My argument from vision circular?

[Link]

I posted this on a different thread.

Let's discuss the validity of the argument here. Some people see my argument from God's vision as circular.

I am arguing in this thread, at the very least, it's a valid form of argument.

(V) Value to who we are
(S) Sight to who we are.
(G) God exists

If V then S. (If there is a value to who we are, there is a vision to who we are)
If S then G. (Only God can see who we are in terms of value nothing else can)
V (Who we are is not an illusion including the value part of who we are and our deeds)
Therefore G. (Therefore God exists)

This is a valid form. I would argue sound as well. But it's definitely not circular.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't know about circularity, but it is quite dogmatic indeed.

It needs some connection to the discernible reality. Probably also some clarification of the meanings of each statement and how they would connect to each other.

 

[Link]

I don't know about circularity, but it is quite dogmatic indeed.

It needs some connection to the discernible reality.

Do you mean it requires elaboration? I've done that before in the past.

 

[Link]

Probably also some clarification of the meanings of each statement and how they would connect to each other.

I elaborated them many times. But people usually think it's circular (they don't form the argument properly). But I can link you to threads where I elaborated.

 

[LuisDantas]

In all honesty, I doubt you can convince me. I'm quite immune to creator god claims, let alone those of Abrahamic strains and most of all Muslim ones.

But yes, elaboration might help.

If you want a suggestion for a starting point, I think that the second statement is the most arbitrary and therefore less convincing.

Why would a god be necessary to make what you call Sight of what we are possible?

 

[Link]

Why would a god be necessary to make what you call Sight of what we are possible?

Because our deeds take judgment and they form part of who we are. We have these two possibilities other than God seeing us accurately:

Our brain generates who we are in terms of value or different entities that are not God.

In these two scenarios, their perception is imperfect to our deeds and analysis of them, they are not perfect moral judges, and so will not be able to assess our value to the accurate degree.

Our brain develops more moral views as it develops, so when is completely right? And does our value fade away the more wrong we are?

Same with entities that perceive us. If they are imperfect they can be mistaken about who we are. In fact, even in relatively perfect, their vision is not absolute, unless God. There will be some ignorance and some assigning of value will not be perfectly accurate.

This leaves only God left. Only he can in theory perfectly assess our deeds and assign us our true value.

 

[LuisDantas]

Because our deeds take judgment and they form part of who we are. We have these two possibilities other than God seeing us accurately:

Our brain generates who we are in terms of value or different entities that are not God.

In these two scenarios, their perception is imperfect to our deeds and analysis of them, they are not perfect moral judges, and so will not be able to assess our value to the accurate degree.

Our brain develops more moral views as it develops, so when is completely right? And does our value fade away the more wrong we are?

Same with entities that perceive us. If they are imperfect they can be mistaken about who we are. In fact, even in relatively perfect, their vision is not absolute, unless God. There will be some ignorance and some assigning of value will not be perfectly accurate.

This leaves only God left. Only he can in theory perfectly assess our deeds and assign us our true value.

Sorry, I am just not following.

What is this Value that you speak of?

What do you mean when you say that our deeds take judgement?

How do you know that this apparently judgmental God that you speak of even exists?

 

[Link]

What is this Value that you speak of?

What do you mean when you say that our deeds take judgement?

I mean when we do something praiseworthy it get's + value. When we do something opposite to that, it get's - value. There is also types of actions which go to form our soul's beauty or ugliness depending on type of actions, but I am keeping this relatively simple.

 

[LuisDantas]

I mean when we do something praiseworthy it get's + value. When we do something opposite to that, it get's - value. There is also types of actions which go to form our soul's beauty or ugliness depending on type of actions, but I am keeping this relatively simple.

Looks like some mix of self-image and social acceptance to me. A very malleable thing.

 

[Link]

Looks like some mix of self-image and social acceptance to me. A very malleable thing.

Social constructs change, people to people, group to group, time to time, various sects and religions all differ.

