The Bible speaks the truth therefore God exists?

[Speakpigeon]

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?
EB

 

[sinkorswim]

And around and around and around we go.

Sent from my LG-TP450 using Tapatalk

 

[steve_bank]

The image of a whirligig with kids having a great time going around in circles.

One of the basic arguments.

How do I know god exists
Because got is in the bible.
How do I know the bible is true?
Because god inspired the bible.
How do I know god exists?....

It is a simple circular argument. A inliers B implies A implies B...

Or you can look at it as a form of a bootstrapping argument. The conclusion pulls up or bootstraps the premise. The conclusion valkidates or bootstraps the premise. As in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.

 

[Random Person]

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?
EB

Your argument is flawed because the conclusion is in the first and second premise.

 

[Poppa Popobawa]

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?
EB

This seems more valid :-
________________________________________________

P1: God exists
P.2: God never lies
P.3: God wrote the Bible.

Conclusion: The Bible is the truth, (and nothing but the truth).

Corollary: Therefore, God exists and the Bible speaks the truth.
________________________________________________

The problem is that atheists disagree with P1, and therefore, necessarily also disagree with P2 and P3.

P.3. is evidently not true, because people wrote the Bible.

In the original so-called argument", (p1) on its own, encapsulates the whole of my 'more valid' argument. It
says: God exists, and the Bible therefore must be true, so God exists and the Bible is true.

Whoopeedoo; what a tautology ??? BTW, implies is a very waffly word.

 

[fromderinside]

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?
EB

1. Who give a fuck. The bible is wrong. It's not even right for believers.
2. See 1.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The image of a whirligig with kids having a great time going around in circles.

One of the basic arguments.

How do I know god exists
Because got is in the bible.
How do I know the bible is true?
Because god inspired the bible.
How do I know god exists?....

It is a simple circular argument. A inliers B implies A implies B...

Or you can look at it as a form of a bootstraping argument. The conclusion pulls up or bootstraps the premise. The conclusion valkidates or bootstraps the premise. As in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.

You provided only partial answers...

Do you think that this argument is logically valid?

Do you think that this argument is fallacious?

EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Your argument is flawed because the conclusion is in the first and second premise.

Flawed, OK, but is it valid and is it fallacious?

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

 

[Speakpigeon]

This seems more valid :-

So my argument is not valid. But why?

And is it fallacious, and if so why?

BTW, implies is a very waffly word.

No, it isn't, not in the context of discussing the validity of a logical argument.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

(p1) A and (A implies B), therefore B;
(p2) B and (B implies A), therefore A;
(C) Therefore, A and B.

The circular argument: Round and round it goes. Circular arguments can be crafted to be convoluted and difficult to follow masking the fact that it is circular. Often seen in political rhetoric.

A ---> B
| |
<-------

The syllogism is one of the theist traditional logical proofs.. Circular arguments are a logical fallacy. On the face of it both appear true as in the god bible argument. God and the bible appear to validate each other. However the form of the argument is invalid. The fundamental problem with syllogisms. One can prove almost anything if you ignore fallacies.

 

[steve_bank]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning


Circular reasoning


Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[3] Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[4]

Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions. Academic Douglas Walton used the following example of a fallacious circular argument:

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sink or swim? Yeah, just sink...

And around and around and around we go.

You don't have to. You can just sink here and there as far as I am concerned.

Just too bloody tempting, man!

Show

Sent from Biarritz, where I have a chat with Macron and the Iranian Foreign Minister.

DT

 

[Speakpigeon]

Is that too difficult?

Clue 1: The Ancient Greeks would have solved it without even blinking an eye...

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?
EB

Maybe we are in the yonder of deep logical space where no sensible man has gone before!

I thought... Well, never mind...

Still, on some other forums, posters go forth. Youngish fellows, mostly, I think...
EB

 

[Random Person]

Flawed, OK, but is it valid and is it fallacious?

Fallacious
1. Containing fundamental errors in reasoning

EB

Flawed, fallacious and invalid.

 

[steve_bank]

Is that too difficult?

Clue 1: The Ancient Greeks would have solved it without even blinking an eye...

Here is another interesting argument:



I'll give a straightforward application of it:



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?
EB

Maybe we are in the yonder of deep logical space where no sensible man has gone before!

I thought... Well, never mind...

Still, on some other forums, posters go forth. Youngish fellows, mostly, I think...
EB

If the well know circular reasoning argument fallacy is a bit of deeper logic space for you then perhaps you have some study ahead of you.

The logical reasoned answer on the syllogism is to say' Ok, I see it now. The p1 and p2 represent a common fallacy. The syllogism is invalid'

 

[Speakpigeon]

Flawed, OK, but is it valid and is it fallacious?

Fallacious
1. Containing fundamental errors in reasoning

EB

Flawed, fallacious and invalid.

Ah, good, thanks for a courageous answer!

I will wait a bit more to see if I can get a few more answers.

Meanwhile, feel free to expand on your reasons to assess the argument as "flawed, fallacious and invalid".
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Variations on a theme

p1 I think logically because I am logical
p2 I am logical because I think logically
c I am logical

p1 I am because I think
p2 I think because I am
c I think

Same form as the bible syllogism. Any problem with arguments?

 

[James Madison]

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?
EB

I have my doubts the argument is valid. By "valid" I mean the conclusion is entailed by the premises. To phrase it another way, assuming the premises are true, and the conclusion is entailed by the premises, then the conclusion is also true, i.e. cannot be false.

The argument above is different from the simple arguments used to explain validity.

1. All dogs have four legs. (All Ds are Fs).
2. All Labradors are dogs. (All Ls are Ds).
3. Therefore, all Labradors have four legs. (Ergo, All Ls are Fs).

The above argument is valid. The conclusion is entailed by the premises, the conclusion is true if the premises are also true.

"](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."​

I will rephrase the above argument.

1. God exists.
2. God's existence implies what the Bible says is true.
3. Sub-conclusion/premise: What the Bible says is true.
4. What the Bible says being true implies God exists.
5. Sub-conclusion/premise: God exists.
6. Therefore, God exists and what the Bible says is true.

First, the conclusion does not follow. The premise is a statement of something is implied as true, and concludes that something is true. Einstein's theory of Relativity implied the existence of black holes, but being implied does not establish as true black holes exist.

Then there is the question of which meaning of God is being applied. God can be defined as "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/god. So, God, then, as defined above, is applicable to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

So, for an adherent of Judaism, such as perhaps a Jew, God can exist but the statement the Bible is true would be incorrect. Why? Because the Bible is a book for the Christian religion and includes many books, the NT, an adherent of Judaism does not recognize as having been revealed to man from God and does not recognize the NT as true. For the Jew, the OT, comprised of three sections, the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, is what God revealed to man and is true. These same remarks are applicable to an adherent of Islam.

 

[Speakpigeon]

First, the conclusion does not follow.

Validity is assessed by assuming that the premises are true. So, granted that the premises are true, does the conclusion follow?

It does. Thus, the argument valid.

The first premise states that God exists: "God exists".

The second premise states that the Bible speaks the truth: "The Bible speaks the truth".

There is nothing in the premises contradicting these two statements.

Thus, the argument is equivalent to the simplified expression of it:

(p'1) God exists;
(p'2) The Bible speaks the truth;
(C) Therefore, God exists and the Bible speaks the truth.

Which is of course valid. Not particularly convincing, but there is no logical flaw. It is not a convincing argument because the conclusion is a repeat of the premises. Not convincing, but how could it not be valid?

Then there is the question of which meaning of God is being applied.

No. The conclusion is a repeat of the premises. The meaning of the word "God" is irrelevant here. I might want the word "God" to mean "my brother Jean", and the Bible to be a catalogue of fishing implements quoting prices, and the argument would still be valid, though only if you take the words used in the conclusion to mean exactly the same things as the words used in the premises.

To perhaps reassure yourself that this is indeed the case, we can substitute "x = 2" to "God exists" and "x + 1 = 3" to "The Bible speaks the truth". So now we have:

(p1) x = 2 and (x = 2 implies x + 1 = 3), therefore x + 1 = 3;
(p2) x + 1 = 3 and (x + 1 = 3 implies x = 2), therefore x = 2;
(C) Therefore, x = 2 and x + 1 = 3

.

I have to admit the argument is a bit confusing but that was intended. It's a bit difficult to sort out the relevant facts of the argument.
EB

 

[James Madison]

Validity is assessed by assuming that the premises are true. So, granted that the premises are true, does the conclusion follow?

It does. Thus, the argument valid.

The first premise states that God exists: "God exists".

The second premise states that the Bible speaks the truth: "The Bible speaks the truth".

There is nothing in the premises contradicting these two statements.

Thus, the argument is equivalent to the simplified expression of it:



Which is of course valid. Not particularly convincing, but there is no logical flaw. It is not a convincing argument because the conclusion is a repeat of the premises. Not convincing, but how could it not be valid?

Then there is the question of which meaning of God is being applied.

No. The conclusion is a repeat of the premises. The meaning of the word "God" is irrelevant here. I might want the word "God" to mean "my brother Jean", and the Bible to be a catalogue of fishing implements quoting prices, and the argument would still be valid, though only if you take the words used in the conclusion to mean exactly the same things as the words used in the premises.

To perhaps reassure yourself that this is indeed the case, we can substitute "x = 2" to "God exists" and "x + 1 = 3" to "The Bible speaks the truth". So now we have:

(p1) x = 2 and (x = 2 implies x + 1 = 3), therefore x + 1 = 3;
(p2) x + 1 = 3 and (x + 1 = 3 implies x = 2), therefore x = 2;
(C) Therefore, x = 2 and x + 1 = 3

.

I have to admit the argument is a bit confusing but that was intended. It's a bit difficult to sort out the relevant facts of the argument.
EB

The confusion is my fault. When I said the conclusion doesn’t follow, I wasn’t commenting or intending to comment upon validity. I initially had doubts, said I did, and wanted to proceed to discuss whether the conclusion followed generally. I wasn’t seeking to comment upon validity but if I were I would have said the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true. But upon looking at how I poorly structured the post, mea culpa.

I’m only stating whether the conclusion followed generally. At the time of your post I had given some thought to validity but wasn’t sure. However, what struck me more was the fact the conclusion didn’t follow and I wasn’t thinking of that in a validity context, that is in part why I said the conclusion doesn’t follow as opposed to the conclusion cannot be true if the premises are true. But as I said, that’s on me.

And I still have doubts about validity...just need more time to work through it mentally.

But I’m more confident the conclusion doesn’t follow, and I say that in a manner not intended to speak upon validity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk