Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: The Bible speaks the truth therefore God exists?

  1. Top | #1
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,303
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,965
    Rep Power
    46

    The Bible speaks the truth therefore God exists?

    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

  2. Top | #2
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Geogia USA
    Posts
    41
    Archived
    5
    Total Posts
    46
    Rep Power
    36
    And around and around and around we go.

    Sent from my LG-TP450 using Tapatalk

  3. Top | #3
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,947
    Rep Power
    12
    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.

  4. Top | #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    557
    Archived
    979
    Total Posts
    1,536
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    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.

  5. Top | #5
    Junior Member Poppa Popobawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    89
    Rep Power
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    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.
    Here is the tragedy of theology, in its distilled essence:
    The employment of high-powered human intellect,
    of genius, of profoundly rigorous logical deduction —
    studying nothing.
    { Andrew Bernstein }

  6. Top | #6
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,218
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,431
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    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.

  7. Top | #7
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,303
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,965
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    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

  8. Top | #8
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,303
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,965
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Random Person View Post
    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

  9. Top | #9
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,303
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,965
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Poppa Popobawa View Post
    This seems more valid :-
    So my argument is not valid. But why?

    And is it fallacious, and if so why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Poppa Popobawa View Post
    BTW, implies is a very waffly word.
    No, it isn't, not in the context of discussing the validity of a logical argument.
    EB

  10. Top | #10
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,947
    Rep Power
    12
    (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.

Posting Permissions

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