Religions favourite argument

[Princeps Eugenius]

Allow me to give you a perfectly logical argument:
1) Everything I say is true | Premise
2) I say that nothing presented in a logical argument is true | Premise
3) Nothing presented in a logical argument is true | Valid conclusion given 1 & 2

Logic allows us (most agree) to determine what inferences and deductions we can make given particular premises and so forth. An argument can be logical quite easily and be obviously wrong because validity doesn't require premises to be true.

It is a true statement and argument. But i can falsify premise one and thereby make it untrue. It is true until proven false. But isnt your argument contradicting itself also since you claim to always say the truth but you make yourself a liar by saying that nothing is true in an argument. however since you said that you say the truth and make an argument yourself it cant follow that there is no argument that says the truth. because if it were the case you would be lying.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It is a true statement and argument. But i can falsify premise one and thereby make it untrue. It is true until proven false.

Then by all means, prove it false.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Then by all means, prove it false.

I edited my post. The refutation is in the former response.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

since you claim to always say the truth but you make yourself a liar by saying that nothing is true in an argument.

I didn't say that.

however since you said that you say the truth and make an argument yourself it cant follow that there is no argument that says the truth

1) You haven't shown I've made an argument
2) I stated that nothing presented in a logical argument is true. You've left out the quantifiers.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

I didn't say that.


1) You haven't shown I've made an argument
2) I stated that nothing presented in a logical argument is true. You've left out the quantifiers.

I dont understand you. Sorry english is not my first language but are you trying to say that somehow presenting an argument is not similar as proving an argument? whats the difference and what are you saying with your statement? use simple english please.


As for 1) You said yourself: "Allow me to give you a perfectly logical argument"

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sorry english is not my first language

Very impressive! I study languages as part of my field and I wouldn't have guessed.

but are you trying to say that somehow presenting an argument is not similar as proving an argument?

There are two important distinctions. You stated that I made a claim about making a statement about all arguments. In actually, I stated that a property (namely, the property that nothing in this kind of argument is true) holds for BOTH of the following:
1) An argument that is logical
&
2) Nothing presented in that argument can be true
To prove I am wrong, you must show that it can't be the case that everything I say is true AND that IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT anything in any argument that
1) is presented
AND
2) is presented in an argument that is logical

is true.

For example, if there exists an argument that is logical and is true, this doesn't prove me wrong unless something in that argument is presented. Likewise, if you present something in an argument and it is true, this doesn't prove me wrong unless your argument isn't logical.

use simple english please.

Alas, logic doesn't translate to simple anything.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Very impressive! I study languages as part of my field and I wouldn't have guessed.


There are two important distinctions. You stated that I made a claim about making a statement about all arguments. In actually, I stated that a property (namely, the property that nothing in this kind of argument is true) holds for BOTH of the following:
1) An argument that is logical
&
2) Nothing presented in that argument can be true
To prove I am wrong, you must show that it can't be the case that everything I say is true AND that IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT anything in any argument that
1) is presented
AND
2) is presented in an argument that is logical

is true.

For example, if there exists an argument that is logical and is true, this doesn't prove me wrong unless something in that argument is presented. Likewise, if you present something in an argument and it is true, this doesn't prove me wrong unless your argument isn't logical.


Alas, logic doesn't translate to simple anything.

This is some sort of word gaming. You dont want to give a plain argument but instead try to bend the words into a whatever suits you. Any fool knows that premise 1 is false. one doesnt even need to go further since its not a possiblity. and i do see how you twisted my initial statement to mean that i cant disprove you since youre supposedly always saying the truth.


1) Every human being utters untruth frequently, knowingly or unknowingly.
2) You are a human being
Therefore you utter untruth frequently, knowingly or unknowingly


Lets see what the people will accept more: my argument or your argument that you always say the truth.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This is some sort of word gaming.

It is nothing of the sort. It is simply logic. I'll grant you that it is ungainly, complicated, etc., but that's why we normally don't use words to express such statements, we use e.g.,

Far more clear, but then one has to learn the formalism. That's what logic is: formal.

Any fool knows that premise 1 is false.

Hardly proof. Which is my point. You are actually relying on a classical fallacy ("any schoolboy knows...").

 

[1137]

Along with many of their arguments and what they believe is proof, my all time favorite is how they look for gaps in science and think AH SCIENCE CANT EXPLAIN X IT HAS TO BE RELIGIOUS!

