Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What do people on this site think of circular

skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 10:33:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Arguments...I'm just curious if circular arguments are voted for or against ,regardless of their content , in the debating then voting section of this website. Here's why I ask. I've read a circular argument that as of yet only one person has responded to it being circular. I admit I didnt read everyone's response so it's possible someone else pointed it out in there replies, but it might have been obscured from me amongst the rhetoric....this is the circular argument I'm referring to...

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist

Within the statement then the universe wasn't created, which is a part of the first premise, it is implied that the following is also being said, there was no God to create the universe, therefore there was no existing.creator God. The conclusion of this argument also states, therefore God (the creator) doesn't exist. Which is a part of the reality within a "non created universe".
Anyone think this circular argument is anything other than self affirmation, ego stroking, reinforced personal belief,or a person merely agreeing with themselves? Does anyone think this type of discourse contributes anything consequential to furthering the conversation overall, whatever conversation it is suppose to contribute to. Personally I think this person has no clue that he merely started at a and ended up at a , a child can do as much.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 10:35:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 10:33:15 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Arguments...I'm just curious if circular arguments are voted for or against ,regardless of their content , in the debating then voting section of this website. Here's why I ask. I've read a circular argument that as of yet only one person has responded to it being circular. I admit I didnt read everyone's response so it's possible someone else pointed it out in there replies, but it might have been obscured from me amongst the rhetoric....this is the circular argument I'm referring to...

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist


Within the statement then the universe wasn't created, which is a part of the first premise, it is implied that the following is also being said, there was no God to create the universe, therefore there was no existing.creator God. The conclusion of this argument also states, therefore God (the creator) doesn't exist. Which is a part of the reality within a "non created universe".
Anyone think this circular argument is anything other than self affirmation, ego stroking, reinforced personal belief,or a person merely agreeing with themselves? Does anyone think this type of discourse contributes anything consequential to furthering the conversation overall, whatever conversation it is suppose to contribute to. Personally I think this person has no clue that he merely started at a and ended up at a , a child can do as much.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 10:45:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 10:33:15 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Arguments...I'm just curious if circular arguments are voted for or against ,regardless of their content , in the debating then voting section of this website. Here's why I ask. I've read a circular argument that as of yet only one person has responded to it being circular. I admit I didnt read everyone's response so it's possible someone else pointed it out in there replies, but it might have been obscured from me amongst the rhetoric....this is the circular argument I'm referring to...

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist


Within the statement then the universe wasn't created, which is a part of the first premise, it is implied that the following is also being said, there was no God to create the universe, therefore there was no existing.creator God. The conclusion of this argument also states, therefore God (the creator) doesn't exist. Which is a part of the reality within a "non created universe".
Anyone think this circular argument is anything other than self affirmation, ego stroking, reinforced personal belief,or a person merely agreeing with themselves? Does anyone think this type of discourse contributes anything consequential to furthering the conversation overall, whatever conversation it is suppose to contribute to. Personally I think this person has no clue that he merely started at a and ended up at a , a child can do as much.

Lol, how did I reply to my own post? Hitting the back button posted me twice?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 11:19:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm willing to vote for a circular argument, if they logical fallacy isn't pointed out. I need my hand held by the debaters, when I'm judging.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 8:19:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 10:33:15 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Arguments...I'm just curious if circular arguments are voted for or against ,regardless of their content , in the debating then voting section of this website. Here's why I ask. I've read a circular argument that as of yet only one person has responded to it being circular. I admit I didnt read everyone's response so it's possible someone else pointed it out in there replies, but it might have been obscured from me amongst the rhetoric....this is the circular argument I'm referring to...

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist


Within the statement then the universe wasn't created, which is a part of the first premise, it is implied that the following is also being said, there was no God to create the universe, therefore there was no existing.creator God. The conclusion of this argument also states, therefore God (the creator) doesn't exist. Which is a part of the reality within a "non created universe".
Anyone think this circular argument is anything other than self affirmation, ego stroking, reinforced personal belief,or a person merely agreeing with themselves? Does anyone think this type of discourse contributes anything consequential to furthering the conversation overall, whatever conversation it is suppose to contribute to. Personally I think this person has no clue that he merely started at a and ended up at a , a child can do as much.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how this is circular. If we formalize it:

1: E -> ~C
2: E
3: ~C
4: G = (I & C)
5: ~G

It doesn't seem to be circular. It's not as though the first premise is specifically claiming that God does not exist. It's saying that God's non-existence is a consequence of Eternalism.

For reference purposes, an argument is defined as being circular if one or more of its premises are the same as its conclusion. If you're saying that this is circular because the third premise is assumed and not proven, that's different. The correct response would be "It is valid but not sound" as opposed to "It is circular".
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 9:21:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 8:19:17 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/6/2015 10:33:15 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Arguments...I'm just curious if circular arguments are voted for or against ,regardless of their content , in the debating then voting section of this website. Here's why I ask. I've read a circular argument that as of yet only one person has responded to it being circular. I admit I didnt read everyone's response so it's possible someone else pointed it out in there replies, but it might have been obscured from me amongst the rhetoric....this is the circular argument I'm referring to...

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist


Within the statement then the universe wasn't created, which is a part of the first premise, it is implied that the following is also being said, there was no God to create the universe, therefore there was no existing.creator God. The conclusion of this argument also states, therefore God (the creator) doesn't exist. Which is a part of the reality within a "non created universe".
Anyone think this circular argument is anything other than self affirmation, ego stroking, reinforced personal belief,or a person merely agreeing with themselves? Does anyone think this type of discourse contributes anything consequential to furthering the conversation overall, whatever conversation it is suppose to contribute to. Personally I think this person has no clue that he merely started at a and ended up at a , a child can do as much.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how this is circular. If we formalize it:

1: E -> ~C
2: E
3: ~C
4: G = (I & C)
5: ~G

It doesn't seem to be circular. It's not as though the first premise is specifically claiming that God does not exist. It's saying that God's non-existence is a consequence of Eternalism.

