The Bible speaks the Truth therefore God exists?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Speakpigeon, Aug 23, 2019.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,493

    Sure, it's logically valid. It reduces to:

    P1. A.
    P2. B.
    C. A and B.

    Depends what you mean by fallacious. It's garbage in, garbage out. The conclusion is only as good as the premises.

    Refer to my more-concise version, above. If A or B is false, the conclusion immediately collapses in a heap. It's not the logic that is at fault, it's the assumption that P1 and P2 are truths in the first place.

    ----
    Edit: Reading down, I see that Sarkus got to this before I did, so please excuse the repetition.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,122
    OK, good.

    But then that makes the argument unsound, not fallacious.
    GIGO applies equally to all valid arguments.
    A fallacy is an argument where the reasoning is somehow flawed.
    It is usually accepted that valid arguments can be fallacious.
    Your comment suggests you don't see this one as fallacious, only unsound.
    EB
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,870
    In order for reasoning to be flawed - or sound - there would have to be reasoning.
    What you've got there is three consecutive iterations of the same unfounded pair of factors connected by an unsupported "therefore". These are not premises and conclusion.
    What's dressed up as an argument is merely three rearranged versions of the same statement.
    This would be so, even if the content were gold, not garbage.

    p1. Gold (and Gold implies garbage) therefore garbage
    p2. garbage (and garbage implies gold) therefore gold
    C: therefore Gold and garbage
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,493
    As I said, that's just a matter of which terminology you prefer to use. If you prefer to use "unsound" to refer to informal fallacies, I don't have a problem with that.

    Again, we could, were we so inclined, quibble over words and definitions. I'm not particularly fussed, either way.

    You might say that the "reasoning" is only what is in the formal logical argument as set out, from which it follows that if the premises are garbage then the argument is merely unsound, as opposed to fallacious. On the other hand, you might say that the soundness of the premises is part of the "reasoning", in which case the unsoundness is a "fallacy", albeit of an informal kind.
     
  8. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,122
    Donald Trump is French;
    All French people speak French;
    Therefore, Donald Trump speaks French.​

    This is valid but unsound. I don't think anyone would claim it is fallacious or that the reasoning is flawed. The premises are merely false.
    The same form of argument could be applied to Macron instead of Trump, so you don't want to say that a sound argument is the same as a fallacious argument but with true premises.
    EB
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,493
    I don't have anything to add to my last post. No need to repeat myself.
     

Share This Page