Wait...what?
If you are saying that there are certain presuppositions underlying logic, then yes, I would be hard pressed to disagree with you.
Unfortunately, it does not change the fact that you are relying on those presuppositions supporting logic AND upon "In the beginning God..." being a self-evident claim.
An argument is only proven by being verified externally, along with remaining internally consistent. If you believe that you can say just say something is the case without indication that it is the reality, do you really expect your argument to greeted with open arms?
In the beginning, Og wanted a scapegoat for all his ignorant mistakes. So he designed one that would also justify his future mistakes. The idea caught on, and before too long, parents were frightening their children into obedience with stories of Og's invisible scapegoat.
Pretty soon someone figured out that if he played the story just right, he could get free poontang and firewater.
There ya go. A logical sequence of events culminating in the prototypical religion.
Ok, so we're in agreement? Everytime that Frank posts he signs off using our name, and every time i post, i just leave it blank, or maybe say something cool like
-The Frankster
feel free to jump in with some suggestions people. I'll try a few others out maybe as well, you can tell me what you think alright. yeah. see you later.
@PatchesIf all arguments can prove themselves, then what's the purpose of trials? Seems that an accusation should be enough in the sense of "I accuse this person of murder, and I claim I never lie, and because I never lie, it must be true."
Then again, there have been other fundie quotes here who propose reducing the court system to just that. A couple of eyewitness testimonies is all that's required for instant death penalty! Oh, sound justice!
Well, it seemed to work in Salem. No more witches there, anymore!
You are wrong, because you are not right. And how do I know that you are not right? I know it because you are wrong.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
