Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Is this argument technically circular?

DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 10:00:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Obviously it's logically valid; I just want to know if it's technically circular.

1. If swords exist, then blacksmiths must exist.
2. Swords exist.
3. Therefore, blacksmiths exist.

"Swords" defined as "sharp weapons that only blacksmiths make" and "blacksmiths" defined as "people who make swords".
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 10:15:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:00:58 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Obviously it's logically valid; I just want to know if it's technically circular.

1. If swords exist, then blacksmiths must exist.
2. Swords exist.
3. Therefore, blacksmiths exist.

"Swords" defined as "sharp weapons that only blacksmiths make" and "blacksmiths" defined as "people who make swords".

The problem with this is the same as the problem with Anselm's Ontological argument for the existence of God.

You can only talk about a property of something when you have established their existence as true. If existence hinges on the property of the thing with its existence in question, it's fallacious.

The argument reduces down to "Swords and blacksmiths must either both exist or neither one can exist". It is tautological, but not circular.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 10:21:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:15:35 PM, Kleptin wrote:
The problem with this is the same as the problem with Anselm's Ontological argument for the existence of God.

You can only talk about a property of something when you have established their existence as true. If existence hinges on the property of the thing with its existence in question, it's fallacious.

The argument reduces down to "Swords and blacksmiths must either both exist or neither one can exist". It is tautological, but not circular.

Isn't tautology a form of circular reasoning? I would think that asserting the conclusion "Therefore, blacksmiths exist" from the premise "A weapon made by blacksmiths exists" would be question-begging, or something to the same effect.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 10:31:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:21:11 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:15:35 PM, Kleptin wrote:
The problem with this is the same as the problem with Anselm's Ontological argument for the existence of God.

You can only talk about a property of something when you have established their existence as true. If existence hinges on the property of the thing with its existence in question, it's fallacious.

The argument reduces down to "Swords and blacksmiths must either both exist or neither one can exist". It is tautological, but not circular.

Isn't tautology a form of circular reasoning? I would think that asserting the conclusion "Therefore, blacksmiths exist" from the premise "A weapon made by blacksmiths exists" would be question-begging, or something to the same effect.

Reversed. Circular reasoning is a form of tautology. A tautology is any situation in which all truth values end up being true in all situations, not just when all the premises are true.

Let's substitute your argument for something else.

Zork: Something that only Zips can make.
Zip: Things that make Zorks.

1. If Zorks exist, then Zips must exist.
2. Zorks exist
3. Therefore, Zips exist.

The question here is whether or not Zips exist. Since Zips are the only things to make Zorks, then we know that the existence of the Zork rests solely on the existence of the Zip.

The problem here is the second premise. You have actually cannot say that Zorks exist, you would have no way of knowing!

By granting the existence of the Zork, you make all outcomes true, regardless.

It's slightly different from circular logic, but it's related.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
IFLYHIGH
Posts: 5,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 10:45:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know this is kind of unrelated to what you are talking about, but is the following syllogism valid?

P1) If God exist, he is good.
P2) It is impossible to prove God is good.
C) It is impossible to know if God exist.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 10:48:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
chicken egg
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 10:58:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:31:43 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:21:11 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:15:35 PM, Kleptin wrote:
The problem with this is the same as the problem with Anselm's Ontological argument for the existence of God.

You can only talk about a property of something when you have established their existence as true. If existence hinges on the property of the thing with its existence in question, it's fallacious.

The argument reduces down to "Swords and blacksmiths must either both exist or neither one can exist". It is tautological, but not circular.

Isn't tautology a form of circular reasoning? I would think that asserting the conclusion "Therefore, blacksmiths exist" from the premise "A weapon made by blacksmiths exists" would be question-begging, or something to the same effect.

Reversed. Circular reasoning is a form of tautology. A tautology is any situation in which all truth values end up being true in all situations, not just when all the premises are true.

Let's substitute your argument for something else.

Zork: Something that only Zips can make.
Zip: Things that make Zorks.

1. If Zorks exist, then Zips must exist.
2. Zorks exist
3. Therefore, Zips exist.

The question here is whether or not Zips exist. Since Zips are the only things to make Zorks, then we know that the existence of the Zork rests solely on the existence of the Zip.

The problem here is the second premise. You have actually cannot say that Zorks exist, you would have no way of knowing!

By granting the existence of the Zork, you make all outcomes true, regardless.

It's slightly different from circular logic, but it's related.

Circular reasoning is when you have a your conclusion in your premise, already.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 10:58:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:45:31 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
I know this is kind of unrelated to what you are talking about, but is the following syllogism valid?

P1) If God exist, he is good.
P2) It is impossible to prove God is good.
C) It is impossible to know if God exist.

No. It's a non sequitor. Nothing lines up logically. C has nothing to do with either P1 or P2.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 10:59:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:00:58 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Obviously it's logically valid; I just want to know if it's technically circular.

1. If swords exist, then blacksmiths must exist.
2. Swords exist.
3. Therefore, blacksmiths exist.

"Swords" defined as "sharp weapons that only blacksmiths make" and "blacksmiths" defined as "people who make swords".

Thats not circulare but it does say that sword are the suffecient reason for black smiths.

so it depends if you consider anybody who makes a sword is always a blacksmith
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:00:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:59:41 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:00:58 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Obviously it's logically valid; I just want to know if it's technically circular.

1. If swords exist, then blacksmiths must exist.
2. Swords exist.
3. Therefore, blacksmiths exist.

"Swords" defined as "sharp weapons that only blacksmiths make" and "blacksmiths" defined as "people who make swords".

Thats not circulare but it does say that sword are the suffecient reason for black smiths.

so it depends if you consider anybody who makes a sword is always a blacksmith

That's included in the definition. Only blacksmiths can make swords, hence, the existence of the sword is dependent on the blacksmith
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
IFLYHIGH
Posts: 5,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:05:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:58:50 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:45:31 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
I know this is kind of unrelated to what you are talking about, but is the following syllogism valid?

P1) If God exist, he is good.
P2) It is impossible to prove God is good.
C) It is impossible to know if God exist.

No. It's a non sequitor. Nothing lines up logically. C has nothing to do with either P1 or P2.

God's existence is contingent upon him being good. Meaning if he exist, then he is also good. Since there is no way to prove God is good, then we cannot prove he exist.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:09:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:00:41 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:59:41 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:00:58 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Obviously it's logically valid; I just want to know if it's technically circular.

1. If swords exist, then blacksmiths must exist.
2. Swords exist.
3. Therefore, blacksmiths exist.

"Swords" defined as "sharp weapons that only blacksmiths make" and "blacksmiths" defined as "people who make swords".

Thats not circulare but it does say that sword are the suffecient reason for black smiths.

so it depends if you consider anybody who makes a sword is always a blacksmith

That's included in the definition. Only blacksmiths can make swords, hence, the existence of the sword is dependent on the blacksmith

The Fool: no its not included in the definition. If you consider that some one who makes a sword is always a black smith. Blacksmiths can make axes too.

Or maybe sometimes someone who makes a sword may not be a blacksmith. But an apprentise. If depend on how strick you are definition a black smith.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:11:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:05:39 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:58:50 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:45:31 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
I know this is kind of unrelated to what you are talking about, but is the following syllogism valid?

P1) If God exist, he is good.
P2) It is impossible to prove God is good.
C) It is impossible to know if God exist.

No. It's a non sequitor. Nothing lines up logically. C has nothing to do with either P1 or P2.

God's existence is contingent upon him being good. Meaning if he exist, then he is also good. Since there is no way to prove God is good, then we cannot prove he exist.

I think you have to prove objective moral also though. can you???
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:12:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:09:21 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:00:41 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:59:41 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:00:58 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Obviously it's logically valid; I just want to know if it's technically circular.

1. If swords exist, then blacksmiths must exist.
2. Swords exist.
3. Therefore, blacksmiths exist.

"Swords" defined as "sharp weapons that only blacksmiths make" and "blacksmiths" defined as "people who make swords".

Thats not circulare but it does say that sword are the suffecient reason for black smiths.

so it depends if you consider anybody who makes a sword is always a blacksmith

That's included in the definition. Only blacksmiths can make swords, hence, the existence of the sword is dependent on the blacksmith

The Fool: no its not included in the definition. If you consider that some one who makes a sword is always a black smith. Blacksmiths can make axes too.

Or maybe sometimes someone who makes a sword may not be a blacksmith. But an apprentise. If depend on how strick you are definition a black smith.

My thoughts exactly. Asserting that only one person/type of person can make something and then claiming that that person must exist because the object exists is false for this reason.
IFLYHIGH
Posts: 5,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:14:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:11:33 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:05:39 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:58:50 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:45:31 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
I know this is kind of unrelated to what you are talking about, but is the following syllogism valid?

P1) If God exist, he is good.
P2) It is impossible to prove God is good.
C) It is impossible to know if God exist.

No. It's a non sequitor. Nothing lines up logically. C has nothing to do with either P1 or P2.

God's existence is contingent upon him being good. Meaning if he exist, then he is also good. Since there is no way to prove God is good, then we cannot prove he exist.

I think you have to prove objective moral also though. can you???

Your question is my argument. Since nobody can prove objective morality, nobody can prove or disprove God.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:15:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:05:39 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
God's existence is contingent upon him being good. Meaning if he exist, then he is also good.

Something's existence cannot be contingent on an aspect of itself. You need to establish whether or not something exists before you can use its characteristics logically.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
IFLYHIGH
Posts: 5,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:19:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:15:42 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:05:39 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
God's existence is contingent upon him being good. Meaning if he exist, then he is also good.

Something's existence cannot be contingent on an aspect of itself. You need to establish whether or not something exists before you can use its characteristics logically.

If it was proven that if a Christian God exist, he is evil, can he still exist? Well since the scriptures say that he is Good, then I would say no.

If the existing entity or subject is already defined, then you can disprove it by disproving its attributes, right?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:22:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:15:42 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:05:39 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
God's existence is contingent upon him being good. Meaning if he exist, then he is also good.

Something's existence cannot be contingent on an aspect of itself. You need to establish whether or not something exists before you can use its characteristics logically.

By definition:
Object A is something that is B,C, and D.
An object that exists has attributes B, C, and D
Therefore it is object A
Therefore it exists.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
IFLYHIGH
Posts: 5,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:28:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:22:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:15:42 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:05:39 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
God's existence is contingent upon him being good. Meaning if he exist, then he is also good.

Something's existence cannot be contingent on an aspect of itself. You need to establish whether or not something exists before you can use its characteristics logically.

By definition:
Object A is something that is B,C, and D.
An object that exists has attributes B, C, and D
Therefore it is object A
Therefore it exists.

Thats why my argument says if God exist, then he is B,C, and D.
I have not admitted to the existence of A, all I have said is that if
A is B,C, and D and then it is impossible to know A because it is impossible to know if A is B,C, and D.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:35:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:14:42 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:11:33 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:05:39 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:58:50 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:45:31 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
I know this is kind of unrelated to what you are talking about, but is the following syllogism valid?

P1) If God exist, he is good.
P2) It is impossible to prove God is good.
C) It is impossible to know if God exist.

No. It's a non sequitor. Nothing lines up logically. C has nothing to do with either P1 or P2.

God's existence is contingent upon him being good. Meaning if he exist, then he is also good. Since there is no way to prove God is good, then we cannot prove he exist.

I think you have to prove objective moral also though. can you???

Your question is my argument. Since nobody can prove objective morality, nobody can prove or disprove God.

who said no body. ? I can
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 12:12:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:22:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:15:42 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:05:39 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
God's existence is contingent upon him being good. Meaning if he exist, then he is also good.

Something's existence cannot be contingent on an aspect of itself. You need to establish whether or not something exists before you can use its characteristics logically.

By definition:
Object A is something that is B,C, and D.
An object that exists has attributes B, C, and D
Therefore it is object A
Therefore it exists.

The existence of the object isn't contingent on its attributes in this proof. You're simply reuniting four characteristics together. A name of the object and the object's attributes.

Compare this with Anselm's ontological.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 12:17:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 12:12:22 AM, Kleptin wrote:
The existence of the object isn't contingent on its attributes in this proof. You're simply reuniting four characteristics together. A name of the object and the object's attributes.

Well, that's exactly what all assertions for "God" are, aren't they? "God" is "moral goodness/logic/the first cause". Then, of course, they say moral goodness exists, or logic exists, or the first cause must have existed. Therefore, "God" must exist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 10:51:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:00:58 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Obviously it's logically valid; I just want to know if it's technically circular.

1. If swords exist, then blacksmiths must exist.
2. Swords exist.
3. Therefore, blacksmiths exist.

"Swords" defined as "sharp weapons that only blacksmiths make" and "blacksmiths" defined as "people who make swords".

That would be like saying:

P1: If the universe exists, then God must exist
P2: The universe exists
P3: Therefore, God exists

It's not circular reasoning at all, the problem is the truth of P1 hasn't been established so it's a stale argument. With your argument though the first premise has been established, so the argument works and there is nothing wrong with it.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 6:52:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Its not circular. its perfectly sound. If you are saying only blacksmith can make swords.

An argument is circular if the conclusion is part of a premise. aka Begs the question.

That is, when an argument presummed the answer of the question its trying to answer.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 12:24:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:45:31 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
I know this is kind of unrelated to what you are talking about, but is the following syllogism valid?

P1) If God exist, he is good.
P2) It is impossible to prove God is good.
C) It is impossible to know if God exist.

The syllogism is valid. But upholding P2 is very difficult and it does not lead to conclusion you want.

Let us assume that we have proved P1. If using any argument, we can prove God exists, then automatically God is good via P1. This will violate P2!

Thus to prove P2 you have to prove that God's existence cannot be proved using any method whatsoever!
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 2:21:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you consider all the reasons why it is not true, then you can find the flaw in the argument. For instance, swords may have been created by Blacksmiths in the past but the Blacksmiths have all become extinct and hence the swords still exist but not the Blacksmiths.

If a sword can only be created by a blacksmith, then the argument does prove that Blacksmiths must have existed at some point in time. Therefore, it isn't circular if you consider "exist" to be in any time frame and not just the present.