Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[instantc]

I'm confused by your concession that your argument is not sound, but that somehow it is still valid.

I said that if not sound, it is at least valid. There is a difference between validity and soundness. Validity means that the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Soundness means that in addition to that, all the premises are correct.

This version claims the nonexistence of a being 'without which anything at all cannot exist and therefore nothing exists. Again this is circular.

Please be more clear whether you attack validity of the argument, or the correctness of one or more of the premises.

It's not circular, it's a valid deduction. It is true, dictated by logic, that if the being, without which A cannot exist, does not exist, then A does not exist. Is it not? Do you suggest that this as such is circular, or only when combined with the second premise?

If you add to that premise (2) such a being does not exist, then it logically follows that A does not exist. So if the premises were true, then the conclusion follows. That means that the argument is at least valid. At this point we are past your accusation of circularity, since a circular argument is not valid. Now, the only thing left in order to refute the soundness of the argument is to attack the correctness of one or both of the premises.

I'll try to restate your argument with simpler language:

1. If there does not exist a being necessary to existence, then nothing exists.
2. There is no such being.
3. Therefore nothing exists.

Do you now see how your argument is circular, both unsound, and invalid?

Now you have obscured my argument beyond recognition. The premise (1) is easier to handle if you put it in a general form, if the being, without which A cannot exist, does not exist, then A does not exist. This as such is not circular, and the addition (2) there is no being without which A couldn't exist doesn't make it anymore circular.

When you deal with logical arguments, you have to be precise as to what you are challenging, one of the premises or the validity.

[instantc]

What the sentence really means can be more clearly shown with two distinct sentences:

1A. Without the being, anything at all could not exist.
1B. If the being doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

I don't think that is identical, i.e. an accurate restatement, to the original premise. Your (1A) doesn't say anything.

1. If the being without which anything at all cannot exist doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

But that doesn't work either. It's in fact invalid logic. This is because "without which anything at all cannot exist" becomes integrated into the noun of "the being". Therefore, if it doesn't exist, then neither does it's quality of being necessary for other things to exist.

I don't think this is true, consider an example. Chair legs are necessary for the existence of my chair. If the legs don't exist, then the complete chair doesn't exist. So, their quality of being necessary for the chair doesn't go away even if I take the legs away. What do you think?

This argument is just awful. First off, "the being" is a loaded term. It should be "the thing", or even better, simply "something". And then the answer is Nature. "The being" is Nature. Simple as that.

It is a loaded term, but how does that affect the validity of the conditional in (1)?

[Danmark]

I'm confused by your concession that your argument is not sound, but that somehow it is still valid.

I said that if not sound, it is at least valid. There is a difference between validity and soundness. Validity means that the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Soundness means that in addition to that, all the premises are correct.

This version claims the nonexistence of a being 'without which anything at all cannot exist and therefore nothing exists. Again this is circular.

Please be more clear whether you attack validity of the argument, or the correctness of one or more of the premises.

It's not circular, it's a valid deduction. It is true, dictated by logic, that if the being, without which A cannot exist, does not exist, then A does not exist. Is it not? Do you suggest that this as such is circular, or only when combined with the second premise?

If you add to that premise (2) such a being does not exist, then it logically follows that A does not exist. So if the premises were true, then the conclusion follows. That means that the argument is at least valid. At this point we are past your accusation of circularity, since a circular argument is not valid. Now, the only thing left in order to refute the soundness of the argument is to attack the correctness of one or both of the premises.

I'll try to restate your argument with simpler language:

1. If there does not exist a being necessary to existence, then nothing exists.
2. There is no such being.
3. Therefore nothing exists.

Do you now see how your argument is circular, both unsound, and invalid?

Now you have obscured my argument beyond recognition. The premise (1) is easier to handle if you put it in a general form, if the being, without which A cannot exist, does not exist, then A does not exist. This as such is not circular, and the addition (2) there is no being without which A couldn't exist doesn't make it anymore circular.

When you deal with logical arguments, you have to be precise as to what you are challenging, one of the premises or the validity.

Yes that is true, when dealing with 'logical arguments.' In this case your argument is not logical. It also suffers from unnecessarily complicated, obfuscating language as I have pointed out along with Far...: "Aside from using loaded terms, the grammar is needlessly complicated to the point that I think you don't even understand what you're even saying. "

You have failed to demonstrate how my restatement of your argument is unfair or misrepresents your argument.

Finally, when the initial premise is faulty, the entire argument becomes invalid.

Your argument is circular because it begins with what you are trying to end up with.[see Dowden, Bradley (27 March, 2003), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Let's return to the problematic premise:
1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

Stripped of accretions of obfuscating grammar, this makes a conditional claim about a being necessary to all existence.

In other words, you claim there must be a god because he is necessary to existence and since things exist, god must exist.

[instantc]

Your argument is circular because it begins with what you are trying to end up with.[see Dowden, Bradley (27 March, 2003), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

An argument is circular if it assumes in the premises that what it intends to prove. My premise (1) only assumes a conditional statement, from which certain things follow. It is not circular, the conclusion is by no means assumed in the premise (1).

Consider this:

(1) if it rains outside, I will get wet
(2) it rains outside
(3) I will get wet

This argument begins with what it intends to prove, but it doesn't take it for granted, so there is no circularity.

In other words, you claim there must be a god because he is necessary to existence and since things exist, god must exist.

Again, you are the one obscuring the argument unnecessarily, there is no circularity as I explain above.

[Danmark]

Nothing? No evidence? Why are you still here?

I made up this argument for you, already discussed it a bit in the philosophy section:

1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

2. Anything at all does exist

3. The being, without which anything at all couldn't exist, does exist....

You have asserted that this argument has already been discussed in the 'philosophy section.' Please cite to that subtopic. I suspect that if it was discussed there, it ran into the same problems and objections. It might be helpful to review them.

[instantc]

Nothing? No evidence? Why are you still here?

I made up this argument for you, already discussed it a bit in the philosophy section:

1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

2. Anything at all does exist

3. The being, without which anything at all couldn't exist, does exist....

You have asserted that this argument has already been discussed in the 'philosophy section.' Please cite to that subtopic. I suspect that if it was discussed there, it ran into the same problems and objections. It might be helpful to review them.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 8&start=40

I think that FarWanderer is right in that 'the being' is a loaded term and should in fact read 'the thing'.


You have made two objections so far,

First, you said that (1) would imply the existence of the being without which anything cannot exist. This is not true as it reads IF the being exists ...

Second, you accuse me of circularity, and I think I have explained why the argument is not circular, as neither premise alone presupposes the conclusion.

[Danmark]

Your argument is circular because it begins with what you are trying to end up with.[see Dowden, Bradley (27 March, 2003), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

An argument is circular if it assumes in the premises that what it intends to prove. My premise (1) only assumes a conditional statement, from which certain things follow. It is not circular, the conclusion is by no means assumed in the premise (1).

Consider this:

(1) if it rains outside, I will get wet
(2) it rains outside
(3) I will get wet

This argument begins with what it intends to prove, but it doesn't take it for granted, so there is no circularity.

I'm not sure how a 2d faulty argument buttresses your first faulty argument.

You are correct, this too is circular and false.

Your 2 and 3 simply restate your first premise.

As an example of this problem:
You will not get wet if you are wearing proper rain gear while you are outside.

Please review:

Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.


Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you� is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.�

It shares much with the false authority fallacy because we accept these statements based solely on the fact that someone else claims it to be so. Often, we feel we can trust another person so much that we often accept his claims without testing the logic. This is called blind trust, and it is very dangerous. We might as well just talk in circles.


EXAMPLE 1

A confused student argues: “You can’t give me a C. I’m an A student!�

Circular reasoning is problematic because the claim is made on grounds that cannot be accepted as true — because those very grounds are in dispute. How can a student claim to be an A student when he just earned a C?

To clarify, no one is an “A student� by definition. Grades are earned in every class and are derived from a variety of different methods. The requirements in one class are set by the school and the instructor, so the same class taught by a different teacher or in a different location should yield two very different results (final grades). Merely claiming to be an A student does not make the claim valid.

NOTE: The false authority fallacy also applies here — you cannot use yourself as your own authority with total certainty. A doctor is more qualified to diagnose your shoulder pain than you are; your teachers are better qualified to evaluate your performance than a student.


EXAMPLE 2

A satisfied citizen says: “Richardson is the most successful mayor the town has ever had because he's the best mayor of our history.�

The second part of this sentence offers no evidence — it simply repeats the claim that was already presented. Don’t be fooled into believing that using the word “because� in an argument automatically provides a valid reason. Be sure to provide clear evidence to support your claims, not a version of the premise (the initial statement in an argument).