For reference purposes, an argument is defined as being circular if one or more of its premises are the same as its conclusion. If you're saying that this is circular because the third premise is assumed and not proven, that's different. The correct response would be "It is valid but not sound" as opposed to "It is circular".
No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the first premise has implied truths. I will give an analogy. If my first premise is
All birds have wings..is one of the implied claims that those songs are attached to it? Or does the claim refer to a bird merely having some wings laying around the nest to throw at other birds?

No problem I will accept your assertion that it "doesn't seem" circular. Which would mean you are saying in an uncreated universe a Creator God could possibly exist? If so then you are contradicting the conclusion. The conclusion wouldn't follow the reasoning of what is implied in the first premise, right? There fore the conclusion isn't true.
If it is circular reasoning it is only valid in content if you already agree the conclusion is true. If you already agree the conclusion is true then you can't believe that the conclusion is possibly false. Which would contradict what you premise as it not being circular on.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 9:22:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 8:19:17 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/6/2015 10:33:15 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Arguments...I'm just curious if circular arguments are voted for or against ,regardless of their content , in the debating then voting section of this website. Here's why I ask. I've read a circular argument that as of yet only one person has responded to it being circular. I admit I didnt read everyone's response so it's possible someone else pointed it out in there replies, but it might have been obscured from me amongst the rhetoric....this is the circular argument I'm referring to...

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist


Within the statement then the universe wasn't created, which is a part of the first premise, it is implied that the following is also being said, there was no God to create the universe, therefore there was no existing.creator God. The conclusion of this argument also states, therefore God (the creator) doesn't exist. Which is a part of the reality within a "non created universe".
Anyone think this circular argument is anything other than self affirmation, ego stroking, reinforced personal belief,or a person merely agreeing with themselves? Does anyone think this type of discourse contributes anything consequential to furthering the conversation overall, whatever conversation it is suppose to contribute to. Personally I think this person has no clue that he merely started at a and ended up at a , a child can do as much.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how this is circular. If we formalize it:

1: E -> ~C
2: E
3: ~C
4: G = (I & C)
5: ~G

It doesn't seem to be circular. It's not as though the first premise is specifically claiming that God does not exist. It's saying that God's non-existence is a consequence of Eternalism.

For reference purposes, an argument is defined as being circular if one or more of its premises are the same as its conclusion. If you're saying that this is circular because the third premise is assumed and not proven, that's different. The correct response would be "It is valid but not sound" as opposed to "It is circular".

Sorry those wings not songs, I should have proofread.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 11:27:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 8:19:17 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/6/2015 10:33:15 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Arguments...I'm just curious if circular arguments are voted for or against ,regardless of their content , in the debating then voting section of this website. Here's why I ask. I've read a circular argument that as of yet only one person has responded to it being circular. I admit I didnt read everyone's response so it's possible someone else pointed it out in there replies, but it might have been obscured from me amongst the rhetoric....this is the circular argument I'm referring to...

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist


Within the statement then the universe wasn't created, which is a part of the first premise, it is implied that the following is also being said, there was no God to create the universe, therefore there was no existing.creator God. The conclusion of this argument also states, therefore God (the creator) doesn't exist. Which is a part of the reality within a "non created universe".
Anyone think this circular argument is anything other than self affirmation, ego stroking, reinforced personal belief,or a person merely agreeing with themselves? Does anyone think this type of discourse contributes anything consequential to furthering the conversation overall, whatever conversation it is suppose to contribute to. Personally I think this person has no clue that he merely started at a and ended up at a , a child can do as much.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how this is circular. If we formalize it:

1: E -> ~C
2: E
3: ~C
4: G = (I & C)
5: ~G

It doesn't seem to be circular. It's not as though the first premise is specifically claiming that God does not exist. It's saying that God's non-existence is a consequence of Eternalism.

For reference purposes, an argument is defined as being circular if one or more of its premises are the same as its conclusion. If you're saying that this is circular because the third premise is assumed and not proven, that's different. The correct response would be "It is valid but not sound" as opposed to "It is circular".

Unless the premises are true, 'It is valid but not sound' would apply to circular arguments as well, since circular arguments are by definition valid :P
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 11:58:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 11:27:20 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 9/7/2015 8:19:17 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/6/2015 10:33:15 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Arguments...I'm just curious if circular arguments are voted for or against ,regardless of their content , in the debating then voting section of this website. Here's why I ask. I've read a circular argument that as of yet only one person has responded to it being circular. I admit I didnt read everyone's response so it's possible someone else pointed it out in there replies, but it might have been obscured from me amongst the rhetoric....this is the circular argument I'm referring to...

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist


Within the statement then the universe wasn't created, which is a part of the first premise, it is implied that the following is also being said, there was no God to create the universe, therefore there was no existing.creator God. The conclusion of this argument also states, therefore God (the creator) doesn't exist. Which is a part of the reality within a "non created universe".
Anyone think this circular argument is anything other than self affirmation, ego stroking, reinforced personal belief,or a person merely agreeing with themselves? Does anyone think this type of discourse contributes anything consequential to furthering the conversation overall, whatever conversation it is suppose to contribute to. Personally I think this person has no clue that he merely started at a and ended up at a , a child can do as much.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how this is circular. If we formalize it:

1: E -> ~C
2: E
3: ~C
4: G = (I & C)
5: ~G

It doesn't seem to be circular. It's not as though the first premise is specifically claiming that God does not exist. It's saying that God's non-existence is a consequence of Eternalism.

