Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: The Bible speaks the truth therefore God exists?

  1. Top | #21
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,286
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,948
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison View Post
    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.
    Well, most of the time, validity is understood as the fact that the conclusion follows from the premises!

    This is also expressed by saying that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. Or, the conclusion is necessarily true if the premises are assumed true.

    Most people wouldn't know how to articulate their notion of validity. So, there is another way to say it. The word "validity" originally means healthy, able etc. So, broadly, a valid argument is one which is somehow seen as healthy and able. Since an argument's job is to justify a conclusion on the basis of premises, it will be seen as healthy and able if it does that job.

    However, there are arguments that seem to put people off track. In particular, ones with a religious content and more generally arguments with a conclusion that people really dislike.

    This one argument is also a bit weird because the premises are themselves arguments (valid arguments, too). It is definitely tricky to negotiate your way around that.

    I guess that, basically, people may get it wrong each time there is an interference and this may be extraneous information that put people off, like a religious message or whatever.

    But do come back when you've sorted out what you think. That's always interesting because the surprising thing here is that there are still things to discover about the logic of arguments, 2,500 years after Aristotle, in particular when we eschew the dogmatism of mathematical logic.
    EB

  2. Top | #22
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,178
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,391
    Rep Power
    54
    Your constraining validity to following from premises does not include material premises. There validity is the correspondence of behavior to measured reality. In this age of material reality it seems to me what applies is material validity rather than rational validity.

    You are a rationalist spinning in a material world. Yeah it would be nice if the world works as we believe it does then we might someday become perfect. It doesn't. Evolution has no direction. It just follows conditions. Conditions are not going to result in heaven either. As we understand it now conditions are going to go away at some point in the future. Behavior will cease.

  3. Top | #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    837
    Archived
    3,259
    Total Posts
    4,096
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison View Post
    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.
    Well, most of the time, validity is understood as the fact that the conclusion follows from the premises!

    This is also expressed by saying that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. Or, the conclusion is necessarily true if the premises are assumed true.

    Most people wouldn't know how to articulate their notion of validity. So, there is another way to say it. The word "validity" originally means healthy, able etc. So, broadly, a valid argument is one which is somehow seen as healthy and able. Since an argument's job is to justify a conclusion on the basis of premises, it will be seen as healthy and able if it does that job.

    However, there are arguments that seem to put people off track. In particular, ones with a religious content and more generally arguments with a conclusion that people really dislike.

    This one argument is also a bit weird because the premises are themselves arguments (valid arguments, too). It is definitely tricky to negotiate your way around that.

    I guess that, basically, people may get it wrong each time there is an interference and this may be extraneous information that put people off, like a religious message or whatever.

    But do come back when you've sorted out what you think. That's always interesting because the surprising thing here is that there are still things to discover about the logic of arguments, 2,500 years after Aristotle, in particular when we eschew the dogmatism of mathematical logic.
    EB
    I am familiar with the recognized notion of validity by those in the field of philosophy. I am also familiar with the notion of a strong argument, what you characterize as "healthy and able... an argument's job is to justify a conclusion on the basis of premises, it will be seen as healthy and able if it does that job." I am looking at validity as if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true, which is to say the conclusion cannot be false.

    Now, here is my objection to your argument.

    "](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."

    My thought, and I could be completely wrong, is implied "truth" does not mean truth. So, for instance in looking at one of the premises, God's existence implies the Bible is speaking the truth, but that does not mean the Bible is speaking the truth and does not demonstrate the Bible is speaking the truth.

Posting Permissions

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