|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Oct 4, 2005 14:33:20 GMT -5
Why is Circular logic impossible or incorrect?
|
|
|
Post by droskey on Oct 4, 2005 17:04:40 GMT -5
Circular logic assumes what it aims to proove. Therefore, it doesn't really proove anything. An example of circular logic would go like this:
1.) God inspired the Bible, so it must be correct. 2.) The Bible says that God exists. 3.) The Bible is correct because God inspired it. 4.) Therefore, God exists.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Oct 5, 2005 10:01:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Oct 5, 2005 19:04:54 GMT -5
Thank you both for your help~^!^~
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Oct 6, 2005 15:51:21 GMT -5
I tend to think he meant "I think, thereby I come to realise I am", "I know I am because I think". Could you (someone) support the opinion that he meant being requires thinking?
|
|
|
Post by Hilly on Oct 6, 2005 17:44:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Oct 6, 2005 21:50:30 GMT -5
I think it's more a case of "thinking requires being".
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Oct 7, 2005 7:15:19 GMT -5
I have been really busy and stressed out lately, and I gave really shoddy replies here. Let me now correct that.
The statement means 'thought requires being'. It is obviously true. To call it a fallacy is simply wrong. Further, I read that people continue to be persuaded by it. This implies a study over time, while holding this fallacious opinion. I infer that this speaker should not be highly regarded.
I would therefore be more suspicious when reading whatever else they have to say.
Following the speaker's line of thought, I could call these false: 'I am a human, therefore I have two legs' or 'I have brown hair, therefore I do not have blonde hair'. These are perfectly valid deductions.
|
|
|
Post by Pilgrim on Dec 10, 2005 15:36:45 GMT -5
"I think therefore I am" It could also be said that I am therefore I think.
I took a ride in a car. Therefore the car was real. Therefore the car was designed Therefore the car had a manufacturer.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Dec 10, 2005 17:25:19 GMT -5
I told you to learn logic. Do it now.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Dec 10, 2005 23:52:55 GMT -5
"I think therefore I am" It could also be said that I am therefore I think. I took a ride in a car. Therefore the car was real. Therefore the car was designed Therefore the car had a manufacturer. ....and your point is?
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Dec 11, 2005 8:36:38 GMT -5
From my limited understand of his point, I read two things: 1. An 'implies' relation is reflexive. 2. I conversed with God, therefore God was real, God was designed, God had a manufacturer.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Dec 11, 2005 13:07:36 GMT -5
Ah, a false analogy then.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Dec 12, 2005 12:03:29 GMT -5
Christians do believe that since they converse with God he must be real. What I ask is this "How on earth is this standing any different than the schizophrenic who believes the voices in his head are real.
|
|
|
Post by Pilgrim on Dec 22, 2005 23:32:06 GMT -5
"I think therefore I am" It could also be said that I am therefore I think. I took a ride in a car. Therefore the car was real. Therefore the car was designed Therefore the car had a manufacturer. ....and your point is? The car is evidence of a manufacturer
|
|