For reference purposes, an argument is defined as being circular if one or more of its premises are the same as its conclusion. If you're saying that this is circular because the third premise is assumed and not proven, that's different. The correct response would be "It is valid but not sound" as opposed to "It is circular".

Unless the premises are true, 'It is valid but not sound' would apply to circular arguments as well, since circular arguments are by definition valid :PH

Re umm, what is it that people don't want to confront in their heads that makes you think this has anything to do with defining it as valid or sound? Is it circular reasoning , (circular logic) therefore not persuasive and irrelevant to debate because persuasion is an aspect of determining who has a stronger position. By definition all circular logic is logically fallacious. Informal or formal is also irrelevant.
Second if you are saying it Is valid then it has the equivelant value as the following,
If it is true that men have four legs then Pluto is made of cheese,
It is true that men have four legs,
Therefore, Pluto is made of cheese.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 12:16:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 11:58:34 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:27:20 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 9/7/2015 8:19:17 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/6/2015 10:33:15 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Arguments...I'm just curious if circular arguments are voted for or against ,regardless of their content , in the debating then voting section of this website. Here's why I ask. I've read a circular argument that as of yet only one person has responded to it being circular. I admit I didnt read everyone's response so it's possible someone else pointed it out in there replies, but it might have been obscured from me amongst the rhetoric....this is the circular argument I'm referring to...

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist


Within the statement then the universe wasn't created, which is a part of the first premise, it is implied that the following is also being said, there was no God to create the universe, therefore there was no existing.creator God. The conclusion of this argument also states, therefore God (the creator) doesn't exist. Which is a part of the reality within a "non created universe".
Anyone think this circular argument is anything other than self affirmation, ego stroking, reinforced personal belief,or a person merely agreeing with themselves? Does anyone think this type of discourse contributes anything consequential to furthering the conversation overall, whatever conversation it is suppose to contribute to. Personally I think this person has no clue that he merely started at a and ended up at a , a child can do as much.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how this is circular. If we formalize it:

1: E -> ~C
2: E
3: ~C
4: G = (I & C)
5: ~G

It doesn't seem to be circular. It's not as though the first premise is specifically claiming that God does not exist. It's saying that God's non-existence is a consequence of Eternalism.

For reference purposes, an argument is defined as being circular if one or more of its premises are the same as its conclusion. If you're saying that this is circular because the third premise is assumed and not proven, that's different. The correct response would be "It is valid but not sound" as opposed to "It is circular".

Unless the premises are true, 'It is valid but not sound' would apply to circular arguments as well, since circular arguments are by definition valid :PH

Re umm, what is it that people don't want to confront in their heads that makes you think this has anything to do with defining it as valid or sound? Is it circular reasoning , (circular logic) therefore not persuasive and irrelevant to debate because persuasion is an aspect of determining who has a stronger position. By definition all circular logic is logically fallacious. Informal or formal is also irrelevant.
Not sure what you meant by the bold part. The definition of valid is that there is no situation in which all the premises are true, but the conclusion is false. If the conclusion itself is one of the premises, then there is no situation in which the premise is true but the conclusion is at the same time false, so question-begging arguments must be valid.

Of course, a circular argument is not a good argument because a good argument is defined as an argument that:
a) Has valid premises
b) Is either valid or inductively strong
c) Does not beg the question
d) Has premises that a plausible and relevant to the conclusion.

Second if you are saying it Is valid then it has the equivelant value as the following,
If it is true that men have four legs then Pluto is made of cheese,
It is true that men have four legs,
Therefore, Pluto is made of cheese.
Of course this is a valid argument... It's a modus ponens... It is unsound though.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 12:37:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As for the actual question (sorry for derailing it with an irrelevant observation, albeit one I found interesting), I agree with surrealism that this argument is not actually circular.

I'll use Surrealism's symbols. Unless I'm reading the OP wrong, he believes that ~G is part of ~C and thus the argument begs the question. However, P1 never said ~C, only E -> ~C. ~C *can* be false, as long as E is false. We can construct an SL truth to show that:

E | ~C | E -> ~C
T | T | T
F| T | T
T | F | F
F | F | T

If ~C is false, E -> ~C can still be false. ~C was never assumed in the first premise.

At 9/7/2015 9:21:34 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the first premise has implied truths. I will give an analogy. If my first premise is
All birds have wings..is one of the implied claims that those songs are attached to it? Or does the claim refer to a bird merely having some wings laying around the nest to throw at other birds?
If I'm reading this correctly, do you mean that E -> ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies that the wings are attached to the birds? Because I really don't see how these two situations are analogous.

However, if you mean that ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies the wings are attached to the birds (and I agree with this), then Surrealism is right and the argument was not circular...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 1:58:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 12:37:49 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
As for the actual question (sorry for derailing it with an irrelevant observation, albeit one I found interesting), I agree with surrealism that this argument is not actually circular.

I'll use Surrealism's symbols. Unless I'm reading the OP wrong, he believes that ~G is part of ~C and thus the argument begs the question. However, P1 never said ~C, only E -> ~C. ~C *can* be false, as long as E is false. We can construct an SL truth to show that:

E | ~C | E -> ~C
T | T | T
F| T | T
T | F | F
F | F | T

If ~C is false, E -> ~C can still be false. ~C was never assumed in the first premise.

At 9/7/2015 9:21:34 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the first premise has implied truths. I will give an analogy. If my first premise is
All birds have wings..is one of the implied claims that those songs are attached to it? Or does the claim refer to a bird merely having some wings laying around the nest to throw at other birds?
If I'm reading this correctly, do you mean that E -> ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies that the wings are attached to the birds? Because I really don't see how these two situations are analogous.

However, if you mean that ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies the wings are attached to the birds (and I agree with this), then Surrealism is right and the argument was not circular...

Ok, please explain the following questions...

