# Thread: The Bible speaks the truth therefore God exists?

1. 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:

2. ## Sink or swim? Yeah, just sink...

Originally Posted by sinkorswim
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!

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

DT

3. Is that too difficult?

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

Originally Posted by 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
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

4. Originally Posted by Speakpigeon

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

Fallacious
1. Containing fundamental errors in reasoning
EB

Flawed, fallacious and invalid.

5. Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
Is that too difficult?

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

Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
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'

6. Originally Posted by Random Person
Originally Posted by 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

7. 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?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•