Quote# 36208

[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."
The Christian presupposition is "In the beginning God ..."

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?

jcr4runner, YouTube 50 Comments [3/13/2008 12:50:12 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: funky fresh salad

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom

James

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.

3/13/2008 12:55:26 PM

Ambrielle


3/13/2008 12:58:51 PM

TerriblyAmused

Well, he's right about one thing: "The Christian presupposition is 'In the beginning God ...'

Everything else is argued from that."
The rest is New Age bullsh*t.

3/13/2008 12:59:35 PM

Recoil

This guy is so full of it. I wonder if he even knows what he's talking about.

3/13/2008 1:00:12 PM

SweetViolet

Oh, what a crock of shit.

If you begin with a fallacious statement, all logic that comes after is specious. Logic is not magic.

3/13/2008 1:00:18 PM

Mister Spak

Even your circular logic is wrong.

3/13/2008 1:01:55 PM

m52nickerson

Presuppose

1. to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance.
2. (of a thing, condition, or state of affairs) to require or imply as an antecedent condition: An effect presupposes a cause.


Logic

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.

3/13/2008 1:04:16 PM

Patches

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!

3/13/2008 1:05:03 PM

NonProphet

jcr4runner, besides having an incredibly tenuous grasp on the English language, has apparently never heard of something called "evidence."

3/13/2008 1:07:40 PM

tmr

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance confuse them with bullshit.


3/13/2008 1:08:56 PM



Somehow, you lost the meaning of the word "circular" and the word "premise"

3/13/2008 1:16:19 PM

Mattural Selection

You mean fundies don't understand that logic can be anything other than circular? This explains everything!

3/13/2008 1:19:06 PM

John

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.

3/13/2008 1:39:02 PM

stogoe

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

3/13/2008 1:51:06 PM

Damen

It's clear this person has not even the basic understanding of what logic is.

3/13/2008 2:12:55 PM

Frank

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:
1. The Bible says that it is true.
2. The preceding statement in the bible is correct.
.: The Bible is true.

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

3/13/2008 2:16:41 PM

the other frank, the one who was here first.

I hate this psuedo-intellectual bullshit. It's just so infuriating

3/13/2008 2:27:29 PM

Osiris

An argument isn't supposed to prove the argument. It's supposed to prove the premise, which is why most arguments start with an unproven premise because proving something that has already been proven is redundent. But not all arguments are like that.

3/13/2008 2:53:25 PM

Pedantic Twit

If one of those Franks is a Trollman, I'm going to laugh my ass off.

3/13/2008 3:02:20 PM

Freboy

NOW I'm dizzy.

Make it stop.

3/13/2008 3:28:59 PM

szena

Evrything is true! All arguments prove themselves!

3/13/2008 3:33:35 PM

Papabear

"Logic relies on unproven premises or 'presuppositions.'"

Uh, no.

Get one of the kindly bright people to help you look up "logic" and "proof" in a good dictionary.

3/13/2008 3:59:45 PM

approximate

:facepalm:

3/13/2008 4:13:47 PM

Nibien

Another home schooler posts on the internet I see.

3/13/2008 4:19:14 PM

Frank

If one of those Franks is a Trollman, I'm going to laugh my ass off.

Gentlemen, commence hilarity mode?

-Frank

3/13/2008 4:28:18 PM

1 2 | top: comments page