RH, you still need to take a logic course.
On Sun, 3 Mar 1996 RHutchin@aol.com wrote:
> RH
> I think the problem here is that you do not understand what you are saying
> and have trouble expressing that which you think you know.
Doug Krueger says:
RH, I know EXACTLY what I am trying to say and how to say it. I know a lot about logic and I have taught courses both in informal and formal logic systems. You are the one who doesn't know about logic or about what you are saying. That's why you've had to take back things you've said and why you try to pretend that you didn't say things which you did say. That's why you write:
RH:
Why don't we start over with the initial point I made and let you try again.
Doug says:
Fine, but you have to re-read all of the logic stuff I've sent you before, especially the stuff about circular reasoning.
RH said:
The original point:
> > All religions are based on circular reasoning. The reasoning goes
like this. A god exists because a holy book says so. The holy book is
true because the god wrote it. Therefore, the god exists because the god
says so.
>
Doug says:
RH, I can sum up your position in two words, and the first word is "horse."
Read the next paragraphs carefully because this is the last time I'm going to teach you about circular reasoning. Print this and put it up on the wall near your computer.
An argument is a set of statements which include premises and a conclusion. The premises are intended to support the conclusion. The relationship of the premises to the conclusion, ideally, should be such that if the premises are true then the conclusion MUST be true. This is validity. An argument is either valid or invalid. The statements in it are either true or false.
Now, if you want to convince someone of your conclusion, and I mean convince a person who disagrees with your conclusion, it is best to use a valid argument. People who don't know much logic are often convinced by invalid arguments, but they shouldn't be. The argument should also be sound. A sound argument is a valid argument with premises which are all true. Thus, in a sound argument, the conclusion must be true. Now, for a sound argument to be a proof (that is, actually demonstrate its conclusion to be true), we must (1) know that all the premises really are true, and (2) we must be able to know that the premises are true without first knowing that the conclusion is true (i.e., it must not be circular). Why can't it be circular?
If an argument is circular, meaning that the conclusion of the argument is used in the premises, then it cannot be persuasive. One can derive any conclusion whatsoever if one uses circular reasoning. It is true that the circular argument is valid (if its premises are true then its conclusion must be true-- since the conclusion is in the premises!), but a circular argument cannot show that the conclusion is true, so in that sense the method is fallacious. It is a fallacy to beg the question, so circular reasoning is fallacious. It assumes the conclusion to be true and then purports, on the basis of this, to demonstrate that the conclusion is true. The conclusion MAY BE true, but circular reasoning provides no demonstration that it is true, and certainly no demonstration that it must be true.
In the past, I have given you examples of circular reasoning which can be used to show that other [nonXian] religions are true. This shows that your belief in Xianity, if it is based on circular reasoning, is purely arbitrary. You CANNOT show that anything is true based on circular reasoning. Your "main point" above is clearly circular reasoning, so it is worthless as an argument. It cannot convince anyone who disagrees with you because they have to agree with your premises to agree with the conclusion, but the conclusion is part of the premises! You commit a fallacy, RH. It is a recognized fallacy in logic. Get Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic, or Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic (or any standard intro to logic text) and look in the index for the section(s) on informal fallacies or the section specifically on begging the question/Petitio Principii/circular reasoning.
And take a logic course.