Self-image if purely social construct is definitely a falsehood and an illusion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Social constructs change, people to people, group to group, time to time, various sects and religions all differ.

Self-image if purely social construct is definitely a falsehood and illusion.

I would not call it a falsehood. It is very changeable, and that is not really a bad thing. But not false.

I take it that you are proposing that there is ultimately something more solid, more objective that could or should be used instead, and that is validated by Allah?

If so, then you believe in what you believe. It is still a statement as opposed to an argument.

 

[Link]

I would not call it a falsehood. It is very changeable, and that is not really a bad thing. But not false.

How is not false if two people can have opposite views on the matter as far social construct goes?

 

[LuisDantas]

How is not false if two people can have opposite views on the matter as far social construct goes?

People can have honest disagreements. Even when they have perfect access to all relevant information.

That may be troubling, but it is also a reality of life.

 

[Link]

People can have honest disagreements. Even when they have perfect access to all relevant information.

That may be troubling, but it is also a reality of life.

I wouldn't base my identity on quicksand like that. And it's all quicksand like that without God.

 

[LuisDantas]

I wouldn't base my identity on quicksand like that. And it's all quicksand like that without God.

I guess that means that you are among those troubled, then.

I hope you find peace, but that does not mean that your claim is convincing or even realistic.

 

[Heyo]

I posted this on a different thread.

Let's discuss the validity of the argument here. Some people see my argument from God's vision as circular.

I am arguing in this thread, at the very least, it's a valid form of argument.

(V) Value to who we are
(S) Sight to who we are.
(G) God exists

If V then S. (If there is a value to who we are, there is a vision to who we are)
If S then G. (Only God can see who we are in terms of value nothing else can)
V (Who we are is not an illusion including the value part of who we are and our deeds)
Therefore G. (Therefore God exists)

This is a valid form. I would argue sound as well. But it's definitely not circular.

I have difficulty to see the validity. But I also have difficulty to see the form. That might be because of the language barrier. Neither you nor I are native English speakers.
You may want to confer with someone proficient in English and sympathetic (or at least neutral) to your cause.

E.g. Separate your statements into simple sentences. While it is not wrong to use a conditional as a premise, it becomes more readable if you make it a premise and a conclusion which becomes a new premise.

E.g.

P0.1 There is value in our existence.
P0.2 ??? (Existence leads to vision?)
C0.1 There is vision to who we are.

Also, you may need to reformulate
"If S then G. (Only God can see who we are in terms of value nothing else can)"
as you assume the existence of god here in a premise which makes it (formally) circular.

 

[Link]

I have difficulty to see the validity.

p1: V -> S
p2: S -> G
p3: V
c: G (V -> G from V -> S S->G)

This normally how you argue in logic.

And you state what letters represent:

(V) Value to who we are
(S) Sight to who we are.
(G) God exists

I stated them all in English too:

p1 If there is a value to who we are, there is a vision to who we are.
p2 Only God can see who we are in terms of value nothing else can.
p3 Who we are is not an illusion including the value part of who we are and our deeds
c Therefore God exists

 

[McBell]

p1: V -> S
p2: S -> G
p3: V
c: G (V -> G from V -> S S->G)

This normally how you argue in logic.

And you state what letters represent:

(V) Value to who we are
(S) Sight to who we are.
(G) God exists

I stated them all in English too:

p1 If there is a value to who we are, there is a vision to who we are.
p2 Only God can see who we are in terms of value nothing else can.
p3 Who we are is not an illusion including the value part of who we are and our deeds
c Therefore God exists

You were told that it did not make sense as posted.

So my question is, why would you repost the exact same thing that was not understood the first time over again?

 

[Heyo]

p2 Only God can see

Once again, this is begging the question. You want to prove the existence of "God", but you are already assuming it exists (and has a special property) in the premise. This is circular.

 

[danieldemol]

I posted this on a different thread.

So why are you reposting (unless you want your idea to be visible without the obvious refutations of it present)?