Does an "uncreated " theory about the universe include a creator God ?
Does premise 4 qualify the reference to a creator in direct correlation to a created universe?
If so, doesn't that imply that a reference to an "uncreated" universe would include the lack a creator God?
If you are saying that the uncreated reference to the universe theory "COULD INCLUDE" a creator God, doesn't that therefore mean that it is possible that the conclusion is false? If its possible to you the conclusion is false, by definition there is no reason for you to accept all premises as true and therefore require more justification or evidence to support them? As stated below.
Based on circularity in arguments an individual must accept the conclusion as true and not have contradictory possibilities in the other premises. If the individual doesn't presuppose the conclusion is true....what then?
Here is a complete reference to identifying circular reasoning....this says specifically there is no reason to accept the premises unless you already accept the conclusion as true...well do you? Because if you do, then you cannot argue that it is possibly true that a creator God COULD exist in an uncreated universe theory, because you would be contradicting yourself.
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[2] Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[3]
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 2:02:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 12:37:49 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
As for the actual question (sorry for derailing it with an irrelevant observation, albeit one I found interesting), I agree with surrealism that this argument is not actually circular.

I'll use Surrealism's symbols. Unless I'm reading the OP wrong, he believes that ~G is part of ~C and thus the argument begs the question. However, P1 never said ~C, only E -> ~C. ~C *can* be false, as long as E is false. We can construct an SL truth to show that:

E | ~C | E -> ~C
T | T | T
F| T | T
T | F | F
F | F | T

If ~C is false, E -> ~C can still be false. ~C was never assumed in the first premise.

At 9/7/2015 9:21:34 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the first premise has implied truths. I will give an analogy. If my first premise is
All birds have wings..is one of the implied claims that those songs are attached to it? Or does the claim refer to a bird merely having some wings laying around the nest to throw at other birds?
If I'm reading this correctly, do you mean that E -> ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies that the wings are attached to the birds? Because I really don't see how these two situations are analogous.

However, if you mean that ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies the wings are attached to the birds (and I agree with this), then Surrealism is right and the argument was not circular...
if I say birds have wings do you automatically assume I mean attached to them?
If I say then the universe wasn't created, do you automatically assume I mean it didn't have a creator?
If you don't automatically assume that uncreated universe theory also means no creator, please explain why...Its about what is implied...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 2:04:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 2:02:03 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/7/2015 12:37:49 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
As for the actual question (sorry for derailing it with an irrelevant observation, albeit one I found interesting), I agree with surrealism that this argument is not actually circular.

I'll use Surrealism's symbols. Unless I'm reading the OP wrong, he believes that ~G is part of ~C and thus the argument begs the question. However, P1 never said ~C, only E -> ~C. ~C *can* be false, as long as E is false. We can construct an SL truth to show that:

E | ~C | E -> ~C
T | T | T
F| T | T
T | F | F
F | F | T

If ~C is false, E -> ~C can still be false. ~C was never assumed in the first premise.

At 9/7/2015 9:21:34 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the first premise has implied truths. I will give an analogy. If my first premise is
All birds have wings..is one of the implied claims that those songs are attached to it? Or does the claim refer to a bird merely having some wings laying around the nest to throw at other birds?
If I'm reading this correctly, do you mean that E -> ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies that the wings are attached to the birds? Because I really don't see how these two situations are analogous.

However, if you mean that ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies the wings are attached to the birds (and I agree with this), then Surrealism is right and the argument was not circular...
if I say birds have wings do you automatically assume I mean attached to them?
Yes.
If I say then the universe wasn't created, do you automatically assume I mean it didn't have a creator?
Yes. Yet it was never assumed in P1) that the universe was not created, i.e. ~C. The first premise was E -> ~C, which, as I have shown in the truth table above, does not imply ~C.

I'll respond to your other post later as I'm still struggling to understand it...
If you don't automatically assume that uncreated universe theory also means no creator, please explain why...Its about what is implied...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 2:09:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 2:04:46 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 9/7/2015 2:02:03 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/7/2015 12:37:49 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
As for the actual question (sorry for derailing it with an irrelevant observation, albeit one I found interesting), I agree with surrealism that this argument is not actually circular.

I'll use Surrealism's symbols. Unless I'm reading the OP wrong, he believes that ~G is part of ~C and thus the argument begs the question. However, P1 never said ~C, only E -> ~C. ~C *can* be false, as long as E is false. We can construct an SL truth to show that:

E | ~C | E -> ~C
T | T | T
F| T | T
T | F | F
F | F | T

If ~C is false, E -> ~C can still be false. ~C was never assumed in the first premise.

At 9/7/2015 9:21:34 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the first premise has implied truths. I will give an analogy. If my first premise is
All birds have wings..is one of the implied claims that those songs are attached to it? Or does the claim refer to a bird merely having some wings laying around the nest to throw at other birds?
If I'm reading this correctly, do you mean that E -> ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies that the wings are attached to the birds? Because I really don't see how these two situations are analogous.

However, if you mean that ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies the wings are attached to the birds (and I agree with this), then Surrealism is right and the argument was not circular...
if I say birds have wings do you automatically assume I mean attached to them?
Yes.
If I say then the universe wasn't created, do you automatically assume I mean it didn't have a creator?
))))Yes. Yet it was never assumed in P1) that the universe was not created, i.e. ~C. The first premise was E -> ~C, which, as I have shown in the truth table above, does not imply ~C.

I'll respond to your other post later as I'm still struggling to understand it...
If you don't automatically assume that uncreated universe theory also means no creator, please explain why...Its about what is implied...
You are right premise one never assumed that the universe was not created, it flat out says that it wasn't, if eternalism is true. The following premise says eternalism is true therefore premise one isnt assuming uncreated universe it is flat out claiming it.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 2:17:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 2:09:38 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/7/2015 2:04:46 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 9/7/2015 2:02:03 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/7/2015 12:37:49 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
As for the actual question (sorry for derailing it with an irrelevant observation, albeit one I found interesting), I agree with surrealism that this argument is not actually circular.

