Members banned from this thread: Pragmatist


Page 171 of 171 FirstFirst ... 71121161169170171
Results 1,701 to 1,703 of 1703
Thanks Tree261Thanks

Thread: Atheist answer to the 10 Commandments: 10 Rational positions.

  1. #1701
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    315

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Since "bachelor" is an unmarried man by definition,
    Correct. And definitions are completely arbitrary. It is the premise part of the symmetry axiom -- that for any objects x and y, if x=y....

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    it is axiomatic.
    The axiom is the conclusion -- then y=x.

    In any case, the implication is that certain self-referencing argument are not necessarily false. As I said, circular arguments are not formal fallacies, rather, a defect in argument. They are not necessarily false (as formal fallacies are). A circular argument is a defective argument for the simple reason that it does not say anything other than something is what it is -- which we all know to be true in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    However, since belief and proof are not the same thing by definition, and in fact the definitions of the terms are entirely different, it is not axiomatic. it is nothing more than aboutenough just saying it is.
    Then you are making a definist fallacy. What you should have said is that belief is not necessarily proof. The reflexive and symmetry axioms are proof of themselves, are they not?

    Clearly, your statement is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    And yet that is the entire basis of aboutenough's position - his belief that it is true proves it is true.
    You are correct, of course that his argument is circular. You are incorrect to presume it is false simply because it is circular (reflexive and symmetry axioms).

    If you intend to claim that his argument is false, then you need to show that his premise leads to a contradiction. Have you done that?

    In fact, the opposite was already demonstrated to be false -- via the cosmological argument.

  2. #1702
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,683
    Thanks
    32775

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    And definitions are completely arbitrary.
    Irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    A circular argument is a defective argument for the simple reason that it does not say anything other than something is what it is -- which we all know to be true in the first place.
    It may be true, but it may not be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Then you are making a definist fallacy. What you should have said is that belief is not necessarily proof.
    Well, no. Belief is not proof, period. The conclusion may or may not be true, but one's belief that it is true has nothing to do with whether it is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    If you intend to claim that his argument is false, then you need to show that his premise leads to a contradiction.
    I need show nothing. He has claimed he has proof, and the only "evidence" he provides for that is his belief. Thus, he has shown nothing but his own belief, which proves nothing. His "argument" has no premises leading to his conclusion.

  3. #1703
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    315

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Irrelevant.
    Because it is arbitrary, as I already said.

    You were the one claiming that something is true 'by definition' and now you claim that definitions are 'irrelevant'.

    So which is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    It may be true, but it may not be true.
    Depending on what you can prove.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Well, no. Belief is not proof, period.
    An axiom is a justified belief. And axioms serve as starting points of logic -- hence are proofs by themselves, period.

    Exactly what parts of the reflexive and symmetry axioms do you have objections to?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    The conclusion may or may not be true, but one's belief that it is true has nothing to do with whether it is true.
    No. A belief is justified depending on what you can prove by either affirming or negating it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    I need show nothing. He has claimed he has proof, and the only "evidence" he provides for that is his belief. Thus, he has shown nothing but his own belief, which proves nothing. His "argument" has no premises leading to his conclusion.
    As already demonstrated, aboutenough's belief is justified because negating it leads to a contradiction.

    If you wish to claim that his belief is not justified, you need to demonstrate how affirming it leads to a contradiction, which you have not.

    If you claim that you need show nothing, then it is you who have proven nothing.

Similar Threads

  1. Rational reason to believe in God?
    By Communist Rationalist in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 26th July 2013, 09:01 PM
  2. Ask the Last Rational Man
    By JayMick in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 3rd February 2012, 04:41 PM
  3. Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10th April 2009, 12:20 AM
  4. Belief in God is rational
    By Vetruvius in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 18th February 2009, 07:56 AM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed