tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post1798609867387253192..comments2023-07-03T04:15:38.436-07:00Comments on Apologetic Junkie: Logical Fallacy: "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Circular Reasoning"Aaronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16436136389787730133noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-71825741355101590912012-02-28T00:50:04.059-08:002012-02-28T00:50:04.059-08:00Fregas,
The trilemma specifically says that one m...Fregas,<br /><br /><b>The trilemma specifically says that one must rely either on circular logic, endless regress, or AN AXIOM, so you are proving my case.</b> <br /><br />You are correct, I would hold that the laws of logic are axiomatic. When you said the trilemma reigned supreme, I thought you were implying there was no solution, as if you were placing me on the "horns of a trilemma."<br /><br /><b>But why should the laws of logic be axiomatic and not something else? Why not experience? Or God Himself?</b><br /><br />Are you denying the laws of logic are axiomatic? If you want to make a case for experience, you are more than welcome. As for God, there are some philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga, who hold that belief in God is properly basic.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16436136389787730133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-84357054957132733742012-02-17T22:22:41.034-08:002012-02-17T22:22:41.034-08:00The trilemma specifically says that one must rely ...The trilemma specifically says that one must rely either on circular logic, endless regress, or AN AXIOM, so you are proving my case. But why should the laws of logic be axiomatic and not something else? Why not experience? Or God Himself?Fregashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01087971291007266896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-89477239222353028912012-02-17T21:15:57.713-08:002012-02-17T21:15:57.713-08:00Fregas,
The trilemma does not reign supreme. The ...Fregas,<br /><br />The trilemma does not reign supreme. The laws of logic are axiomatic. You cannot deny them without using them. I am not sure why recognizing these undeniable truths as foundational would be considered "arbitrary."Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16436136389787730133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-49120313807805108832011-09-12T06:49:47.843-07:002011-09-12T06:49:47.843-07:00Aaron, are you using logic to show me that the law...Aaron, are you using logic to show me that the laws of logic exist? :)Fregashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01087971291007266896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-42072717537997302782011-09-12T06:21:44.200-07:002011-09-12T06:21:44.200-07:00ha! yes. Thats exactly my point. :)
It seems no...ha! yes. Thats exactly my point. :) <br /><br />It seems no matter what worldview you take, you must have circular reasoning of some sort or begin with something one arbitrarily defines as axiomatic. You can't prove logic with logic. You can't prove empiricism with empiricism (although based on empiricism, empiricism, especially through science seems to work. ) So you have to start somewhere. The Münchhausen Trilemma reigns supreme.Fregashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01087971291007266896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-42921528142563339952011-09-11T22:16:13.186-07:002011-09-11T22:16:13.186-07:00Fregas,
Are you assuming the laws of logic in que...Fregas,<br /><br />Are you assuming the laws of logic in questioning the circularity of logic?Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16436136389787730133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-90572806371713059912011-09-11T00:38:23.490-07:002011-09-11T00:38:23.490-07:00Re abortion: This also begs the question of "...Re abortion: This also begs the question of "its the womans body" Does it not take two to make a child? Therefore why does the woman get the sole rights to abort?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-2548561872916451302011-08-27T12:20:39.134-07:002011-08-27T12:20:39.134-07:00How do you know logic shouldn't be circular? ...How do you know logic shouldn't be circular? Did log tell you that?Fregashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01087971291007266896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-90241470893343017632011-08-06T00:33:48.222-07:002011-08-06T00:33:48.222-07:00Anonymous,
I think you are creating a false dicho...Anonymous,<br /><br />I think you are creating a false dichotomy. The question of whether or not Jesus existed may be a matter of history/metaphysics, but how we know whether or not Jesus existed is a matter of epistemology.<br /><br />The person who says "Jesus never existed" is indeed making a metaphysical claim about reality and/or history. However, the person who says this is also making a <i>knowledge</i> claim, i.e., they are claiming to <i>know</i> that Jesus never existed. It is a claim to knowledge (epistemology) about ultimate reality (metaphysics). If they are <i>not</i> claiming to know this, their comment can simply be ignored or dismissed. <br /><br />So then the question becomes, how do they know this? How do they know Jesus never existed? This is where we need to be careful of circular reasoning.<br /><br />You stated,<br /><br /><b>Stories about Jesus existing do not speak in any way to whether or not he actually existed.</b> <br /><br />I'm not even sure what you mean by this. Why would historical documents written in the first century recording the life and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth not speak in any way to whether or not He actually existed? How exactly do you conduct historical research on historical persons? Do you carry this over to all historical persons?<br /><br />If you dismiss them as mere "stories" you are falling into circular reasoning again.<br /><br /><b>This is true also of common characters, about whom much has been written, but are widely know to have never physically existed.</b><br /><br />Once again, you yourself need to be careful of begging the question here. <br /><br /><b>My point is, inability to disprove all stories of Jesus' existence is in no way equivalent to proof of his existence.</b><br /><br />I didn't say that it was, and that is not my position. This is a straw-man.<br /><br /><b>The stories may or may not make it make more sense to believe one way or the other, but in reality have no bearing on the fact of the matter.</b><br /><br />True, a "story" in itself does not tell us whether or not the story is true. The question is whether or not we have good reason to believe what the story says, and so we are back to epistemology.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16436136389787730133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-50830927295027626012011-02-01T17:10:14.111-08:002011-02-01T17:10:14.111-08:00The section about Jesus' existence is, itself,...The section about Jesus' existence is, itself, logically fallacious. If the questions is "Did or did not Jesus exist?" then it doesn't matter who says what about his existence. This question, of existence, is metaphysical. <br /><br />The paragraph refers to the epistemological question of how one might know, if it is possible to know, whether or not Jesus existed. Stories about Jesus existing do not speak in any way to whether or not he actually existed. This is true also of common characters, about whom much has been written, but are widely know to have never physically existed. <br /><br />My point is, inability to disprove all stories of Jesus' existence is in no way equivalent to proof of his existence. The stories may or may not make it make more sense to believe one way or the other, but in reality have no bearing on the fact of the matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-19954697808886090912010-02-28T23:53:11.049-08:002010-02-28T23:53:11.049-08:00Circular Reasoning was used by the Jewish High Pri...Circular Reasoning was used by the Jewish High Priests against the Lord Jesus. They brought Jesus to the Roman judge for condemnation. Since the Roman jurisprudence laid down a strict procedure, the judge to follow the path of: Accusation -> Cross Examination -> Crime Proved -> Conviction -> Punishment. But this time they wished to the "Punishment" to follow arrest. The argument was: We arrested him, so punish him. But why punish him. Because he is a criminal. How can you say he is a criminal. The very fact that we arrested him proves he is a criminal, and so on. But when the judge examined Him procedurally, he had to declare, "I find no guilt in Him".Rolando Rangelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12574363479519991673noreply@blogger.com