I'll use Surrealism's symbols. Unless I'm reading the OP wrong, he believes that ~G is part of ~C and thus the argument begs the question. However, P1 never said ~C, only E -> ~C. ~C *can* be false, as long as E is false. We can construct an SL truth to show that:

E | ~C | E -> ~C
T | T | T
F| T | T
T | F | F
F | F | T

If ~C is false, E -> ~C can still be false. ~C was never assumed in the first premise.

At 9/7/2015 9:21:34 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the first premise has implied truths. I will give an analogy. If my first premise is
All birds have wings..is one of the implied claims that those songs are attached to it? Or does the claim refer to a bird merely having some wings laying around the nest to throw at other birds?
If I'm reading this correctly, do you mean that E -> ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies that the wings are attached to the birds? Because I really don't see how these two situations are analogous.

However, if you mean that ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies the wings are attached to the birds (and I agree with this), then Surrealism is right and the argument was not circular...
if I say birds have wings do you automatically assume I mean attached to them?
Yes.
If I say then the universe wasn't created, do you automatically assume I mean it didn't have a creator?
))))Yes. Yet it was never assumed in P1) that the universe was not created, i.e. ~C. The first premise was E -> ~C, which, as I have shown in the truth table above, does not imply ~C.

I'll respond to your other post later as I'm still struggling to understand it...
If you don't automatically assume that uncreated universe theory also means no creator, please explain why...Its about what is implied...
You are right premise one never assumed that the universe was not created, it flat out says that it wasn't, if eternalism is true. The following premise says eternalism is true therefore premise one isnt assuming uncreated universe it is flat out claiming it.
So your problem is with lines 3 - 5 of the argument, right? I need to make sure we're on the same page...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 2:21:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 1:58:11 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/7/2015 12:37:49 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
As for the actual question (sorry for derailing it with an irrelevant observation, albeit one I found interesting), I agree with surrealism that this argument is not actually circular.

I'll use Surrealism's symbols. Unless I'm reading the OP wrong, he believes that ~G is part of ~C and thus the argument begs the question. However, P1 never said ~C, only E -> ~C. ~C *can* be false, as long as E is false. We can construct an SL truth to show that:

E | ~C | E -> ~C
T | T | T
F| T | T
T | F | F
F | F | T

If ~C is false, E -> ~C can still be false. ~C was never assumed in the first premise.

At 9/7/2015 9:21:34 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the first premise has implied truths. I will give an analogy. If my first premise is
All birds have wings..is one of the implied claims that those songs are attached to it? Or does the claim refer to a bird merely having some wings laying around the nest to throw at other birds?
If I'm reading this correctly, do you mean that E -> ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies that the wings are attached to the birds? Because I really don't see how these two situations are analogous.

However, if you mean that ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies the wings are attached to the birds (and I agree with this), then Surrealism is right and the argument was not circular...

Ok, please explain the following questions...

Does an "uncreated " theory about the universe include a creator God ?
No.
Does premise 4 qualify the reference to a creator in direct correlation to a created universe?
If by that you mean according to premise 4, iff God exists, then the universe was created, then yes.
If so, doesn't that imply that a reference to an "uncreated" universe would include the lack a creator God?
Yes.
If you are saying that the uncreated reference to the universe theory "COULD INCLUDE" a creator God, doesn't that therefore mean that it is possible that the conclusion is false? If its possible to you the conclusion is false, by definition there is no reason for you to accept all premises as true and therefore require more justification or evidence to support them? As stated below.
Based on circularity in arguments an individual must accept the conclusion as true and not have contradictory possibilities in the other premises. If the individual doesn't presuppose the conclusion is true....what then?
Where in the premises of the argument was it presupposed that the condition was true...? That is the question here...
Here is a complete reference to identifying circular reasoning....this says specifically there is no reason to accept the premises unless you already accept the conclusion as true...well do you? Because if you do, then you cannot argue that it is possibly true that a creator God COULD exist in an uncreated universe theory, because you would be contradicting yourself.
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[2] Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[3]
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 2:32:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 1:58:11 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/7/2015 12:37:49 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
As for the actual question (sorry for derailing it with an irrelevant observation, albeit one I found interesting), I agree with surrealism that this argument is not actually circular.

I'll use Surrealism's symbols. Unless I'm reading the OP wrong, he believes that ~G is part of ~C and thus the argument begs the question. However, P1 never said ~C, only E -> ~C. ~C *can* be false, as long as E is false. We can construct an SL truth to show that:

E | ~C | E -> ~C
T | T | T
F| T | T
T | F | F
F | F | T

If ~C is false, E -> ~C can still be false. ~C was never assumed in the first premise.

At 9/7/2015 9:21:34 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the first premise has implied truths. I will give an analogy. If my first premise is
All birds have wings..is one of the implied claims that those songs are attached to it? Or does the claim refer to a bird merely having some wings laying around the nest to throw at other birds?
If I'm reading this correctly, do you mean that E -> ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies that the wings are attached to the birds? Because I really don't see how these two situations are analogous.

However, if you mean that ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies the wings are attached to the birds (and I agree with this), then Surrealism is right and the argument was not circular...

Ok, please explain the following questions...