EXAMPLE 3

An obvious non-smoker blurts: “Can a person quit smoking? Of course — as long as he has sufficient willpower and really wants to quit.�

This statement contains a more subconscious version of circular reasoning. The intended argument simply repeats itself, disguised as a logical statement. The warrant is simple: “A person can quit because he can.� True, any smoker can quit, but the task is not as obvious or as easy to accomplish as the statement suggests. The arguer must provide reasons to suggest how a person can overcome an addiction, not to simply identify the obvious use of will power. This example also falls into distortion and the only reason fallacies.
http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logf ... rcular.htm

[instantc]

Your argument is circular because it begins with what you are trying to end up with.[see Dowden, Bradley (27 March, 2003), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

An argument is circular if it assumes in the premises that what it intends to prove. My premise (1) only assumes a conditional statement, from which certain things follow. It is not circular, the conclusion is by no means assumed in the premise (1).

Consider this:

(1) if it rains outside, I will get wet
(2) it rains outside
(3) I will get wet

This argument begins with what it intends to prove, but it doesn't take it for granted, so there is no circularity.

I'm not sure how a 2d faulty argument buttresses your first faulty argument.

You are correct, this too is circular and false.

Your 2 and 3 simply restate your first premise.

I think you are a bit confused about deductive arguments. The premises of every deductive argument necessarily comprise the conclusion, since otherwise the conclusion wouldn't follow from the premises (hence the fact that logical arguments don't tell you anything that you don't already know). The above rain argument is the simplest possible text book example of a valid syllogism.

From the facts that (1) I'll get wet if it rains outside and (2) it rains outside, it follows that I will get wet. It's completely valid logic, nothing faulty or circular there. If the conclusion would be included in one of the premises alone, then the argument would be circular and question begging, but as (3) follows as a combination of (1) and (2), not from (1) or (2) alone, it is a valid deduction.

[otseng]

posting snotty comments

First the forum atheist types about 7 million snotty posts about how stooopid theists are, and then when cornered retreats in to all kinds of equivocations. This is a very tired and worn out technique, and not worthy of your intelligence.

Moderator Comment

It's best not to describe posts as snotty comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Danmark]

Your argument is circular because it begins with what you are trying to end up with.[see Dowden, Bradley (27 March, 2003), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

An argument is circular if it assumes in the premises that what it intends to prove. My premise (1) only assumes a conditional statement, from which certain things follow. It is not circular, the conclusion is by no means assumed in the premise (1).

Consider this:

(1) if it rains outside, I will get wet
(2) it rains outside
(3) I will get wet

This argument begins with what it intends to prove, but it doesn't take it for granted, so there is no circularity.

I'm not sure how a 2d faulty argument buttresses your first faulty argument.

You are correct, this too is circular and false.

Your 2 and 3 simply restate your first premise.

I think you are a bit confused about deductive arguments. The premises of every deductive argument necessarily comprise the conclusion, since otherwise the conclusion wouldn't follow from the premises (hence the fact that logical arguments don't tell you anything that you don't already know). The above rain argument is the simplest possible text book example of a valid syllogism.

From the facts that (1) I'll get wet if it rains outside and (2) it rains outside, it follows that I will get wet. It's completely valid logic, nothing faulty or circular there. If the conclusion would be included in one of the premises alone, then the argument would be circular and question begging, but as (3) follows as a combination of (1) and (2), not from (1) or (2) alone, it is a valid deduction.

I believe I understand deductive arguments well enough; here is a basic example:

All humans are animals.
John is human.
Therefore John is an animal.

But as you discovered in the related subtopic, deductive argument alone is insufficient for finding truth.
For example:

All humans are fish.
John is a human.
Therefore John is a fish.

Perfectly logical. A valid argument, but false nonetheless due to its faulty premise:
"All humans are fish."

A circular argument is similar in that it starts with a faulty premise, the very conclusion one wants to arrive at, such as in the example where the confused student argues "You can't give me a C because I am an A student."

The student can't claim to be an A student when he just received a C:

A confused student argues: “You can’t give me a C. I’m an A student!�

Circular reasoning is problematic because the claim is made on grounds that cannot be accepted as true — because those very grounds are in dispute. How can a student claim to be an A student when he just earned a C?

To clarify, no one is an “A student� by definition. Grades are earned in every class and are derived from a variety of different methods. The requirements in one class are set by the school and the instructor, so the same class taught by a different teacher or in a different location should yield two very different results (final grades). Merely claiming to be an A student does not make the claim valid.