It can be reasonable to believe the truth of a proposition without logical support.
Debate Rounds (4)
I shall attempt to prove the proposition, "It can be reasonable to believe the truth of a proposition without logical support."
a. If we know that our logical thoughts are true, we know it either because something other than logic identifies them as true or because logic identifies them as true.
b. But it can't be that logic identifies logic as true, because that would be circular.
c. Therefore, if we know that our logical thoughts are true, we know it because something other than logic identifies them as true.
d. If something other than logic is what identifies our logic as true, then the source of our knowledge of truth is not logic, but that other thing, call it X.
e. This same X or something very similar to this X, call it X', is what assures us that our perception of, say, our computer screen is not an illusion.
f. If X and X' are what assure us that our ideas and perceptions, respectively, are true, then it's not unreasonable to suppose it's possible that X, X', or something very similar to them could assure us that a proposition is true independent of logical support.
Facts is the events that exist or that have occurred non debatable cannot be denied or objected.
Reality is the result of theories that can be argued but it explain most of things most of time.
So if we ask about the truth of proposition we have to seek the facts about it and get close to nearest point to the reality according to our perception .
But we have to know that logicalness is the law of God made for our world bec. He made the facts and we try explaining reality according to his laws.
So logical support is a necessity to seek the truth of anything
It is not terribly clear to me what my opponent's argument exactly is, but it seems to be something like this:
If we want to know if a proposition is true, we have to try to find out what the facts are and explain them according to logical theories.
God made the laws of logic.
Therefore, logic is necessary for believing the truth of a proposition.
The conclusion of this argument comes out of the blue and does not even begin to follow logically from the two premises. Thus, there is no reason to accept my opponent's conclusion.
Furthermore, premise one, that we must seek facts and explain them according to "reality," which Con defines as "the result of theories that can be argued," apparently assumes the very point he is supposed to be proving: that it is unreasonable to believe the truth of a proposition without logical support.
For these reasons, I believe it remains reasonable to suppose that a proposition could be accepted without logical support and I look forward to Dr_lillo's analysis of my argument.
In fact , you misunderstand the difference between facts and reality. Facts aren't subjected to be part of logic world bec. we deduce from the facts the logic way of thinking . That doesn't mean that facts are not logic but they are the givings to prove what 's logic and what's not logic.
It is still unclear to me precisely what he is attempting to demonstrate. I am aware that fact and logic are different, but I fail to see how this observation is importantly relevant to our discussion.
Con has not addressed my objection that his argument seems to be circular. He claims that truth depends on facts and reality and defines reality as "the result of theories that can be argued." But how would you argue for it besides using facts and logic? So what he is really saying, as far as I can tell, is that truth depends on fact and logic and then concludes that you have to have logic to reasonably believe the truth of a proposition, which is the very thing he is supposed to be proving.
Moreover, what we are discussing is not truth itself but reasonable belief in the truth of some proposition. If our knowledge of the truth of a proposition depends on facts and logic, how do we know that fact and logic are true? Clearly, we don't know they are true because of more facts and logic. It must be that we somehow just know it. So we see that it is this "knowing" that we depend on for truth.
Or in other words:
What I am claiming is that if it isn't hypothetically reasonable to believe in the truth of a proposition without logical support, then it isn't reasonable to believe in logic, because none of us believe in logic because of logical support but rather because we just know that logic is correct. Now you might object that logic is not a proposition and so we do not need logical support for it. But what about the proposition, "It is the case that logic is a reliable source of truth." If you must have logical support to reasonably believe a proposition, then you must have logical reasons for believing that logic is a reliable source of truth. But that is nonsense.
The aim of this argument is to seek the truth of a proposition .
you offered wrong analysis in your argument in my point of view as you mentioned below :in round 1
"a. we know that our logical thoughts are true, we know it either because something other than logic identifies them as true or because logic identifies them as true.
b. But it can't be that logic identifies logic as true, because that would be circular. "
also in round 3 "If you must have logical support to reasonably believe a proposition, then you must have logical reasons for believing that logic is a reliable source of truth. But that is nonsense."
Instead, I offered the principles how to seek the truth in round 1 and round 2. get my conclusion according to these principles.
if you don't believe in them so let the voters decide .
you want to prove your proposition with no logical support . simply I find that you apply the subject we debate about .
Criticism one: The argument is vague and hard to understand and does not seem to be logically valid.
Criticism two: The argument seems to be circular.
I believe I have adequately justified and defended my claim that it can be reasonable to believe a proposition is true without logical support. The essential claim of my argument is that knowing is logically independent of method.
As far as I can tell, Con has not offered a single direct criticism of my argument nor has he defended my criticisms of his argument.
I am not obligated to analyze in your way .
let the voters decide which one of us described his method to prove his aim.
also, you stated my argument is vague and not logic so if you won this debate So you prove that i am right ;)
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.