Does an "uncreated " theory about the universe include a creator God ?
No
Does premise 4 qualify the reference to a creator in direct correlation to a created universe?
Yes, assuming 'direct correlation' refers to a biconditional relationship.
If so, doesn't that imply that a reference to an "uncreated" universe would include the lack a creator God?
Yes
If you are saying that the uncreated reference to the universe theory "COULD INCLUDE" a creator God, doesn't that therefore mean that it is possible that the conclusion is false? If its possible to you the conclusion is false, by definition there is no reason for you to accept all premises as true and therefore require more justification or evidence to support them? As stated below.
Based on circularity in arguments an individual must accept the conclusion as true and not have contradictory possibilities in the other premises. If the individual doesn't presuppose the conclusion is true....what then?
How was the conclusion presupposed in this argument then?
Here is a complete reference to identifying circular reasoning....this says specifically there is no reason to accept the premises unless you already accept the conclusion as true...well do you? Because if you do, then you cannot argue that it is possibly true that a creator God COULD exist in an uncreated universe theory, because you would be contradicting yourself.
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[2] Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[3]
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 2:42:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Can we look at it this way? You assume that if the universe is not created, then God does not exist, in the same way that if a bird has wings, the wings are connected to the bird. That's good.

However, this is your a priori assumption, based on your common sense. You can't accuse the argument of begging the question because this a priori assumption + the third statement entails the conclusion, since the a priori assumption was never assumed in lines 1-3.

The fourth statement is where your a priori assumption actually entered the story. (5) logically follows from (3) and (4).

So yeah, from a formal perspective, the argument has never been circular, since the conclusion was not actually present in any of the premises.

This sort of argument would be circular:
P1) A & B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, logically, A must be true according to P1). Yet this modus ponens argument is not:
P1) B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, even if you assume B -> A a priori because of 'common sense', B does not entail B -> A.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 3:13:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 2:42:59 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Can we look at it this way? You assume that if the universe is not created, then God does not exist, in the same way that if a bird has wings, the wings are connected to the bird. That's good.

However, this is your a priori assumption, based on your common sense. You can't accuse the argument of begging the question because this a priori assumption + the third statement entails the conclusion, since the a priori assumption was never assumed in lines 1-3.

The fourth statement is where your a priori assumption actually entered the story. (5) logically follows from (3) and (4).

So yeah, from a formal perspective, the argument has never been circular, since the conclusion was not actually present in any of the premises.

This sort of argument would be circular:
P1) A & B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, logically, A must be true according to P1). Yet this modus ponens argument is not:
P1) B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, even if you assume B -> A a priori because of 'common sense', B does not en

A Priori means....one that can be derived by reason alone...after all, Im not claiming its a mere assumption though I may express it that way, I'm flat out saying that when reason is applied it is concluded.

Ok, please explain how the phrase then the universe wasn't created does not therefore seem reasonable to assume a creator God didn't create it.

Because I am flat out saying that when I applied my ability to reason to the statement "then the universe wasn't created," its was obvious and reasonable that it means a creator God wasn't in existence. If it doesn't, explain why its unreasonable. With language, not math, because I can prove with math that a straight line is a 160 degree angle using acceptable equations in geometry., doesn't mean I've proven shittte.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 3:16:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 2:42:59 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Can we look at it this way? You assume that if the universe is not created, then God does not exist, in the same way that if a bird has wings, the wings are connected to the bird. That's good.

However, this is your a priori assumption, based on your common sense. You can't accuse the argument of begging the question because this a priori assumption + the third statement entails the conclusion, since the a priori assumption was never assumed in lines 1-3.

The fourth statement is where your a priori assumption actually entered the story. (5) logically follows from (3) and (4).

So yeah, from a formal perspective, the argument has never been circular, since the conclusion was not actually present in any of the premises.

This sort of argument would be circular:
P1) A & B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, logically, A must be true according to P1). Yet this modus ponens argument is not:
P1) B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, even if you assume B -> A a priori because of 'common sense', B does not entail B -> A.

Sorry about some repetition , i forget to erase things in order to put them together, lol
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 3:30:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 2:42:59 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
you claim this..
.So yeah, from a formal perspective, the argument has never been circular, since the conclusion was not actually present in any of the premises.

The conclusion was never present in any of the premises?
Premise 3..... therefore the universe was NOT CREATED
How is There is no creator God not a reasonable part of this premise? I.e, a priori conclusion
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 4:11:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 2:42:59 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Can we look at it this way? You assume that if the universe is not created, then God does not exist, in the same way that if a bird has wings, the wings are connected to the bird. That's good.

However, this is your a priori assumption, based on your common sense. You can't accuse the argument of begging the question because this a priori assumption + the third statement entails the conclusion, since the a priori assumption was never assumed in lines 1-3.

The fourth statement is where your a priori assumption actually entered the story. (5) logically follows from (3) and (4).

So yeah, from a formal perspective, the argument has never been circular, since the conclusion was not actually present in any of the premises.

This sort of argument would be circular:
P1) A & B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, logically, A must be true according to P1). Yet this modus ponens argument is not:
P1) B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, even if you assume B -> A a priori because of 'common sense', B does not entail B -> A.
Formal perspective isn't relevant to circular reasoning because circular logic isn't a formal logical fallacy in the first place it is a pragmatic defect in reasoning. Bet you're an atheist? You're white knuckling this one. I'm gonna get you to admit a creator God COULD exist in a theory of a non created universe so you will contradict yourself,and the argument,Its obvious bud. You keep holding onto this argument all you want, it's self evident what you are trying to avoid saying, typical deflections and evasions. Either way, you're getting emotionally discontented and I have you beat. Once again. FROM A FORMAL PERSPECTIVE ISNT RELEVANT. Wanna try again with your justification?
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 5:14:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 2:42:59 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Can we look at it this way? You assume that if the universe is not created, then God does not exist, in the same way that if a bird has wings, the wings are connected to the bird. That's good.

However, this is your a priori assumption, based on your common sense. You can't accuse the argument of begging the question because this a priori assumption + the third statement entails the conclusion, since the a priori assumption was never assumed in lines 1-3.

The fourth statement is where your a priori assumption actually entered the story. (5) logically follows from (3) and (4).

