All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

# It can be reasonable to believe the truth of a proposition without logical support.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 3/9/2015 Category: Philosophy Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 970 times Debate No: 71419
Debate Rounds (4)

9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by antiquesunlight 3 years ago
In case it seems like the conclusion of this argument is trivial:

Sometimes, I hear people say things like, "It is irrational to believe in God without reasons." The point of this argument is that those people themselves believe in reasons without reasons.
Posted by antiquesunlight 3 years ago
Yes, that's right. I'm still not completely satisfied about the second half, though. I think the challenge of this argument is to generalize from the two cases of logic and perception to something more general in a way that is valid. I rewrote the argument here in a way that I think is stronger and also simpler.

P = Some proposition.
K() = Knowing that.

If K(X), then K() and X.
Therefore,
If K(P), then K() and P.
Therefore,
If K(P), then P.
If P, then it is reasonable to believe that P.
Therefore,
If K(P), then it is reasonable to believe that P.

The essential claim of the argument is that K() is never a property of what is known but that whatever is known is a property of K().

What do you think of this version?
Posted by Leo.Messi 3 years ago
So would a,b, and c go like this?
L>(OvI)
~I
/O ?

(If L then O or I, Not I therefore O)
If so, this would be a valid argument, and since this is valid the second half of the argument would also be valid.
Posted by Leo.Messi 3 years ago
I will take some time to evaluate the rest in a bit, but you have done a great job.
Posted by Leo.Messi 3 years ago
a., b., and c., are valid. Excellent work ;)
Posted by FragileTag 3 years ago
You may want to define Logic
Posted by antiquesunlight 3 years ago
lol... Crazy, right? To be honest, I think I made a slight mistake in reasoning in my conclusion. Trying to decide if I should edit it or ride with it.
Posted by Joss_Whedon 3 years ago
Logic is supporting the inability for logic to support logic! AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Leo.Messi 3 years ago
Cool debate, good logic to support your proposition ;)
No votes have been placed for this debate.