Another one I like is "science can't prove there's no god" this obviously works both ways, but the big difference is that science attempts to provide solid proof whereas religion relies solely on faith and very little proof.

What's your favorite argument?

I like the fundie atheist argument that all religion is useless and evil, despite the well known benefits of its practices.

 

[McBell]

And where exactly have i made such an equivocation fallacy? The statement "everything presented in a logical argument is true unless proven false"? How? I cant follow your train of thought. And you make it even harder by not typing full sentences but giving links instead.

The link completely refutes and debunks your claim:

"everything presented in a logical argument is true unless proven false"​

Until such time as you can bring yourself to understand and accept the fact that your above quoted claim is just plain flat out wrong....

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

The link completely refutes and debunks your claim:

"everything presented in a logical argument is true unless proven false"​

Until such time as you can bring yourself to understand and accept the fact that your above quoted claim is just plain flat out wrong....

Do you accept that the link youve posted debunks my statement because its a logical argument that proves my former claim as false?
If so then youre actually proving it right.

 

[McBell]

Do you accept that the link youve posted debunks my statement because its a logical argument that proves my former claim as false?
If so then youre actually proving it right.

no.
Mainly because it is nothing more thn wishful thinking on your part.

YOU are the one with the burden to prove your premise regardless of how you present said premise.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

no.
Mainly because it is nothing more thn wishful thinking on your part.

YOU are the one with the burden to prove your premise regardless of how you present said premise.

in logic there is no evidence. you embrace it because it makes sense. in mathematics there is no evidence. you embrace it because it makes sense. thats why i said that its true unless it is prove false.

 

[McBell]

in logic there is no evidence you embrace it because it makes sense. in mathematics there is no evidence you embrace it because it makes sense. thats why i said that its true unless it is prove false.

And the link shows you are wrong.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

And the link shows you are wrong.

Are you sure you gave me the right link because the link you gave me was talking about ham sandwiches and eternal bliss or aspiring and getting rid of children and whatnot. im not sure how it relates still. can you, like, point where the fallacy lies?

 

[McBell]

Are you sure you gave me the right link because the link you gave me was talking about ham sandwiches and eternal bliss or aspiring and getting rid of children and whatnot. im not sure how it relates still. can you, like, point where the fallacy lies?

Being logically sound does not make it true.
You still have the burden of showing it is true.
You seem to think that if you present in a logically sound manner, you have no burden of proof.
This is just plain flat out not true.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Being logically sound does not make it true.
You still have the burden of showing it is true.
You seem to think that if you present in a logically sound manner, you have no burden of proof.
This is just plain flat out not true.

the burden of proof is the logic itself. one wouldnt embrace something illogical. and how is this equavocational fallacy?

 

[Riverwolf]

the burden of proof is the logic itself. one wouldnt embrace something illogical.

Most of the things we know are true about the world seem logically impossible, based on our senses and logical deduction alone. By our senses and logical deduction, we are the center of the universe (we're not), the sun circles the earth, along with all the other planets and stars (they don't) and (unless you're a sailor in which case you know better) Earth is flat (it isn't).

Aristotle may have been a master genius, but he was still wrong about most of the things he talked about, and Plato's "ideal state" is pretty bloody fascist.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Most of the things we know are true about the world seem logically impossible, based on our senses and logical deduction alone. By our senses and logical deduction, we are the center of the universe (we're not), the sun circles the earth, along with all the other planets and stars (they don't) and (unless you're a sailor in which case you know better) Earth is flat (it isn't).

Aristotle may have been a master genius, but he was still wrong about most of the things he talked about, and Plato's "ideal state" is pretty bloody fascist.

Absolutely but the same ancient philosophers discovered that the earth was round and that the earth was circling the sun and they also discovered how big the size of the earth is by calculating the measurement of shadows. It didnt take anything outside of logic to discover truth. Just a fresh wind of imagination and reinterpretation.

 

[Kirran]

Absolutely but the same ancient philosophers discovered that the earth was round and that the earth was circling the sun and they also discovered how big the size of the earth is by calculating the measurement of shadows. It didnt take anything outside of logic to discover truth. Just a fresh wind of imagination and reinterpretation.

Logic alone gets us nowhere. It has to have a substrate to work with.