So yeah, from a formal perspective, the argument has never been circular, since the conclusion was not actually present in any of the premises.

This sort of argument would be circular:
P1) A & B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, logically, A must be true according to P1). Yet this modus ponens argument is not:
P1) B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, even if you assume B -> A a priori because of 'common sense', B does not entail B -> A.
Ok lets do one more thing......remember this , by your definition, cannot be circular.

If eternalism is false, then the universe was created
Eternalism is false
therefore the universe was created
God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
Therefore God exists
Not circular reasoning as defined by you. Valid in form as defined by you...is it sound, if not then neither is the one you are defending. Any objections to this? Just so you know. If you disagree with the conclusion, by definition you are questioning this as circular logic. If it isn't circular then tell me why you are questioning the conclusion since by definition it is exactly the same reasoning as the argument you are defending. If there isn't a flaw in reasoning, you accept this argument with the same fervor you are defending the other. What's good for the goose is good for the gander......
mrsatan
Posts: 418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:24:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 5:14:35 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/7/2015 2:42:59 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Can we look at it this way? You assume that if the universe is not created, then God does not exist, in the same way that if a bird has wings, the wings are connected to the bird. That's good.

However, this is your a priori assumption, based on your common sense. You can't accuse the argument of begging the question because this a priori assumption + the third statement entails the conclusion, since the a priori assumption was never assumed in lines 1-3.

The fourth statement is where your a priori assumption actually entered the story. (5) logically follows from (3) and (4).

So yeah, from a formal perspective, the argument has never been circular, since the conclusion was not actually present in any of the premises.

This sort of argument would be circular:
P1) A & B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, logically, A must be true according to P1). Yet this modus ponens argument is not:
P1) B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, even if you assume B -> A a priori because of 'common sense', B does not entail B -> A.
Ok lets do one more thing......remember this , by your definition, cannot be circular.

If eternalism is false, then the universe was created
Eternalism is false
therefore the universe was created
God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
Therefore God exists
Not circular reasoning as defined by you. Valid in form as defined by you...is it sound, if not then neither is the one you are defending. Any objections to this? Just so you know. If you disagree with the conclusion, by definition you are questioning this as circular logic. If it isn't circular then tell me why you are questioning the conclusion since by definition it is exactly the same reasoning as the argument you are defending. If there isn't a flaw in reasoning, you accept this argument with the same fervor you are defending the other. What's good for the goose is good for the gander......

Neither one is circular, both are valid (although the first premise of your reverse argument might be a false dichotomy), and lastly, if either one is sound, it follows that the other is not.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:28:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 2:42:59 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Can we look at it this way? You assume that if the universe is not created, then God does not exist, in the same way that if a bird has wings, the wings are connected to the bird. That's good.

However, this is your a priori assumption, based on your common sense. You can't accuse the argument of begging the question because this a priori assumption + the third statement entails the conclusion, since the a priori assumption was never assumed in lines 1-3.

The fourth statement is where your a priori assumption actually entered the story. (5) logically follows from (3) and (4).

So yeah, from a formal perspective, the argument has never been circular, since the conclusion was not actually present in any of the premises.

This sort of argument would be circular:
P1) A & B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, logically, A must be true according to P1). Yet this modus ponens argument is not:
P1) B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, even if you assume B -> A a priori because of 'common sense', B does not entail B -> A.
And here is a more simple approach for you to defend.....
Within premise 1, what kind of God exists?..
If you say, it cannot be determined, it therefore means a creator God could exist, therefore contradicting the fact you are assuming the conclusion true.
If you say no God at all, that's a restatement of the conclusion.
If you say a God, but not a creator God, then why is the word "created" used to modify universe. The simple fact that created is used as a modifier implies and can reasonably be considered as a relevant part of the argued premise.
Which one is it? Or do you think there is a reasonable assertion as to an alternative? If so . Offer it.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:44:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 11:27:20 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 9/7/2015 8:19:17 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/6/2015 10:33:15 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Arguments...I'm just curious if circular arguments are voted for or against ,regardless of their content , in the debating then voting section of this website. Here's why I ask. I've read a circular argument that as of yet only one person has responded to it being circular. I admit I didnt read everyone's response so it's possible someone else pointed it out in there replies, but it might have been obscured from me amongst the rhetoric....this is the circular argument I'm referring to...

1) If Eternalism is true, then the universe was not created
2) Eternalism is true
3) Therefore, the universe was not created.
4) God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
5) Therefore, God does not exist


Within the statement then the universe wasn't created, which is a part of the first premise, it is implied that the following is also being said, there was no God to create the universe, therefore there was no existing.creator God. The conclusion of this argument also states, therefore God (the creator) doesn't exist. Which is a part of the reality within a "non created universe".
Anyone think this circular argument is anything other than self affirmation, ego stroking, reinforced personal belief,or a person merely agreeing with themselves? Does anyone think this type of discourse contributes anything consequential to furthering the conversation overall, whatever conversation it is suppose to contribute to. Personally I think this person has no clue that he merely started at a and ended up at a , a child can do as much.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how this is circular. If we formalize it:

1: E -> ~C
2: E
3: ~C
4: G = (I & C)
5: ~G

It doesn't seem to be circular. It's not as though the first premise is specifically claiming that God does not exist. It's saying that God's non-existence is a consequence of Eternalism.

For reference purposes, an argument is defined as being circular if one or more of its premises are the same as its conclusion. If you're saying that this is circular because the third premise is assumed and not proven, that's different. The correct response would be "It is valid but not sound" as opposed to "It is circular".

Unless the premises are true, 'It is valid but not sound' would apply to circular arguments as well, since circular arguments are by definition valid :P

Right, but I think that in this case the argument is valid but not sound (well, I think it's sound but supposing you're a Presentist) while at the same time not being circular.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:45:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 6:24:43 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/7/2015 5:14:35 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/7/2015 2:42:59 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Can we look at it this way? You assume that if the universe is not created, then God does not exist, in the same way that if a bird has wings, the wings are connected to the bird. That's good.

However, this is your a priori assumption, based on your common sense. You can't accuse the argument of begging the question because this a priori assumption + the third statement entails the conclusion, since the a priori assumption was never assumed in lines 1-3.

The fourth statement is where your a priori assumption actually entered the story. (5) logically follows from (3) and (4).

So yeah, from a formal perspective, the argument has never been circular, since the conclusion was not actually present in any of the premises.

This sort of argument would be circular:
P1) A & B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, logically, A must be true according to P1). Yet this modus ponens argument is not:
P1) B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, even if you assume B -> A a priori because of 'common sense', B does not entail B -> A.
Ok lets do one more thing......remember this , by your definition, cannot be circular.

If eternalism is false, then the universe was created
Eternalism is false
therefore the universe was created
God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
Therefore God exists
Not circular reasoning as defined by you. Valid in form as defined by you...is it sound, if not then neither is the one you are defending. Any objections to this? Just so you know. If you disagree with the conclusion, by definition you are questioning this as circular logic. If it isn't circular then tell me why you are questioning the conclusion since by definition it is exactly the same reasoning as the argument you are defending. If there isn't a flaw in reasoning, you accept this argument with the same fervor you are defending the other. What's good for the goose is good for the gander......

Neither one is circular, both are valid (although the first premise of your reverse argument might be a false dichotomy), and lastly, if either one is sound, it follows that the other is not.
Wrong, anything else? Besides the fact you lack reason, do you have a reasoned rejoinder to offer? First off, one opposite premise cannot be a false dichotomy if the opposite isn't also. By definition a false dict is bifurcation, which means black and white thinking. (My argument is black there's is white) so you have just exposed a biased which reflects what I already said, you have an inability to reason properly. By definition either one falls under that assertion.
And I will ask you this if you think it isn't circular, simple question
What kind of God exists in the 1st premise...the original argument
If you say it cannot be determined, that means it is possible for a creator God to exist, contradicts the conclusion which you are agreeing with as true, therefore your argument against it being circular is defeated.
If you say no God exists, then the argument is circular also
If you say a God, but not a creator God, saying a non creator God contradicts the 4th premise. Argument unsound. Therefore useless. Please answer why is the word "created" used to modify the word universe, If it isn't implying that "creation" is of consideration within deductive reasoning? All premises in deduction are subject to applying what can reasonably be concluded by the premise.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:48:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 2:02:03 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/7/2015 12:37:49 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
As for the actual question (sorry for derailing it with an irrelevant observation, albeit one I found interesting), I agree with surrealism that this argument is not actually circular.

I'll use Surrealism's symbols. Unless I'm reading the OP wrong, he believes that ~G is part of ~C and thus the argument begs the question. However, P1 never said ~C, only E -> ~C. ~C *can* be false, as long as E is false. We can construct an SL truth to show that:

E | ~C | E -> ~C
T | T | T
F| T | T
T | F | F
F | F | T

If ~C is false, E -> ~C can still be false. ~C was never assumed in the first premise.

At 9/7/2015 9:21:34 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the first premise has implied truths. I will give an analogy. If my first premise is
All birds have wings..is one of the implied claims that those songs are attached to it? Or does the claim refer to a bird merely having some wings laying around the nest to throw at other birds?
If I'm reading this correctly, do you mean that E -> ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies that the wings are attached to the birds? Because I really don't see how these two situations are analogous.

However, if you mean that ~C implies ~G in the same way that 'birds have wings' implies the wings are attached to the birds (and I agree with this), then Surrealism is right and the argument was not circular...
if I say birds have wings do you automatically assume I mean attached to them?
If I say then the universe wasn't created, do you automatically assume I mean it didn't have a creator?
If you don't automatically assume that uncreated universe theory also means no creator, please explain why...Its about what is implied...

You're missing the point completely and entirely. The argument is not circular because the first premise does not state that "the universe was not created", it states that "if Eternalism is true, the universe was not created".

That is a different statement entirely.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 6:51:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 5:14:35 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/7/2015 2:42:59 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Can we look at it this way? You assume that if the universe is not created, then God does not exist, in the same way that if a bird has wings, the wings are connected to the bird. That's good.

However, this is your a priori assumption, based on your common sense. You can't accuse the argument of begging the question because this a priori assumption + the third statement entails the conclusion, since the a priori assumption was never assumed in lines 1-3.

The fourth statement is where your a priori assumption actually entered the story. (5) logically follows from (3) and (4).

So yeah, from a formal perspective, the argument has never been circular, since the conclusion was not actually present in any of the premises.

This sort of argument would be circular:
P1) A & B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, logically, A must be true according to P1). Yet this modus ponens argument is not:
P1) B
P2) B -> A
C) A

Since, even if you assume B -> A a priori because of 'common sense', B does not entail B -> A.
Ok lets do one more thing......remember this , by your definition, cannot be circular.

If eternalism is false, then the universe was created
Eternalism is false
therefore the universe was created
God exists if and only if there exists an immortal non-dying Being who has the power to create living things and created the universe.
Therefore God exists
Not circular reasoning as defined by you. Valid in form as defined by you...is it sound, if not then neither is the one you are defending. Any objections to this? Just so you know. If you disagree with the conclusion, by definition you are questioning this as circular logic. If it isn't circular then tell me why you are questioning the conclusion since by definition it is exactly the same reasoning as the argument you are defending. If there isn't a flaw in reasoning, you accept this argument with the same fervor you are defending the other. What's good for the goose is good for the gander......

The first premise is wrong. You're making the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.